Pity Tzipi Livni who has the hapless task of trying to put together a coalition government in Israel with herself as the new Prime Minister. To achieve her goal Ms. Livni must kiss the tzitzit (fringes worn by observant Jewish men as a reminder of God’s presence) of former Chief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, spiritual leader of the orthodox Shas Party, and the Jewish equivalent of the reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (alav hashalom, peace be upon him).
Rabbi Yosef believes that the Holocaust was God’s way of punishing the reincarnated souls of Jewish sinners. He, like his coreligionists Robertson and Falwell (no, the rabbi isn’t a Christian, but I suspect he along with Robertson and Falwell are really followers of a fascistic Faith of Fear, a Taliban-like cabal whose members highjack the spiritual high ground for their own globalist ends), holds that hurricane Katrina blasted New Orleans in retribution for its affinity for Sodom, and targeted the United States in general for this country’s support of the Israeli pullout from Gaza.
And do not imagine that I am knocking a minor Jewish extremist. Not at all: Rabbi Yosef was Chief Rabbi of Israel and rules his people with the authority of a Pope—and not even a modern Pope but a good old fashion medieval Pope.
Anyone following American politics knows that our political discourse has devolved into a competition among animal metaphors. We no longer argue about foreign policy or economics, but about lipstick on pigs and pit bulls, and the rank odor of unrefrigerated fish. As a loyal American Jew please allow me to add two more animals to our discussion based on the teachings of my rabbi Obadiah Yosef who once said, “Walking between two women is like walking between two donkeys or between two camels,” (see “Israeli party lays out its demands,” USA TODAY, Sept 19, 2008).
I do not know Rabbi Yosef personally, so it is possible that what he thought were human women were in fact donkeys and camels wearing lipstick, which might make his teaching less troubling. But the fact that he couldn’t make up his mind whether women were donkeys or camels, two very distinct animals, is worrisome nonetheless.
In any case the very fact that to become Israeli’s next Prime Minister the clearly human Ms. Livni has to put up with this misogynist saint is just another reason to bemoan the fate of the Zionist ideal, and to question the knee-jerk raising of funds for a country that is, for all its technological genius and creativity, in danger of becoming a Jewish loony bin. And the fact that the good rabbi is a rabbi, and was in fact Chief Rabbi, makes me wonder if it isn’t time to turn in my Torah and reclaim my foreskin.
I have spent the past ten days teaching Judaism to primarily Gentile audiences in Tennessee and California. The Judaism I shared with them has no room for Chief Rabbis and medieval misogynists. My talks were well received and I managed to fool my students into thinking that Judaism was a faith of reason, argument, moral integrity, and spiritual daring. Thank God no one read USA TODAY. I wish I hadn’t.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Playing the Jew Card
Some Jews have a problem with Barack Obama. Some Jews have a problem with me. Some Jews think Barack Obama is a Muslim (nothing wrong with being a Muslim, by the way, but he is a Christian just so you know especially if you are one of those Jews who think there is something wrong with being a Muslim which there isn’t, but if there were you should know he is not). Some Jews think I’m a Buddhist (nothing wrong with being a Buddhist, by the way, but I’m not). Some Jews think Barack Obama is bad for Israel. Some Jews think I am bad for Israel. But the real reason why some Jews have a problem with Barack Obama is… drum roll… because he’s black.
True Obama is only half black, but the half that is black is the outside half rather than the inside half and that is troubling to some Jews. Especially older Jews. Especially older Jews in Florida. Especially older Jews in my parents’ condo. If only his black half were on the inside and his white half on the outside, then we’d have no problem.
But wait! You think Obama is scary for the Jews? Listen to Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, “If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.” [Cited in USA TODAY]
Wow. OK. I will.
True, Jews don’t usually tote guns unless they are in the Israeli army or part of the Settler Movement that wants to turn Palestine into Boca East. It is actually against Jewish law to hunt for sport. This is one of the few Jewish laws I have never violated, so placing this at the heart of what it is to be a Jew is fine with me. But what about this moose stripping thing?
I have seen many moose in my time, but none of them were dressed. Even my favorite moose, Bullwinkle J. rarely wore clothes, and when he did he only wore a t-shirt from his alma mater Whatsamatta U, and he only wore this in restaurants that had signs saying “Shirts Required.” So why would Sarah Palin strip moose? Who is dressing them up in the first place?
As urged by Rep. Hastings I actually thought this through and discovered that Gov. Palin actually can field dress a moose. This, I assume, means she can dress a moose in the field. This is important: she dresses moose in order to strip them. She has a problem.
I figure there must be a naked moose fetish from which some people suffer. I guess Gov. Palin is one of these sufferers. I tried to find this fetish on the Internet and could not find any association between this moose dressing/stripping obsession and Jews. Now Jews are no different than anyone else so I suspect there are Jews who suffer from this disorder, but no organization devoted to it will accept Jews as members. That, my friends, is anti-Semitism pure and simple.
So Rep. Hastings has a point. Should Jews vote for a woman who refuses to allow Jews to heal from the very same disorder from which she herself suffers? This would be like Jews refusing Tay-Sachs testing to Gentiles. Outrageous! So think about it. Think about it very hard. Think about it so hard that you start to think about moving to Canada. I have.
True Obama is only half black, but the half that is black is the outside half rather than the inside half and that is troubling to some Jews. Especially older Jews. Especially older Jews in Florida. Especially older Jews in my parents’ condo. If only his black half were on the inside and his white half on the outside, then we’d have no problem.
But wait! You think Obama is scary for the Jews? Listen to Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, “If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.” [Cited in USA TODAY]
Wow. OK. I will.
True, Jews don’t usually tote guns unless they are in the Israeli army or part of the Settler Movement that wants to turn Palestine into Boca East. It is actually against Jewish law to hunt for sport. This is one of the few Jewish laws I have never violated, so placing this at the heart of what it is to be a Jew is fine with me. But what about this moose stripping thing?
I have seen many moose in my time, but none of them were dressed. Even my favorite moose, Bullwinkle J. rarely wore clothes, and when he did he only wore a t-shirt from his alma mater Whatsamatta U, and he only wore this in restaurants that had signs saying “Shirts Required.” So why would Sarah Palin strip moose? Who is dressing them up in the first place?
As urged by Rep. Hastings I actually thought this through and discovered that Gov. Palin actually can field dress a moose. This, I assume, means she can dress a moose in the field. This is important: she dresses moose in order to strip them. She has a problem.
I figure there must be a naked moose fetish from which some people suffer. I guess Gov. Palin is one of these sufferers. I tried to find this fetish on the Internet and could not find any association between this moose dressing/stripping obsession and Jews. Now Jews are no different than anyone else so I suspect there are Jews who suffer from this disorder, but no organization devoted to it will accept Jews as members. That, my friends, is anti-Semitism pure and simple.
So Rep. Hastings has a point. Should Jews vote for a woman who refuses to allow Jews to heal from the very same disorder from which she herself suffers? This would be like Jews refusing Tay-Sachs testing to Gentiles. Outrageous! So think about it. Think about it very hard. Think about it so hard that you start to think about moving to Canada. I have.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Page 3A: A Glimpse of Religion in America
Today is Monday, September 21, 2008, the first day of autumn. Like most Mondays I spend a bit of the day reading USA TODAY. Monday is the day the paper features an article about religion on its op-ed page. But this Monday is different; religion is everywhere. Here is just a sample from page 3A:
Item: Along the Texas coast, a day of reflection. This article is about parishioners along the Texas coast whose churches were decimated by hurricane Ike. The buildings may have crumbled, but not the faith of those who worshipped in them. “I know it’s hard. Looking around, it’s tough,” said one pastor to his flock. “But there is a God, and he has a plan for our lives.” It is not my place to argue with the good reverend, but I can’t help wondering if he and his parishioners are really open to God’s plan. What if God wants them to leave Texas, perhaps that is why He destroyed their church. Or perhaps God hates their brand of worship and meant to end it without relying on His usual homicidal option. How come God’s plan is always the plan that we want God to have? The plan, in fact, that always reinforces what we want in the first place?
Item: Homeless pit borough against Bible. Just under the fold and to the left of the Texas church story, we find that the small western Pennsylvania town of Brookville is fining a local church for housing three homeless men in their church-parsonage. It seems that housing the homeless violates zoning laws in the town. My problem is that if the homeless are provided with housing, how is it they are still “homeless”? Can it be that the town can tell the church whom to house in its parsonage? Or is it that these men are not related or married, something that biology (in the first case) and the state of Pennsylvania (in the second case) does not allow?
Item: Ark. keeps custody of 6 children after raid in porn case. This story, appearing just to the right of the article on the illegally housed homeless, is about a two-year investigation of child abuse and pornography allegations against the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries. Mr. Alamo (pronounced A-lah-mo), who was convicted of tax-related charges in 1994, denied there is any pornography going on in his church. I was surprised (not really) that he didn’t say the same about child abuse (though he may have, and the paper didn’t print it). In any case I love Tony’s explanation of these charges against him: “Where do all these allegations come from? The anti-Christ government. The Catholics don’t like me because I have cut their congregation in half. They hate true Christianity.” Is the anti-Christ government and the Catholics one and the same? Or is Tony being persecuted by both? I hope it is the former so we can at last vote a pro-Christ Protestant into the Executive Branch of government.
What are we to make of the state of religion in America this first day of autumn? Honestly, I don’t know. But I can tell you this: It is awfully hot for the first day of autumn, but just right for the beginning of the Fall.
Item: Along the Texas coast, a day of reflection. This article is about parishioners along the Texas coast whose churches were decimated by hurricane Ike. The buildings may have crumbled, but not the faith of those who worshipped in them. “I know it’s hard. Looking around, it’s tough,” said one pastor to his flock. “But there is a God, and he has a plan for our lives.” It is not my place to argue with the good reverend, but I can’t help wondering if he and his parishioners are really open to God’s plan. What if God wants them to leave Texas, perhaps that is why He destroyed their church. Or perhaps God hates their brand of worship and meant to end it without relying on His usual homicidal option. How come God’s plan is always the plan that we want God to have? The plan, in fact, that always reinforces what we want in the first place?
Item: Homeless pit borough against Bible. Just under the fold and to the left of the Texas church story, we find that the small western Pennsylvania town of Brookville is fining a local church for housing three homeless men in their church-parsonage. It seems that housing the homeless violates zoning laws in the town. My problem is that if the homeless are provided with housing, how is it they are still “homeless”? Can it be that the town can tell the church whom to house in its parsonage? Or is it that these men are not related or married, something that biology (in the first case) and the state of Pennsylvania (in the second case) does not allow?
Item: Ark. keeps custody of 6 children after raid in porn case. This story, appearing just to the right of the article on the illegally housed homeless, is about a two-year investigation of child abuse and pornography allegations against the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries. Mr. Alamo (pronounced A-lah-mo), who was convicted of tax-related charges in 1994, denied there is any pornography going on in his church. I was surprised (not really) that he didn’t say the same about child abuse (though he may have, and the paper didn’t print it). In any case I love Tony’s explanation of these charges against him: “Where do all these allegations come from? The anti-Christ government. The Catholics don’t like me because I have cut their congregation in half. They hate true Christianity.” Is the anti-Christ government and the Catholics one and the same? Or is Tony being persecuted by both? I hope it is the former so we can at last vote a pro-Christ Protestant into the Executive Branch of government.
What are we to make of the state of religion in America this first day of autumn? Honestly, I don’t know. But I can tell you this: It is awfully hot for the first day of autumn, but just right for the beginning of the Fall.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Don't Put a Witch in the White House
Sarah Palin’s pastor is a witch hunter. The Rev. Thomas Muthee, pastor of Governor Palin’s church waged spiritual warfare against a fortunetelling witch in Kenya who he said was casting demonic spells and causing automobile accidents.
I realize that some of you will simply laugh this off as yet another example of 1) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous Christian; 2) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous Republican; or 3) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous nut job. Whatever your position I got to write “left wing blogosphere” three times (four if you count this one) which should be enough to drive you to vote for Palin-McCain in November. But there is more to this story, and you owe it to yourself and your country to think about it.
Let us review the facts: 1) Pastor Muthee hunted witches in Kenya; 2) Barack Obama’s father is from Kenya; ergo Barach Obama and his father are witches. This is the real reason John McCain chose Sarah Palin to join his team as VP: to recruit Pastor Muthee in the spiritual war against the Kenyan.
Want further proof? Think about this: Why hasn’t Barack Obama introduced us to his father? Sure, he says his father died in 1982, but does a witch die? Remember Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Senator Obama’s father) was Kenyan; the only other Kenyan we know is a witch defeated by Pastor Muthee, ergo Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a witch. Witches don’t die. If the Obama campaign wants to disprove this, let them exhume the body of the so-called dead witch of Kenya. They won’t do this because they know the tomb is empty.
Still not convinced? There's more:
The Kenyan Senator admits to being a community organizer. A witch coven is a community, hence Barack Obama admits to organizing covens in Chicago. It is widely rumored (or it will be after I post this blog) that the Witch from Chicago carries a voodoo doll of John McCain in his pocket, and uses a series of pins to the doll’s eyes, mouth, and trigger finger to blind Senator McCain to the economic plight of Americans, to cause the Senator to lie and misspeak, and to force him to act as if we were living a prequel to The Planet of the Apes. In fact it is easy to attribute all of Obama’s success and all of McCain’s stumbles and lies to witchcraft. Indeed I have just done so.
Governor Palin will bring a proven witch hunter into the White House. He, like others before him, will conduct witch-hunts that will rid this country of Kenyans of all kinds. Pastor Muthee has a proven track record in hunting down witches and thereby lessening traffic accidents which, as we all know, is the number one crisis facing America today.
So please think this through: Remember Salem; Vote for Palin.
I realize that some of you will simply laugh this off as yet another example of 1) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous Christian; 2) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous Republican; or 3) the left wing blogosphere attacking a good and righteous nut job. Whatever your position I got to write “left wing blogosphere” three times (four if you count this one) which should be enough to drive you to vote for Palin-McCain in November. But there is more to this story, and you owe it to yourself and your country to think about it.
Let us review the facts: 1) Pastor Muthee hunted witches in Kenya; 2) Barack Obama’s father is from Kenya; ergo Barach Obama and his father are witches. This is the real reason John McCain chose Sarah Palin to join his team as VP: to recruit Pastor Muthee in the spiritual war against the Kenyan.
Want further proof? Think about this: Why hasn’t Barack Obama introduced us to his father? Sure, he says his father died in 1982, but does a witch die? Remember Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Senator Obama’s father) was Kenyan; the only other Kenyan we know is a witch defeated by Pastor Muthee, ergo Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a witch. Witches don’t die. If the Obama campaign wants to disprove this, let them exhume the body of the so-called dead witch of Kenya. They won’t do this because they know the tomb is empty.
Still not convinced? There's more:
The Kenyan Senator admits to being a community organizer. A witch coven is a community, hence Barack Obama admits to organizing covens in Chicago. It is widely rumored (or it will be after I post this blog) that the Witch from Chicago carries a voodoo doll of John McCain in his pocket, and uses a series of pins to the doll’s eyes, mouth, and trigger finger to blind Senator McCain to the economic plight of Americans, to cause the Senator to lie and misspeak, and to force him to act as if we were living a prequel to The Planet of the Apes. In fact it is easy to attribute all of Obama’s success and all of McCain’s stumbles and lies to witchcraft. Indeed I have just done so.
Governor Palin will bring a proven witch hunter into the White House. He, like others before him, will conduct witch-hunts that will rid this country of Kenyans of all kinds. Pastor Muthee has a proven track record in hunting down witches and thereby lessening traffic accidents which, as we all know, is the number one crisis facing America today.
So please think this through: Remember Salem; Vote for Palin.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Caterpillar or Butterfly
I’m always talking about transformation; it is one of my favorite buzzwords. My idea is that we must be other than we are; that we must transform ourselves into that which is not ourselves. But what if I’m wrong? What if transformation is just one of those words that takes on a life of its own without any link to reality?
Can we really transform ourselves? And if we can, who is the self that is doing the transforming? Can I use my right hand to change my right hand? Can the “me” I am changing into be a “me” I’m not? If Einstein is right that the mind that causes a problem cannot be the mind that solves that problem, how are we to change minds? Do we have to be changed by an outside force, or are we like caterpillars designed for transformation into butterflies?
I think the answer lies somewhere in between these two options. There is an outside force, a force greater than ourselves that must do the work of transformation, but this force does not act outside of us but inside and through us. So maybe the word “outside” should be dropped in favor is “greater;” a force greater than us that at the same time includes us is needed to drag our caterpillar minds into our butterfly potential.
But is being a butterfly better than being a caterpillar? Not at all. First, we need caterpillars if we are to have butterflies. Second, each is a necessary part of nature and we could not do without either. So maybe we need our egoic, fearful, ignorant, and violent self (to name but a few legs that comprise caterpillar mind) to set the stage for transformation. Maybe there is nothing wrong with us except that we haven’t finished becoming fully who we are.
But this puts transformation into time, and I am not certain that is right either. When I simply sit still and look, I find that the “me” I think I am disappears. There is just the looker and the looked at in one unbroken unity; there is only “looking.” When I sit still and listen, I don’t hear the egoic chatter, but the global buzz, the humming of the planet as a whole, life itself; there is only listening. My voice is caught up in a symphony of voices, and I can sit back and marvel at the concert.
My normal mind is the “transformed mind.” It is my egoic mind with its caterpillar legs running in all directions at once that is the butterfly. When I see this I don’t need to be caterpillar or butterfly. I don’t need to be anything at all. I am it already.
So maybe all of our rushing around trying to be other than we are is the problem rather than the solution. Maybe what we need do is sit down and sit still, and leave both caterpillar and butterfly alone.
Can we really transform ourselves? And if we can, who is the self that is doing the transforming? Can I use my right hand to change my right hand? Can the “me” I am changing into be a “me” I’m not? If Einstein is right that the mind that causes a problem cannot be the mind that solves that problem, how are we to change minds? Do we have to be changed by an outside force, or are we like caterpillars designed for transformation into butterflies?
I think the answer lies somewhere in between these two options. There is an outside force, a force greater than ourselves that must do the work of transformation, but this force does not act outside of us but inside and through us. So maybe the word “outside” should be dropped in favor is “greater;” a force greater than us that at the same time includes us is needed to drag our caterpillar minds into our butterfly potential.
But is being a butterfly better than being a caterpillar? Not at all. First, we need caterpillars if we are to have butterflies. Second, each is a necessary part of nature and we could not do without either. So maybe we need our egoic, fearful, ignorant, and violent self (to name but a few legs that comprise caterpillar mind) to set the stage for transformation. Maybe there is nothing wrong with us except that we haven’t finished becoming fully who we are.
But this puts transformation into time, and I am not certain that is right either. When I simply sit still and look, I find that the “me” I think I am disappears. There is just the looker and the looked at in one unbroken unity; there is only “looking.” When I sit still and listen, I don’t hear the egoic chatter, but the global buzz, the humming of the planet as a whole, life itself; there is only listening. My voice is caught up in a symphony of voices, and I can sit back and marvel at the concert.
My normal mind is the “transformed mind.” It is my egoic mind with its caterpillar legs running in all directions at once that is the butterfly. When I see this I don’t need to be caterpillar or butterfly. I don’t need to be anything at all. I am it already.
So maybe all of our rushing around trying to be other than we are is the problem rather than the solution. Maybe what we need do is sit down and sit still, and leave both caterpillar and butterfly alone.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Sarah Palin, I Love You!
I love Governor Sarah Palin.
I love the fact that she can stand on the shores of Alaska, watch the ice melt precipitously, and still deny the danger of global climate change and the role of human beings in it.
I love the fact that she can argue for the drilling of oil, a product that takes millions of years for nature to produce, and still believe in Creationism, which doesn’t allow enough time for nature to produce it.
I love the fact that she can love her pregnant teenage daughter and still advocate Abstinence Only sex education.
I love the fact that she can be married to a union member and still promote policies that weaken unions.
I love the fact that she can look all soft and feminine and still be, as she herself said, a pit-bull with lipstick. I love that the most.
I love that the most because I live next to a pit-bull. His name is Rusty and he is just the cutest dog. I keep dog treats with me all the time, and I always give him one whenever I go into or out of my house. True I’m afraid that if I don’t bribe him to let me pass he will rip my throat out, but still I genuinely love this dog. That’s why I plan to purchase some lipstick today, smear it on his mouth while he is preoccupied with a dog biscuit, and take him to the Republican Party headquarters for a one man one dog pro-Sarah Palin rally. It’s only half a mile from my house, and I’m sure the people there will love the gesture.
John McCain made a brilliant choice in picking Governor Palin as his running mate. I am more convinced than ever that the Republicans will retain the White House, and while I fear for my country having to endure four more years of an anti-science, anti-reason, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-Constitution government, I also know that America gets the leadership it deserves.
But the future may be more interesting then a simple return to the good old days of back alley abortions and the Cold War. Here are three possible scenarios.
One: John McCain wins the presidency in November. He starts wars with Iran and Russia triggering a joint Arab-Russian invasion of Israel thus initiating the Second Coming of Jesus who slaughters billions of nonbelievers as part of God’s Pro-Life agenda.
Two: John McCain wins the presidency in November. He starts wars with Iran and Russia triggering a joint Arab-Russian invasion of Israel, but Jesus fails to return, perhaps angry with John for not putting Joe Lieberman, a fellow Jew, on the ticket.
Three: John McCain wins the presidency in November. If he survives his first term, and given his age and the stress of the job and the coming wars with Iran and Russia he may not, he will decline to run for a second term. Vice President Palin then becomes either the first woman president (because John is ill or worse), or runs as the Republican nominee in 2012. In either case, Saran Palin will run for president in four years and opposing her will be another lip-glossed pit-bull, this one in a pantsuit (Rusty will love wearing one of those), and we are in for the most wicked battle in American politics since Burr shot Hamilton.
Oh, and then Jesus back comes after that.
I love the fact that she can stand on the shores of Alaska, watch the ice melt precipitously, and still deny the danger of global climate change and the role of human beings in it.
I love the fact that she can argue for the drilling of oil, a product that takes millions of years for nature to produce, and still believe in Creationism, which doesn’t allow enough time for nature to produce it.
I love the fact that she can love her pregnant teenage daughter and still advocate Abstinence Only sex education.
I love the fact that she can be married to a union member and still promote policies that weaken unions.
I love the fact that she can look all soft and feminine and still be, as she herself said, a pit-bull with lipstick. I love that the most.
I love that the most because I live next to a pit-bull. His name is Rusty and he is just the cutest dog. I keep dog treats with me all the time, and I always give him one whenever I go into or out of my house. True I’m afraid that if I don’t bribe him to let me pass he will rip my throat out, but still I genuinely love this dog. That’s why I plan to purchase some lipstick today, smear it on his mouth while he is preoccupied with a dog biscuit, and take him to the Republican Party headquarters for a one man one dog pro-Sarah Palin rally. It’s only half a mile from my house, and I’m sure the people there will love the gesture.
John McCain made a brilliant choice in picking Governor Palin as his running mate. I am more convinced than ever that the Republicans will retain the White House, and while I fear for my country having to endure four more years of an anti-science, anti-reason, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-Constitution government, I also know that America gets the leadership it deserves.
But the future may be more interesting then a simple return to the good old days of back alley abortions and the Cold War. Here are three possible scenarios.
One: John McCain wins the presidency in November. He starts wars with Iran and Russia triggering a joint Arab-Russian invasion of Israel thus initiating the Second Coming of Jesus who slaughters billions of nonbelievers as part of God’s Pro-Life agenda.
Two: John McCain wins the presidency in November. He starts wars with Iran and Russia triggering a joint Arab-Russian invasion of Israel, but Jesus fails to return, perhaps angry with John for not putting Joe Lieberman, a fellow Jew, on the ticket.
Three: John McCain wins the presidency in November. If he survives his first term, and given his age and the stress of the job and the coming wars with Iran and Russia he may not, he will decline to run for a second term. Vice President Palin then becomes either the first woman president (because John is ill or worse), or runs as the Republican nominee in 2012. In either case, Saran Palin will run for president in four years and opposing her will be another lip-glossed pit-bull, this one in a pantsuit (Rusty will love wearing one of those), and we are in for the most wicked battle in American politics since Burr shot Hamilton.
Oh, and then Jesus back comes after that.
I get it. And it scares me.
I get that John McCain is a war hero. And I get that he is a better American than I am. I readily admit that if captured and threatened with torture (let alone actually tortured) I will tell Dick Cheney anything he wants to know.
And I get that women and men who risk their lives in military service are to be honored. And while I think the best way to honor them is not to send them into wars based on lies and fabricated evidence, I know they are just doing their duty and I respect that.
But what I don’t get is why we should be allowed to exploit them politically.
Last night at the Republican Convention former Governor Mike Huckabee told a story about a school teacher in Arkansas who removed all the desks from her classroom and wouldn’t allow any of her students to have one until they could figure out how to earn one. They suggested good grades and good behavior, but she said that wasn’t it. After five class periods of deskless guessing, she told her assembled students that in fact they couldn’t earn their desks because veterans had already earned the desks for them. She then opened the door to her classroom and twenty veterans carried in twenty desks. The convention crowd went wild.
I doubt this story was true. What classroom in America has only twenty desks in it? But, assuming it was true, what was the message? If good grades and good behavior don’t earn one a place at the education table, why would someone else’s military service?
I think the idea was that freedom isn’t free. OK, but public education is paid for by all citizens not just soldiers. And if someone else has secured my desk for me, and grades and behavior have nothing to do with it, what am I doing in school? If everything of value has to do with the military then why not just make all public schools military academies and funnel high school grads right into the service? Israel does this and it is one of the most important features of their society. Honestly, such a move would end racism, sexism, and homophobia in this country within a generation, two at the most.
Listening to the speeches at the Republican Convention last night I thought I was living in ancient Sparta. Rather than referencing John McCain’s war record as a sign that he would keep us out of war, rather than pointing to his brutal torture as proof that he would stop America’s use of torture; speaker after speaker glorified war and rumors of war. Rather than use the moral high ground to be moral, they used it to excuse the immoral.
By the time last night’s political speeches were finished I imagined thousands of Republican delegates leaving the conventional hall so hopped up on war rhetoric that they would attack, torture, kill, and maybe even eat anything that looked liberal on their way back to their hotels.
We don’t honor our service women and men by exploiting them, by sending them into harm’s way for the sake of corporate greed, by allowing the wounded to languish in substandard hospitals or alone on the street, by fighting against veterans’ benefits, or by telling stupid stories about them. We honor by being an honorable nation worthy of their blood, sweat, tears, and lives. I do not believe we are that nation, and this election is scaring me to death.
And I get that women and men who risk their lives in military service are to be honored. And while I think the best way to honor them is not to send them into wars based on lies and fabricated evidence, I know they are just doing their duty and I respect that.
But what I don’t get is why we should be allowed to exploit them politically.
Last night at the Republican Convention former Governor Mike Huckabee told a story about a school teacher in Arkansas who removed all the desks from her classroom and wouldn’t allow any of her students to have one until they could figure out how to earn one. They suggested good grades and good behavior, but she said that wasn’t it. After five class periods of deskless guessing, she told her assembled students that in fact they couldn’t earn their desks because veterans had already earned the desks for them. She then opened the door to her classroom and twenty veterans carried in twenty desks. The convention crowd went wild.
I doubt this story was true. What classroom in America has only twenty desks in it? But, assuming it was true, what was the message? If good grades and good behavior don’t earn one a place at the education table, why would someone else’s military service?
I think the idea was that freedom isn’t free. OK, but public education is paid for by all citizens not just soldiers. And if someone else has secured my desk for me, and grades and behavior have nothing to do with it, what am I doing in school? If everything of value has to do with the military then why not just make all public schools military academies and funnel high school grads right into the service? Israel does this and it is one of the most important features of their society. Honestly, such a move would end racism, sexism, and homophobia in this country within a generation, two at the most.
Listening to the speeches at the Republican Convention last night I thought I was living in ancient Sparta. Rather than referencing John McCain’s war record as a sign that he would keep us out of war, rather than pointing to his brutal torture as proof that he would stop America’s use of torture; speaker after speaker glorified war and rumors of war. Rather than use the moral high ground to be moral, they used it to excuse the immoral.
By the time last night’s political speeches were finished I imagined thousands of Republican delegates leaving the conventional hall so hopped up on war rhetoric that they would attack, torture, kill, and maybe even eat anything that looked liberal on their way back to their hotels.
We don’t honor our service women and men by exploiting them, by sending them into harm’s way for the sake of corporate greed, by allowing the wounded to languish in substandard hospitals or alone on the street, by fighting against veterans’ benefits, or by telling stupid stories about them. We honor by being an honorable nation worthy of their blood, sweat, tears, and lives. I do not believe we are that nation, and this election is scaring me to death.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Save Us Sarah
I saw him from a distance, and should have walked the other way. I had spoken with him before, and should have kept my mouth shut. I knew better, but I couldn’t help myself. It is the curse of the Yankee in the Confederate Gentleman’s Court. Our eyes met. We nodded. And then it happened—he spoke: “So Sarah Palin, the first female Vice President of these United States. Gotta hand it ta McCain.”
“You do,” I said, hoping to get away with a mere two syllables.
“Saves the country from being taken over by Mooslems.”
“Obama’s not a Muslim, and even if he were what is wrong with that? There is no religious test for public office in this country.”
“Didn’t you watch Oh-bama and McCain at Rick Warren’s church? That Mooslem didn’t have a chance. Christian country, Christian people, Christian leaders. No others need apply. Did you know he won’t show his birth certificate? You know why? Because it shows he’s a Mooslem born in Mooslem Africa. Went to Muslim schools. Trained to take over this country, and almost got away with it, ‘cept for Sarah Palin.”
“What are you talking about? Obama’s birth certificate is a matter of public record. It shows he was born in Hawaii.”
“And since when is Hawaii part of the United States? Hurts to be caught don’t it? Barach Hooosayn Oh-bama is a Muslim trained to take down this country. You think the terrorists think they can knock down all our buildings? You think that is how they is going to take over America?”
“Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959. And terrorists aren’t trying to take over America, they are trying to…”
“Alaska—now that’s American. They got oil, You know what Hawaii’s got? Mooslems! There ain’t no Mooslems in Alaska. You know why? Sarah Palin, that’s why. That’s why Oh-bama’s a Mooslem and Sarah Palin is a God-fearin’ Christian. But you’re right that Mooslems can’t take over America by knockin’ down buildings. That’s why they planted one of their own and helped him become a senator so he could become president. Oh-bama is a Moolem sleeper cell. You know what he’ll do as soon as he’s elected? He’ll stop all aid to Israhl, arm the Ayrabs, make an amenment to the Constitution outlawn Christianity as the oh-fficial American religion and English as the oh-fficial American language and…”
“But Christianity isn’t the official religion of America, nor is English the official language, we are a secular…”
“You awready in his pocket, ain’t cha, boy? Awready in his pocket. Well, vote fer a Mooslim is you want. It’s a free country, but we have computer recerds of yer vote and we’ll have to hold ya to it. You have a good day now, y’hear?”
I might have, but not now.
PS: I am not trying to make fun of the Tennessee accent, only trying to give you a flavor of what this fellow sounded like.
“You do,” I said, hoping to get away with a mere two syllables.
“Saves the country from being taken over by Mooslems.”
“Obama’s not a Muslim, and even if he were what is wrong with that? There is no religious test for public office in this country.”
“Didn’t you watch Oh-bama and McCain at Rick Warren’s church? That Mooslem didn’t have a chance. Christian country, Christian people, Christian leaders. No others need apply. Did you know he won’t show his birth certificate? You know why? Because it shows he’s a Mooslem born in Mooslem Africa. Went to Muslim schools. Trained to take over this country, and almost got away with it, ‘cept for Sarah Palin.”
“What are you talking about? Obama’s birth certificate is a matter of public record. It shows he was born in Hawaii.”
“And since when is Hawaii part of the United States? Hurts to be caught don’t it? Barach Hooosayn Oh-bama is a Muslim trained to take down this country. You think the terrorists think they can knock down all our buildings? You think that is how they is going to take over America?”
“Hawaii and Alaska both became states in 1959. And terrorists aren’t trying to take over America, they are trying to…”
“Alaska—now that’s American. They got oil, You know what Hawaii’s got? Mooslems! There ain’t no Mooslems in Alaska. You know why? Sarah Palin, that’s why. That’s why Oh-bama’s a Mooslem and Sarah Palin is a God-fearin’ Christian. But you’re right that Mooslems can’t take over America by knockin’ down buildings. That’s why they planted one of their own and helped him become a senator so he could become president. Oh-bama is a Moolem sleeper cell. You know what he’ll do as soon as he’s elected? He’ll stop all aid to Israhl, arm the Ayrabs, make an amenment to the Constitution outlawn Christianity as the oh-fficial American religion and English as the oh-fficial American language and…”
“But Christianity isn’t the official religion of America, nor is English the official language, we are a secular…”
“You awready in his pocket, ain’t cha, boy? Awready in his pocket. Well, vote fer a Mooslim is you want. It’s a free country, but we have computer recerds of yer vote and we’ll have to hold ya to it. You have a good day now, y’hear?”
I might have, but not now.
PS: I am not trying to make fun of the Tennessee accent, only trying to give you a flavor of what this fellow sounded like.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Should We Apologize for Slavery?
Should America apologize for slavery?
The question came up on an American Airlines flight from Nashville to Dallas two weeks ago. I was reading the September-October issue of Sojourners, a liberal Christian magazine, and my seatmate was reading over my shoulder. We were both taken with a letter to the editor that opposed such an apology.
“She makes a good point,” the woman next to me in the middle seat said. “I wasn’t alive during slavery, and my grandparents didn’t come to this country until the twentieth century, so I really had nothing to do with it. Why should I have to apologize for something I didn’t do?”
“I agree,” I said. “I had nothing to do with slavery either. Of course neither myself nor my parents or grandparents were here when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, so I guess I shouldn’t take any pride in that either. And while I can opt out of having to feeling bad about reducing African-Americans to 3/5ths of a person in the Constitution of the United States—I mean I wasn’t there, it wasn’t my idea—I guess I can’t celebrate the genius of the document or the Bill of Rights that followed it.”
I tried to say this with a straight face, but, frozen facial muscles or not, my voice betrayed me.
“Sarcasm is not an argument,” the woman said.
“True enough,” I said. “But if I think about it I have enough to be sorry for.”
“Like?”
“Well, my grandparents, parents, and I were in this country during segregation, the reign of terror perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan, Vietnam, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments inflicted on black men, the assignations of King and Kennedy, the breaking of treaties with the American Indians, the rape of the Constitution by George W., the terrorizing of Americans by McCarthy in the fifties and Cheney today. And that’s just off the top of my head.”
She was not convinced. “I was alive during segregation but I didn’t discriminate against blacks, so I shouldn’t have to apologize. And I had nothing to do with McCarthy, and I think Bush and Cheney are the greatest Americans since Ronald Reagan, so there is nothing to apologize for there. In fact I had nothing to do with anything regarding blacks or Indians or poor people at all, so I resent the country apologizing on my behalf.”
“But you are willing to take credit for the good things the US has done, even though you personally had nothing to do with them?”
“Sure. Why not?”
“It’s not a question of why not, it is a matter of consistency. If you take credit for the good you had no hand in, you should take responsibility for the evil you had no hand in. All of it was and is being done in the name of the people of the United States, and, unless you plan to give up your citizenship, that means you.”
“No it does not. I’m an American.”
Somehow that non sequitor was supposed to end the conversation with my seatmate taking the gold in logic. And in her mind it did. I was happy just to have her lean the other way and let me get back to my magazine. But I admit to fantasizing about opening the emergency exit and letting gravity, for which this woman also had no responsibility, suck her to her doom.
The question came up on an American Airlines flight from Nashville to Dallas two weeks ago. I was reading the September-October issue of Sojourners, a liberal Christian magazine, and my seatmate was reading over my shoulder. We were both taken with a letter to the editor that opposed such an apology.
“She makes a good point,” the woman next to me in the middle seat said. “I wasn’t alive during slavery, and my grandparents didn’t come to this country until the twentieth century, so I really had nothing to do with it. Why should I have to apologize for something I didn’t do?”
“I agree,” I said. “I had nothing to do with slavery either. Of course neither myself nor my parents or grandparents were here when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, so I guess I shouldn’t take any pride in that either. And while I can opt out of having to feeling bad about reducing African-Americans to 3/5ths of a person in the Constitution of the United States—I mean I wasn’t there, it wasn’t my idea—I guess I can’t celebrate the genius of the document or the Bill of Rights that followed it.”
I tried to say this with a straight face, but, frozen facial muscles or not, my voice betrayed me.
“Sarcasm is not an argument,” the woman said.
“True enough,” I said. “But if I think about it I have enough to be sorry for.”
“Like?”
“Well, my grandparents, parents, and I were in this country during segregation, the reign of terror perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan, Vietnam, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments inflicted on black men, the assignations of King and Kennedy, the breaking of treaties with the American Indians, the rape of the Constitution by George W., the terrorizing of Americans by McCarthy in the fifties and Cheney today. And that’s just off the top of my head.”
She was not convinced. “I was alive during segregation but I didn’t discriminate against blacks, so I shouldn’t have to apologize. And I had nothing to do with McCarthy, and I think Bush and Cheney are the greatest Americans since Ronald Reagan, so there is nothing to apologize for there. In fact I had nothing to do with anything regarding blacks or Indians or poor people at all, so I resent the country apologizing on my behalf.”
“But you are willing to take credit for the good things the US has done, even though you personally had nothing to do with them?”
“Sure. Why not?”
“It’s not a question of why not, it is a matter of consistency. If you take credit for the good you had no hand in, you should take responsibility for the evil you had no hand in. All of it was and is being done in the name of the people of the United States, and, unless you plan to give up your citizenship, that means you.”
“No it does not. I’m an American.”
Somehow that non sequitor was supposed to end the conversation with my seatmate taking the gold in logic. And in her mind it did. I was happy just to have her lean the other way and let me get back to my magazine. But I admit to fantasizing about opening the emergency exit and letting gravity, for which this woman also had no responsibility, suck her to her doom.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Nothing Hidden, Nothing Complicated
I spent the past few days teaching in at Unity of Tustin, a delightful church in Santa Ana, CA. As the retreat came to a close one passionate man sitting close to me in the front row was clearly unhappy with my level of teaching. He kept asking questions that he said were designed to bring out the “Master Teacher” in me.
Seeing that he was failing to find more to me than there is, he asked if I deliberately keep my public teaching so simple. I tried to explain that all my teaching is simple because I just don’t have the patience or personality for complication.
Honestly, there is nothing that deep about spirituality and enlightenment. Of course there are complicated systems of spiritual talk and practice for those who wish to spend decades learning about enlightenment rather than just waking up to it, but in the end even these, if they are at all legitimate, end up saying the same thing: namely (to quote Jesus quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus) “Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as your self.” That’s it.
Of course we have to define “love,” “God,” and “neighbor,” and different teachers will do so in different ways, and some of them won’t use this vocabulary at all, but the point being made will be the same.
For me love is engaging life in a manner that allows living things to flourish to the best of their ability; God is Reality, all that was, is, and will be; and neighbor is all beings and things that Reality manifests. Loving God and loving your neighbor means loving reality, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Loving our neighbors requires upaya, the skillful means by which we can love effectively in the context an ever-changing reality. To do this it is often helpful to consult sacred texts, wise teachings, and authentic sages.
I am not one of these sages. I am a writer, a teacher, and an entertainer. I share what I know is true, what I think is true, and some of the texts, teachings and teachers from which I have learned what I know. I teach only those spiritual practices that I personally practice, and only to the level that I practice. And I try to do all this in a way that is fun, engaging, informative, and, when lucky, illuminating.
And then I go home. I don’t want followers. I don’t want disciples. I don’t want to take responsibility for someone else’s spiritual life. I have enough of a challenge taking responsibility for my own.
So I hope you will continue to buy and read my books, to invite me to visit your communities to teach, and to attend my workshops and retreats, but please do so for the fun of it. If you are looking for enlightenment, you are already lost.
Seeing that he was failing to find more to me than there is, he asked if I deliberately keep my public teaching so simple. I tried to explain that all my teaching is simple because I just don’t have the patience or personality for complication.
Honestly, there is nothing that deep about spirituality and enlightenment. Of course there are complicated systems of spiritual talk and practice for those who wish to spend decades learning about enlightenment rather than just waking up to it, but in the end even these, if they are at all legitimate, end up saying the same thing: namely (to quote Jesus quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus) “Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as your self.” That’s it.
Of course we have to define “love,” “God,” and “neighbor,” and different teachers will do so in different ways, and some of them won’t use this vocabulary at all, but the point being made will be the same.
For me love is engaging life in a manner that allows living things to flourish to the best of their ability; God is Reality, all that was, is, and will be; and neighbor is all beings and things that Reality manifests. Loving God and loving your neighbor means loving reality, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Loving our neighbors requires upaya, the skillful means by which we can love effectively in the context an ever-changing reality. To do this it is often helpful to consult sacred texts, wise teachings, and authentic sages.
I am not one of these sages. I am a writer, a teacher, and an entertainer. I share what I know is true, what I think is true, and some of the texts, teachings and teachers from which I have learned what I know. I teach only those spiritual practices that I personally practice, and only to the level that I practice. And I try to do all this in a way that is fun, engaging, informative, and, when lucky, illuminating.
And then I go home. I don’t want followers. I don’t want disciples. I don’t want to take responsibility for someone else’s spiritual life. I have enough of a challenge taking responsibility for my own.
So I hope you will continue to buy and read my books, to invite me to visit your communities to teach, and to attend my workshops and retreats, but please do so for the fun of it. If you are looking for enlightenment, you are already lost.
Monday, August 25, 2008
God, My Hero
I love comic books. I started reading them when I was a kid, and I never stopped. My favorite comic book heroes are Dr. Strange, Master of the Mystic Arts, and The Shadow. I tell you this lest you think me anti-comic book when I bemoan a new poll ranking the top superheroes of the American comic reading public.
Five things trouble me about this poll. First, I was not asked to participate. Second, Spiderman was ranked number one. Third, neither of my heroes made the top ten. Fourth, the fact that Batman tied for sixth place with Catwoman. And, fifth, God and Jesus rank below Batman and Catwoman.
This is scandalous. Clearly the Dark Knight trumps Catwoman in brains, brawn, bucks, and literary depth. If people can’t see the superiority of Batman over Catwoman, I have to question their wisdom altogether. Which brings me to the ranking of God and Jesus.
Whatever your thoughts about Batman, neither he nor Catwoman can resurrect the dead. And as dark as the Dark Knight is, even he pales next to the Jesus of Revelation who wallows in the blood of his enemies in a manner that would make Vlad the Impaler flinch. But are God and Jesus really superheroes?
Thor, the Norse God of Thunder, is now a superhero with a very successful comic franchise and Marvel movie in the works. And Jesus and God have both had hit movies in the last few years. But how many people go to the Temple of Thor or worship the God of Thunder any more? Maybe getting your own comic is what happens to Gods when they’re put out to pasture. Is this what is happening to God and Jesus now that they are listed as superheroes?
And it is not just superhero fans who feel that God is somewhat lacking. Two television shows that actually featured God or Jesus (Joan of Arcadia which featured God in various guises, and NBC’s Book of Daniel that featured Jesus as a Rogerian psychologist, “Well, what do you think ought to be done to save your soul?”) were both short-lived. And the current Saving Grace features Earl, a totally powerless angel who can't even help Grace, who is clearly anorexic and an alcoholic, stop drinking and get herself to a nutritionist. God and Jesus are powerless in these shows. Forget Catwoman, they couldn't even take on a Teletubbie.
Compare these shows to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Ghost Whisperer, two long lasting shows of the supernatural that never mention God or Jesus. Of course these shows have a sexual subtext that God and Jesus lack, so maybe we might have to forgo the Virgin Birth for something a little more Zeus-like.
What can we God-lovers do to raise the status of our hero? I think we need to hire better writers and artists to tell his story. A Frank Miller version of Job or an Alan Moore take on Esther could be promising. Or how about a Stephen King version of the Gospel According to John? We could call it The Last Godslinger. With the right artists and colorists, Jesus might give at Catwoman a run for her money. Spiderman, however, is probably beyond even God’s reach.
Five things trouble me about this poll. First, I was not asked to participate. Second, Spiderman was ranked number one. Third, neither of my heroes made the top ten. Fourth, the fact that Batman tied for sixth place with Catwoman. And, fifth, God and Jesus rank below Batman and Catwoman.
This is scandalous. Clearly the Dark Knight trumps Catwoman in brains, brawn, bucks, and literary depth. If people can’t see the superiority of Batman over Catwoman, I have to question their wisdom altogether. Which brings me to the ranking of God and Jesus.
Whatever your thoughts about Batman, neither he nor Catwoman can resurrect the dead. And as dark as the Dark Knight is, even he pales next to the Jesus of Revelation who wallows in the blood of his enemies in a manner that would make Vlad the Impaler flinch. But are God and Jesus really superheroes?
Thor, the Norse God of Thunder, is now a superhero with a very successful comic franchise and Marvel movie in the works. And Jesus and God have both had hit movies in the last few years. But how many people go to the Temple of Thor or worship the God of Thunder any more? Maybe getting your own comic is what happens to Gods when they’re put out to pasture. Is this what is happening to God and Jesus now that they are listed as superheroes?
And it is not just superhero fans who feel that God is somewhat lacking. Two television shows that actually featured God or Jesus (Joan of Arcadia which featured God in various guises, and NBC’s Book of Daniel that featured Jesus as a Rogerian psychologist, “Well, what do you think ought to be done to save your soul?”) were both short-lived. And the current Saving Grace features Earl, a totally powerless angel who can't even help Grace, who is clearly anorexic and an alcoholic, stop drinking and get herself to a nutritionist. God and Jesus are powerless in these shows. Forget Catwoman, they couldn't even take on a Teletubbie.
Compare these shows to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Ghost Whisperer, two long lasting shows of the supernatural that never mention God or Jesus. Of course these shows have a sexual subtext that God and Jesus lack, so maybe we might have to forgo the Virgin Birth for something a little more Zeus-like.
What can we God-lovers do to raise the status of our hero? I think we need to hire better writers and artists to tell his story. A Frank Miller version of Job or an Alan Moore take on Esther could be promising. Or how about a Stephen King version of the Gospel According to John? We could call it The Last Godslinger. With the right artists and colorists, Jesus might give at Catwoman a run for her money. Spiderman, however, is probably beyond even God’s reach.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Agony of the Ecstasy or “Except for the Obvious, Mr. Lincoln, How was the Service?”
Matthew Lincoln is a man of faith. One evening last June, Mr. Lincoln attended a prayer service at his church, Lakewind in Knoxville, TN. The visiting preacher, Robert Lavala, was offering private prayers for people in which he touched people’s foreheads thereby initiating the practice of being “slain in the spirit.”
I have seen this many times. People are filled with the Holy Spirit, slip into an ecstatic state, and fall backward to the ground. To keep them from hurting themselves, “catchers” are assigned to help the slain land gracefully.
Chances are Mr. Lincoln has engaged in this kind of behavior before, but this time was to be different. Yes, the pastor was powerful; yes, the spirit came unto Mr. Lincoln; yes, he fell backwards, but no, there was no one there to catch him. Mr. Lincoln fell back hard, and hit his head on the carpeted concrete floor.
This would have been bad enough, but Mr. Lincoln has a pre-existing spinal condition that the fall exacerbated.
Normally one to give generously to his church, Mr. Lincoln and his attorney thought it time for a little pay back. So Mr. Lincoln is suing his church for $2.5 million. The church is liable, his attorney says, because they should have provided catchers for each of the soon to be slain.
Lakewind Church turned as we so often do in times of spiritual crises to their insurance company, which in turn turned as they often do to their lawyers, who as they so often do, turned down Mr. Lincoln’s claim saying he should have noticed that there was no one there to catch him.
There are many challenging issues in this case. For example, it was the Spirit of God that knocked Mr. Lincoln down, so why is suing his church? He should sue God. And why would God slay Mr. Lincoln knowing, as God always does, that there was no one there to catch him, and that the fall would damage him severely and make it impossible for him to care for his disabled daughter as he alleges in his lawsuit against his church? And what is Pastor Lavala’s obligation in all of this? What is his defense, “Pastors don’t slay people, the Holy Spirit does”?
I feel for Mr. Lincoln and worry about his daughter. I also sympathize with Pastor Lavana and Lakewind Church. It seems to me there are no winners here (except of course the lawyers). What is the just thing to do?
Honestly, I have no idea. But I do have a suggestion as to how Mr. Lincoln should invest his money if he wins his case. He should design special clothing for people choosing to be slain in the spirit. It would be like an airbag sown into a shirt, or blouse, or jacket that would deploy when the pastor hits your head (ala, “Oh I could have had a V8”). Not only would this benefit the slain, but it would cut back on the cost of catchers. Everybody wins.
I have seen this many times. People are filled with the Holy Spirit, slip into an ecstatic state, and fall backward to the ground. To keep them from hurting themselves, “catchers” are assigned to help the slain land gracefully.
Chances are Mr. Lincoln has engaged in this kind of behavior before, but this time was to be different. Yes, the pastor was powerful; yes, the spirit came unto Mr. Lincoln; yes, he fell backwards, but no, there was no one there to catch him. Mr. Lincoln fell back hard, and hit his head on the carpeted concrete floor.
This would have been bad enough, but Mr. Lincoln has a pre-existing spinal condition that the fall exacerbated.
Normally one to give generously to his church, Mr. Lincoln and his attorney thought it time for a little pay back. So Mr. Lincoln is suing his church for $2.5 million. The church is liable, his attorney says, because they should have provided catchers for each of the soon to be slain.
Lakewind Church turned as we so often do in times of spiritual crises to their insurance company, which in turn turned as they often do to their lawyers, who as they so often do, turned down Mr. Lincoln’s claim saying he should have noticed that there was no one there to catch him.
There are many challenging issues in this case. For example, it was the Spirit of God that knocked Mr. Lincoln down, so why is suing his church? He should sue God. And why would God slay Mr. Lincoln knowing, as God always does, that there was no one there to catch him, and that the fall would damage him severely and make it impossible for him to care for his disabled daughter as he alleges in his lawsuit against his church? And what is Pastor Lavala’s obligation in all of this? What is his defense, “Pastors don’t slay people, the Holy Spirit does”?
I feel for Mr. Lincoln and worry about his daughter. I also sympathize with Pastor Lavana and Lakewind Church. It seems to me there are no winners here (except of course the lawyers). What is the just thing to do?
Honestly, I have no idea. But I do have a suggestion as to how Mr. Lincoln should invest his money if he wins his case. He should design special clothing for people choosing to be slain in the spirit. It would be like an airbag sown into a shirt, or blouse, or jacket that would deploy when the pastor hits your head (ala, “Oh I could have had a V8”). Not only would this benefit the slain, but it would cut back on the cost of catchers. Everybody wins.
Monday, August 11, 2008
What's Up, Shug? The Dalai Lama vs. Dorje Shugden
Sometimes I find Buddhists, and by Buddhists I mean American Buddhists, and by American Buddhists I mean white American Buddhists, and by white American Buddhists I mean Jews, smug when it comes to the question of God. Having left behind the angry God of the Torah for the god–free psychology of the Buddha, they look down on us theists as throwbacks to more primitive times. So it is refreshing to find out that Buddhism is as mad as any other religion we humans invent. Case in point the Dalai Lama versus Dorje Shugden.
The Dalai Lama, as you probably know, is the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people. The current Dalai Lama is the fourteenth incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva (similar to a saint) who embodies the compassion of all Buddhas. I am a fan of the Dalai Lama.
The Dorje Shugden is less well known, and until recently I was largely unaware of him.
There are two views as to whom or what the Dorje Shugden is. One holds that he is a wrathful aspect of Manjushri, a bodhisattva (similar to a Christian saint) of wisdom worshipped as a deity in Tibet. The other holds that he is the angry spirit of a deceased lama. Both views believe that Dorje Shugden is devoted to protecting the Dharma (teachings of the Buddha) and the world. I guess he is angry because both are so threatened.
The current Dalai Lama used to be a fan of Dorje Shugden but changed his mind, now believing Dorje Shugden to be a demonic protector who does not deserve the veneration accorded him. This is not a new battle. The Dalai Lama has taken on Dorje Shugden in at least two other life times (the fifth and thirteenth of this fourteen incarnations). I don’t know what caused the Dalai Lama to take on Dorje Shugden this time around, but I do know it is never a good idea to piss off a god or a demon, especially if they have followers.
Dorje Shugden supporters hound the Dalai Lama and protest at his talks and appearances. They claim that the Dalai Lama is seeking to spiritually cleanse Tibetan Buddhism of Dorje Shugden worship, and is thereby causing millions of Dorje Shugden worshippers needless pain and concern.
The prayer to Dorje Shugden that the Dalai Lama wants to eradicate seems benign enough: “As a devoted practitioner, I request you from my heart to overcome all unfavorable conditions, obstacles, and maras (evils), and increase my life span, merit, resources, good fortune, qualities of scripture and realization, listening, and renown.”
The problem seems to be with Dorje Shugden himself. To the Dalai Lama’s credit, he actually believes that Dorje Shugden worship is demon worship, and wants to end it. To my dismay, the Dalai Lama actually believes in demons. I thought he was all about science and stuff like that. At least that is what his followers, and by his followers I mean his Jewish followers who think they have escaped the irrationality of Judaism by following the Dalai Lama instead, always tell me.
Of course Dorje Shugden isn’t the only angry god on the block. Read the Hebrew Bible; when it comes to wrath Dorje Shugden can’t hold a candle to YHVH. Or read the Christian Book of Revelation where the Prince of Peace is one pissed off deity who makes His Dad look like a wimp.
Anyway, I wish the Dalai Lama well. If he can defeat the angry gods of Buddhism I am going to sponsor a worldwide Jewish tour for His Holiness and see if he can help us out with YHVH as well.
The Dalai Lama, as you probably know, is the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people. The current Dalai Lama is the fourteenth incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva (similar to a saint) who embodies the compassion of all Buddhas. I am a fan of the Dalai Lama.
The Dorje Shugden is less well known, and until recently I was largely unaware of him.
There are two views as to whom or what the Dorje Shugden is. One holds that he is a wrathful aspect of Manjushri, a bodhisattva (similar to a Christian saint) of wisdom worshipped as a deity in Tibet. The other holds that he is the angry spirit of a deceased lama. Both views believe that Dorje Shugden is devoted to protecting the Dharma (teachings of the Buddha) and the world. I guess he is angry because both are so threatened.
The current Dalai Lama used to be a fan of Dorje Shugden but changed his mind, now believing Dorje Shugden to be a demonic protector who does not deserve the veneration accorded him. This is not a new battle. The Dalai Lama has taken on Dorje Shugden in at least two other life times (the fifth and thirteenth of this fourteen incarnations). I don’t know what caused the Dalai Lama to take on Dorje Shugden this time around, but I do know it is never a good idea to piss off a god or a demon, especially if they have followers.
Dorje Shugden supporters hound the Dalai Lama and protest at his talks and appearances. They claim that the Dalai Lama is seeking to spiritually cleanse Tibetan Buddhism of Dorje Shugden worship, and is thereby causing millions of Dorje Shugden worshippers needless pain and concern.
The prayer to Dorje Shugden that the Dalai Lama wants to eradicate seems benign enough: “As a devoted practitioner, I request you from my heart to overcome all unfavorable conditions, obstacles, and maras (evils), and increase my life span, merit, resources, good fortune, qualities of scripture and realization, listening, and renown.”
The problem seems to be with Dorje Shugden himself. To the Dalai Lama’s credit, he actually believes that Dorje Shugden worship is demon worship, and wants to end it. To my dismay, the Dalai Lama actually believes in demons. I thought he was all about science and stuff like that. At least that is what his followers, and by his followers I mean his Jewish followers who think they have escaped the irrationality of Judaism by following the Dalai Lama instead, always tell me.
Of course Dorje Shugden isn’t the only angry god on the block. Read the Hebrew Bible; when it comes to wrath Dorje Shugden can’t hold a candle to YHVH. Or read the Christian Book of Revelation where the Prince of Peace is one pissed off deity who makes His Dad look like a wimp.
Anyway, I wish the Dalai Lama well. If he can defeat the angry gods of Buddhism I am going to sponsor a worldwide Jewish tour for His Holiness and see if he can help us out with YHVH as well.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Pot and Potter or Deus ex Ceramica
“Can you have a pot without a potter?” The question seems simple enough, and the man asking the question—some fellow next to whom I was standing in the evolution section of our local Barnes and Noble—seemed quite sincere. So, on the off chance that he really didn’t know the answer, I offered him one: “No,” I said. “You cannot have a pot without a potter.”
I should have known better than to answer. In fact I did, and got just what I expected: a delightful harangue about the heresy of Darwinian evolution. His point was simple: Just as you cannot have a pot without a potter so you cannot have creation without a Creator. Hence Darwin is wrong and Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who died for my sins on the cross and who, if I would only believe in him rather than the Flying Spaghetti Monster would provide me with eternal life in the world to come. (For the curious, belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster only gets you a one time 20% discount at Pasta House.)
It’s a nice argument as such arguments go, but it has a fatal flaw. If you cannot have a thing without its maker, having God only begs the question, Who made God? There is no end to such reductionist logic, and hence the pot—potter argument is both exhausting and useless.
But not wanting to sound snooty (I was wearing an Obama ‘08 button and feared being labeled an elitist), I didn’t offer it. Instead I said, “But of course cannot have a potter without a pot either.” This seemed to catch the man off guard, and I continued:
“Pot and potter define one another. If I told you that I was a potter and you discovered that I had never in my life made a pot, you would rightly think me a liar. A potter without a pot is not a potter, the two go together and are in fact inseparable. Applying this to God, a Creator who never creates is not a Creator. Creation, and by ‘creation’ I mean nature as you and I understand it, is absolutely necessary to Creator. They go together are not really distinguishable. As Spinoza said Deus sive Natura, “God or Nature” it is all the same.”
A word to the wise: When wearing an Obama ’08 button and wishing not to be considered elitist, it is best not to quote Spinoza, and certainly not to quote him in Latin.
The man looked at me, then at my button, and then back at me. Then he said half under his breath, “Go to hail.” For a moment I thought he was turning our attention to the meteorology books next to the evolution books on the science shelf, and I did indeed turn to look to see if there was a book on hail that would be relevant to our conversation. Not finding one I turned back, but he was already gone.
In hindsight I suspect he had said something else, but the fault is all mine nonetheless. I don’t think the man understood my Latin, and my Obama ’08 button is written in Hebrew, so that too was probably undecipherable. Had I only thought to converse with him in Greek, after all that is what he was speaking to me.
I should have known better than to answer. In fact I did, and got just what I expected: a delightful harangue about the heresy of Darwinian evolution. His point was simple: Just as you cannot have a pot without a potter so you cannot have creation without a Creator. Hence Darwin is wrong and Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who died for my sins on the cross and who, if I would only believe in him rather than the Flying Spaghetti Monster would provide me with eternal life in the world to come. (For the curious, belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster only gets you a one time 20% discount at Pasta House.)
It’s a nice argument as such arguments go, but it has a fatal flaw. If you cannot have a thing without its maker, having God only begs the question, Who made God? There is no end to such reductionist logic, and hence the pot—potter argument is both exhausting and useless.
But not wanting to sound snooty (I was wearing an Obama ‘08 button and feared being labeled an elitist), I didn’t offer it. Instead I said, “But of course cannot have a potter without a pot either.” This seemed to catch the man off guard, and I continued:
“Pot and potter define one another. If I told you that I was a potter and you discovered that I had never in my life made a pot, you would rightly think me a liar. A potter without a pot is not a potter, the two go together and are in fact inseparable. Applying this to God, a Creator who never creates is not a Creator. Creation, and by ‘creation’ I mean nature as you and I understand it, is absolutely necessary to Creator. They go together are not really distinguishable. As Spinoza said Deus sive Natura, “God or Nature” it is all the same.”
A word to the wise: When wearing an Obama ’08 button and wishing not to be considered elitist, it is best not to quote Spinoza, and certainly not to quote him in Latin.
The man looked at me, then at my button, and then back at me. Then he said half under his breath, “Go to hail.” For a moment I thought he was turning our attention to the meteorology books next to the evolution books on the science shelf, and I did indeed turn to look to see if there was a book on hail that would be relevant to our conversation. Not finding one I turned back, but he was already gone.
In hindsight I suspect he had said something else, but the fault is all mine nonetheless. I don’t think the man understood my Latin, and my Obama ’08 button is written in Hebrew, so that too was probably undecipherable. Had I only thought to converse with him in Greek, after all that is what he was speaking to me.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Demonization in America
[This is a talk I gave this morning at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Murfreesboro, TN in response to the murder of two people, Greg McKendry and Linda Kraeger, and the wounding of six others at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville last Sunday.]
We live in frightening times. We live in times when shouting passes for conversation, and reasoned dialogue is too boring to air. We live in times when, in the name of free speech, we allow ourselves to be inundated with hate speech. We live in times when it is not enough to disagree with others, we must demonize them. We live in a demon-haunted time.
Jim David Adkisson, the man who murdered two people and wounded 6 others at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church in Knoxville last Sunday, was slaying demons. He called them liberals, and was fed a never-ending stream of vile lies that told him these demon liberals hate America, hate our soldiers, hate the family, the flag, the fetus, and God. They are out to destroy everything for which America stands. Killing them is a moral imperative.
What Jim Adkisson heard, and what tens of millions of other Americans hear every day is the steady demonization of our fellow Americans. Demonization is the fifth of a five stage conditioning process Dr. Anthony Stahelski of Central Washington University, has identified as the key to turning people into terrorists. The five stages are: depluralization, self-deindividuation, other-deindividuation, dehumanization, and demonization. I believe that our entire culture is in the grip of this process. We are becoming a nation of potential terrorists haunted by demons.
Depluralization removes you from any influences outside your group. What you read, watch on television, listen to on the radio, where you worship have to be all of a piece- each reinforcing the other. It is not that you stop thinking, it’s that you no longer have the capacity to think outside the parameters of the group.
Self-deindividuation strips away your personal identity. What you wear, what you buy, what you eat, drive, drink, think, study, and say is determined by your group. Thinking for yourself becomes impossible, because there is no self left to think at all.
Other-deindividuation strips away the personal identities of people with whom you don’t agree, your so-called “enemies.” They become the mirror opposite of you, thinking, living, and promoting ideas that are not just different, but demonic. They are a threat to everything that is good, decent, and God-fearing. In short, they aren’t us.
Dehumanization explains why your enemies feel so alien: they aren’t really human at all. These subhumans can’t be converted to your ideas; they are incapable of understanding them. And yet they seem to thrive, and to threaten everything you cherish.
Demonization reveals why this is true: the “other” isn’t just subhuman, they are anti-human, they are demons in league with the Devil whose only passion is your destruction. Demonization follows dehumanization the way one end of a Slinky follows the other. Not only are they wrong, they are evil, and evil must be obliterated.
America today is a nation of demons. The “other” is everywhere. It doesn’t matter if we are conservative or liberal, the disease of demonization has infected our body politic and we are rotting from within.
What happened at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church was a symptom of life in demon-haunted America.
This is from a sworn affidavit by one of the police officers who interviewed Adkisson:
“During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years.”
As any military expert will tell you, it takes time to train a person to kill. Humans are not natural born killers. We cannot just look another human being in the face and pull the trigger. We have to be trained to overcome our compassion and sense of connection with the other, and the easiest way to do that is through dehumanization and demonization.
It took Mr. Adkisson ten years to deny the humanity of his neighbors. How many other Jim Adkissons are there in America?
Hatred has been building in this country for a long time. We are ready to blow.
So what can we do? Not as a nation or a people— those kinds of policy questions are beyond me. What can we do here? What can the Unitarian Fellowship of Murfreesboro do? Three basic choices come to my mind.
First, we can circle the wagons, search people for weapons as they come through our doors, and worry that every new face is potentially that of a terrorist here to do us harm. This might work for a while, but in the end we will stop coming here ourselves.
Second, we can align ourselves more fiercely with liberalism and argue more loudly against the evil right wing pundits, and loud-mouthed media demagogues, as well as your run-of-the-mill gay-bashing, misogynist, racist, and anti-human conservatives. But this only perpetuates the demonization threatening America, and does nothing to end it.
I admit to finding both of these options tempting, but in the end, a third option, the classically liberal option wins out. Instead of closing our doors, we should open them all the wider. Instead of shutting down opinionated speech we should invite our neighbors over for tea and conversation.
Indeed, if we had the money, we should take out a series of full-page ads in the Daily News Journal, one each day for a week, articulating our approach (we have no single opinion) to the most controversial issues of our most uncivil culture war.
When I sat down to prepare this talk I turned first to John Lennon’s song, Imagine. I had thought to build my talk around those lyrics:
Imagine there's no countries/It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too
Imagine all the people/Living life in peace
But I didn’t do this. Why, because in the end, John Lennon is wrong. There are things worth dying for. If I am going to die, let me die for something worthwhile.
Let me die because I refuse to demonize African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, women, Muslims, Catholics, or any one else.
Let me die because I insist that the dignity of my gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered brothers and sisters be honored, upheld, and legally enforced.
Let me die because I insist upon reason even when dealing with revelation.
Let me die because I fight and vote to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and resist it being torn to shreds by a government so drunk on fear that it no longer trusts the very values it was entrusted to protect.
Let me die because I dare to love even in the face of white-hot heat.
Let me die because what I stand for is worth dying for.
I’m not saying the victims of Jim David Adkisson are martyrs, though some were certainly heroes. Martyrs die for their faith, these poor people died because of it. They died because Jim Adkisson was infected with the hate that is fast becoming the life-blood of America. Jim Adkisson was as much a victim as those he murdered.
I don’t feel sorry for Jim Adkisson; I feel sorry for America. I can’t forgive Jim David Adkisson; only those he hurt can do that. Nor will I bury my head in the sand and say he is a lonely, troubled, and sick man deserving of pity. He is not. Jim Adkisson is part of the madness that is sweeping our nation. He is not the first to murder the demons he imagines and fears, nor will he be the last. But until you and I act to end the demonization that threatens our country, Jim Adkisson will just be a footnote to the next demonslayer who acts to save America by murdering Americans.
We live in frightening times. We live in times when shouting passes for conversation, and reasoned dialogue is too boring to air. We live in times when, in the name of free speech, we allow ourselves to be inundated with hate speech. We live in times when it is not enough to disagree with others, we must demonize them. We live in a demon-haunted time.
Jim David Adkisson, the man who murdered two people and wounded 6 others at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church in Knoxville last Sunday, was slaying demons. He called them liberals, and was fed a never-ending stream of vile lies that told him these demon liberals hate America, hate our soldiers, hate the family, the flag, the fetus, and God. They are out to destroy everything for which America stands. Killing them is a moral imperative.
What Jim Adkisson heard, and what tens of millions of other Americans hear every day is the steady demonization of our fellow Americans. Demonization is the fifth of a five stage conditioning process Dr. Anthony Stahelski of Central Washington University, has identified as the key to turning people into terrorists. The five stages are: depluralization, self-deindividuation, other-deindividuation, dehumanization, and demonization. I believe that our entire culture is in the grip of this process. We are becoming a nation of potential terrorists haunted by demons.
Depluralization removes you from any influences outside your group. What you read, watch on television, listen to on the radio, where you worship have to be all of a piece- each reinforcing the other. It is not that you stop thinking, it’s that you no longer have the capacity to think outside the parameters of the group.
Self-deindividuation strips away your personal identity. What you wear, what you buy, what you eat, drive, drink, think, study, and say is determined by your group. Thinking for yourself becomes impossible, because there is no self left to think at all.
Other-deindividuation strips away the personal identities of people with whom you don’t agree, your so-called “enemies.” They become the mirror opposite of you, thinking, living, and promoting ideas that are not just different, but demonic. They are a threat to everything that is good, decent, and God-fearing. In short, they aren’t us.
Dehumanization explains why your enemies feel so alien: they aren’t really human at all. These subhumans can’t be converted to your ideas; they are incapable of understanding them. And yet they seem to thrive, and to threaten everything you cherish.
Demonization reveals why this is true: the “other” isn’t just subhuman, they are anti-human, they are demons in league with the Devil whose only passion is your destruction. Demonization follows dehumanization the way one end of a Slinky follows the other. Not only are they wrong, they are evil, and evil must be obliterated.
America today is a nation of demons. The “other” is everywhere. It doesn’t matter if we are conservative or liberal, the disease of demonization has infected our body politic and we are rotting from within.
What happened at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church was a symptom of life in demon-haunted America.
This is from a sworn affidavit by one of the police officers who interviewed Adkisson:
“During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years.”
As any military expert will tell you, it takes time to train a person to kill. Humans are not natural born killers. We cannot just look another human being in the face and pull the trigger. We have to be trained to overcome our compassion and sense of connection with the other, and the easiest way to do that is through dehumanization and demonization.
It took Mr. Adkisson ten years to deny the humanity of his neighbors. How many other Jim Adkissons are there in America?
Hatred has been building in this country for a long time. We are ready to blow.
So what can we do? Not as a nation or a people— those kinds of policy questions are beyond me. What can we do here? What can the Unitarian Fellowship of Murfreesboro do? Three basic choices come to my mind.
First, we can circle the wagons, search people for weapons as they come through our doors, and worry that every new face is potentially that of a terrorist here to do us harm. This might work for a while, but in the end we will stop coming here ourselves.
Second, we can align ourselves more fiercely with liberalism and argue more loudly against the evil right wing pundits, and loud-mouthed media demagogues, as well as your run-of-the-mill gay-bashing, misogynist, racist, and anti-human conservatives. But this only perpetuates the demonization threatening America, and does nothing to end it.
I admit to finding both of these options tempting, but in the end, a third option, the classically liberal option wins out. Instead of closing our doors, we should open them all the wider. Instead of shutting down opinionated speech we should invite our neighbors over for tea and conversation.
Indeed, if we had the money, we should take out a series of full-page ads in the Daily News Journal, one each day for a week, articulating our approach (we have no single opinion) to the most controversial issues of our most uncivil culture war.
When I sat down to prepare this talk I turned first to John Lennon’s song, Imagine. I had thought to build my talk around those lyrics:
Imagine there's no countries/It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too
Imagine all the people/Living life in peace
But I didn’t do this. Why, because in the end, John Lennon is wrong. There are things worth dying for. If I am going to die, let me die for something worthwhile.
Let me die because I refuse to demonize African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, women, Muslims, Catholics, or any one else.
Let me die because I insist that the dignity of my gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered brothers and sisters be honored, upheld, and legally enforced.
Let me die because I insist upon reason even when dealing with revelation.
Let me die because I fight and vote to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and resist it being torn to shreds by a government so drunk on fear that it no longer trusts the very values it was entrusted to protect.
Let me die because I dare to love even in the face of white-hot heat.
Let me die because what I stand for is worth dying for.
I’m not saying the victims of Jim David Adkisson are martyrs, though some were certainly heroes. Martyrs die for their faith, these poor people died because of it. They died because Jim Adkisson was infected with the hate that is fast becoming the life-blood of America. Jim Adkisson was as much a victim as those he murdered.
I don’t feel sorry for Jim Adkisson; I feel sorry for America. I can’t forgive Jim David Adkisson; only those he hurt can do that. Nor will I bury my head in the sand and say he is a lonely, troubled, and sick man deserving of pity. He is not. Jim Adkisson is part of the madness that is sweeping our nation. He is not the first to murder the demons he imagines and fears, nor will he be the last. But until you and I act to end the demonization that threatens our country, Jim Adkisson will just be a footnote to the next demonslayer who acts to save America by murdering Americans.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Four Questions for the Jewish Fall Holy Days
Last Thursday, I sat with my rebbe high in the mountains overlooking Boulder, CO. He spoke to me of four questions that define our time; four questions that must be asked and answered, albeit humbly and open-endedly, if we are to live up to and out of the promise of the 21st century.
First, where did we come from, that is to say, what is the cosmological story that speaks to us today? Second, what is the ethic that arises from this story? Third, what are the upaya [Reb Zalman used the Buddhist word for “skillful means”), the mitzvot [acts of godliness that awaken us to the nonduality of life in, with, and as God, and my Jewish take on upaya] that allow us to embody that ethic in lived action? And fourth, what is vehicle or carrying that story, that ethic, and those means beyond ourselves into the community of generations?
It occurred to me as I listened that each of these questions spoke to one of the four fall Jewish holy days. Rosh haShanah, the anniversary of creation, is the ideal setting to ask about and tell the story of our cosmos. Yom Kippur, the Day of At-one-ment, is the perfect setting for discerning the ethic arising from that story. Where better to inquire into the mitzvot, the skillful means for living this ethic then Sukkot, our week-long encounter with impermanence and the “wisdom of insecurity” articulated by Ecclesiastes? And Simchat Torah, the omega and alpha point in the journey of Torah, is the perfect setting for exploring how best to build community rooted in story that can carry the wisdom of the cosmos.
When I shared this insight with Reb Zalman his face lighted up and he gave me the greatest gift a rebbe can bestow, “Yes, that is wonderful! Now see what you can to with it.”
I would have been happy had he left off the last sentence. What can I do with it? I have no community of my own. Indeed, I have not celebrated these holy days with others in years. I lead a solitary life, and spend holy days alone in the forest walking and talking with my Mother, who is the Face of God for me today.
Reb Zalman suggested that we collaborate on a book, fleshing out his questions in the context of these holy days, and inviting essays from creative visionaries who are themselves moved to contemplate these questions. Perhaps this is the way it will happen, I don’t know.
What I do know is that my fall holy days will not be the same this year as they were last year. There are now new questions to ponder, and new interior spaces to explore. What more could I ask from my rebbe?
First, where did we come from, that is to say, what is the cosmological story that speaks to us today? Second, what is the ethic that arises from this story? Third, what are the upaya [Reb Zalman used the Buddhist word for “skillful means”), the mitzvot [acts of godliness that awaken us to the nonduality of life in, with, and as God, and my Jewish take on upaya] that allow us to embody that ethic in lived action? And fourth, what is vehicle or carrying that story, that ethic, and those means beyond ourselves into the community of generations?
It occurred to me as I listened that each of these questions spoke to one of the four fall Jewish holy days. Rosh haShanah, the anniversary of creation, is the ideal setting to ask about and tell the story of our cosmos. Yom Kippur, the Day of At-one-ment, is the perfect setting for discerning the ethic arising from that story. Where better to inquire into the mitzvot, the skillful means for living this ethic then Sukkot, our week-long encounter with impermanence and the “wisdom of insecurity” articulated by Ecclesiastes? And Simchat Torah, the omega and alpha point in the journey of Torah, is the perfect setting for exploring how best to build community rooted in story that can carry the wisdom of the cosmos.
When I shared this insight with Reb Zalman his face lighted up and he gave me the greatest gift a rebbe can bestow, “Yes, that is wonderful! Now see what you can to with it.”
I would have been happy had he left off the last sentence. What can I do with it? I have no community of my own. Indeed, I have not celebrated these holy days with others in years. I lead a solitary life, and spend holy days alone in the forest walking and talking with my Mother, who is the Face of God for me today.
Reb Zalman suggested that we collaborate on a book, fleshing out his questions in the context of these holy days, and inviting essays from creative visionaries who are themselves moved to contemplate these questions. Perhaps this is the way it will happen, I don’t know.
What I do know is that my fall holy days will not be the same this year as they were last year. There are now new questions to ponder, and new interior spaces to explore. What more could I ask from my rebbe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Al-Qaida and Interfaith- What's Not To Like?
Al-Qaida has finally caught up with the Missouri-Synod Lutherans.
Shortly after the murder of thousands of Americans on 9/11/01, the Rev. David Benke was suspended from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for taking part in an interfaith service at Yankee Stadium for the families of the victims. Now, escaped al-Qaida commander Abu Yahia al-Libi is calling for the murder of Saudi King Abdullah for hosting an interfaith gathering of his own.
To be honest, I have to sympathize. These interfaith gatherings are too much. Every other week clergy people are holding interfaith meetings to assure one another that their respective faiths really don’t mean what they say.
Honestly, if I have to listen to another liberal clergyperson pretend that his or her take on his or her religion is really what that religion is about, I will scream. At least Abu Yahia al-Libi is honest: “equating Islam with other religions is a betrayal of Islam.”
The fact is equating Christianity or Judaism with other religions is a betrayal of those faiths as well. Each of these faiths knows they are the one and only true revelation from God. At least Abu Yahia al-Libi is honest. Of course calling for the murder of the King is a bit over the top, but you have to admire his enthusiasm.
The point of King Abdullah’s conference is to get religions to renounce extremism, but he has to hold the conference in Spain because most of the invitees wouldn’t be allowed into Saudi Arabia unless disguised as diplomats or oil workers. How does the King define extremism, anyway?
And what’s the point of having a religion that isn’t extreme? I’m an extremist. I think anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I just don’t think it matters that they’re wrong, so I wouldn’t kill them or damn them to God’s private Abu Ghraib. But they're still wrong.
If we must have interfaith gatherings, let’s invite extremists only. At least they’re interesting. Most clergy at interfaith conferences are too polite— “While I suggest that the distinguished imam is wrong in believing that the Qur’an is the Word of God, and in fact follows a false prophet, peace be upon him, and will burn in hell for all eternity, I’m sure we can still find enough common ground to apply for a generous faith-based grant once Senator Obama is elected president.”
No! I say, “Bring on the extremists!” Let someone sponsor a real Battle of the Gods. Let’s hear how God chooses this one, and saves that one, and sticks the rest in a living Hieronymus Bosch hellscape.
We won’t do this, of course, because, if we did, most of us would be so horrified by what our respective religions teach that we would subscribe to Free Inquiry magazine, and spend our weekends at the natural history museum.
Of course I don’t want King Abdullah to die. And I wish we would catch Abu Yahia al-Libi and throw his ass back in jail (or, better yet, let him go hunting with Vice President Cheny), but please let’s not waste another dime on conferences that pretend to solve the problem that the attendees themselves are creating.
Shortly after the murder of thousands of Americans on 9/11/01, the Rev. David Benke was suspended from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for taking part in an interfaith service at Yankee Stadium for the families of the victims. Now, escaped al-Qaida commander Abu Yahia al-Libi is calling for the murder of Saudi King Abdullah for hosting an interfaith gathering of his own.
To be honest, I have to sympathize. These interfaith gatherings are too much. Every other week clergy people are holding interfaith meetings to assure one another that their respective faiths really don’t mean what they say.
Honestly, if I have to listen to another liberal clergyperson pretend that his or her take on his or her religion is really what that religion is about, I will scream. At least Abu Yahia al-Libi is honest: “equating Islam with other religions is a betrayal of Islam.”
The fact is equating Christianity or Judaism with other religions is a betrayal of those faiths as well. Each of these faiths knows they are the one and only true revelation from God. At least Abu Yahia al-Libi is honest. Of course calling for the murder of the King is a bit over the top, but you have to admire his enthusiasm.
The point of King Abdullah’s conference is to get religions to renounce extremism, but he has to hold the conference in Spain because most of the invitees wouldn’t be allowed into Saudi Arabia unless disguised as diplomats or oil workers. How does the King define extremism, anyway?
And what’s the point of having a religion that isn’t extreme? I’m an extremist. I think anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I just don’t think it matters that they’re wrong, so I wouldn’t kill them or damn them to God’s private Abu Ghraib. But they're still wrong.
If we must have interfaith gatherings, let’s invite extremists only. At least they’re interesting. Most clergy at interfaith conferences are too polite— “While I suggest that the distinguished imam is wrong in believing that the Qur’an is the Word of God, and in fact follows a false prophet, peace be upon him, and will burn in hell for all eternity, I’m sure we can still find enough common ground to apply for a generous faith-based grant once Senator Obama is elected president.”
No! I say, “Bring on the extremists!” Let someone sponsor a real Battle of the Gods. Let’s hear how God chooses this one, and saves that one, and sticks the rest in a living Hieronymus Bosch hellscape.
We won’t do this, of course, because, if we did, most of us would be so horrified by what our respective religions teach that we would subscribe to Free Inquiry magazine, and spend our weekends at the natural history museum.
Of course I don’t want King Abdullah to die. And I wish we would catch Abu Yahia al-Libi and throw his ass back in jail (or, better yet, let him go hunting with Vice President Cheny), but please let’s not waste another dime on conferences that pretend to solve the problem that the attendees themselves are creating.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Judaism is Dying Redux
My previous post (Judaism is Dying) elicited an email response to which I wish to respond publicly. Here’s the email:
“You are a heretic, but not one who is brave enough to come out and say so. So I am calling you out! In twenty-five words or less per topic tell me what you would do with God, Torah, Israel, etc. in your heretical Judaism.”
Reading this I felt like an aging gunslinger being called out from the saloon by a young’un hopin’ t’ make a name fer hisself by killin’ the old man. So I’m strappin’ on my two six shooters an’ steppin’ out to face— oh, forget it. Here is a brief look at my “heretical Judaism” for the 21st century.
God: God is Reality and the creativity that fuels Reality, keeping it fresh, new, surprising, and awe-inspiring.
Torah: Torah is wisdom. Wisdom comes from science, art, music, myth, and literature. Torah study should be the study of wisdom in all its forms.
Israel: Israel, Yisrael, is one who wrestles with God, i.e. engages Reality in such a way as to find meaning and purpose in life.
Rabbi: Rabbis should be Jana yogis (masters of wisdom through intellect and mind) helping people open up to wisdom through meditation and study.
Cantor: Cantors should be Bhakti yogis (masters of wisdom through the heart) helping people open up to wisdom through chant, prayer, and other devotional practices.
Synagogue: Synagogues should be places of meeting; safe houses for doubt, dialogue, questioning, wrestling with Life, and ecstatic surrender into the One Who lives it.
Mitzvot (Commandments): Mitzvot are historic resources drawn from Jewish and other traditions that help one live with compassion, justice, creativity, fearlessness, hope, and humility.
Shabbat (the Sabbath): Shabbat is a day for purposeless play. If you pray, pray playfully. If you study, study playfully. Play helps us regain our sanity and recover our divinity.
Kashrut: Kashrut means linking all your consuming with your highest ethical and environmental values.
Tzedakah: Tzedakah means earning and using your money in a manner that serves both self and society, person and planet.
OK, that’s eleven bullet points. All these need to be fleshed out, of course, but I think I survived the challenge. Notice I saved one bullet just in case my friend is still moving.
“You are a heretic, but not one who is brave enough to come out and say so. So I am calling you out! In twenty-five words or less per topic tell me what you would do with God, Torah, Israel, etc. in your heretical Judaism.”
Reading this I felt like an aging gunslinger being called out from the saloon by a young’un hopin’ t’ make a name fer hisself by killin’ the old man. So I’m strappin’ on my two six shooters an’ steppin’ out to face— oh, forget it. Here is a brief look at my “heretical Judaism” for the 21st century.
God: God is Reality and the creativity that fuels Reality, keeping it fresh, new, surprising, and awe-inspiring.
Torah: Torah is wisdom. Wisdom comes from science, art, music, myth, and literature. Torah study should be the study of wisdom in all its forms.
Israel: Israel, Yisrael, is one who wrestles with God, i.e. engages Reality in such a way as to find meaning and purpose in life.
Rabbi: Rabbis should be Jana yogis (masters of wisdom through intellect and mind) helping people open up to wisdom through meditation and study.
Cantor: Cantors should be Bhakti yogis (masters of wisdom through the heart) helping people open up to wisdom through chant, prayer, and other devotional practices.
Synagogue: Synagogues should be places of meeting; safe houses for doubt, dialogue, questioning, wrestling with Life, and ecstatic surrender into the One Who lives it.
Mitzvot (Commandments): Mitzvot are historic resources drawn from Jewish and other traditions that help one live with compassion, justice, creativity, fearlessness, hope, and humility.
Shabbat (the Sabbath): Shabbat is a day for purposeless play. If you pray, pray playfully. If you study, study playfully. Play helps us regain our sanity and recover our divinity.
Kashrut: Kashrut means linking all your consuming with your highest ethical and environmental values.
Tzedakah: Tzedakah means earning and using your money in a manner that serves both self and society, person and planet.
OK, that’s eleven bullet points. All these need to be fleshed out, of course, but I think I survived the challenge. Notice I saved one bullet just in case my friend is still moving.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Judaism is Dying
Judaism is dying. Not the Jewish people; not Israel; not Jewish Studies programs or Jewish PACs or Jewish philanthropies; but Judaism herself: the idea that God so loved the Jews that He gave us His one true revelation that we might bring justice and compassion to humankind. This Judaism is dying.
The fact that Judaism is dying doesn’t worry me. It has died before. What worries me is that this time it may stay dead.
In the past the death of one Judaism was followed by the birth of another. The death of the shamanic Judaism of Abraham was followed by the birth of the priestly and sacrificial Judaism of Aaron. The death of sacrificial Judaism was heralded by prophetic Judaism and followed by rabbinic Judaism. Now rabbinic Judaism is dying, and there is nothing to come after it.
Rabbinic Judaism is dying because its foundational idea—that God gave Moses two Torahs on Mount Sinai (one Written, one Oral) over which only rabbis have authority—is dying. Indeed for most Jews it is already dead.
We know it is dying because most Jews, perhaps the majority of Jews, do not take halacha (Jewish law) seriously; and most of those who do pick and choose among the mitzvot (divine commandments) and adapt them to their personal lifestyles. A Judaism of personal choice and convenience is not what the rabbis had in mind.
Rabbinic Judaism is a Judaism not of orthodoxy but orthopraxy, not of one mind but one practice. Conformity of behavior rather than conformity of thought was their concern. “Think what you want, and do what we say” was the unofficial rabbinic motto. But today most Jews do what their rabbi says only if the rabbi says what they want to hear. And if she or he doesn’t, they will change rabbis until they find one who does.
The death of rabbinic Judaism has been coming for quite a while, and a number of Judaisms have contended to replace it. All of them have failed.
Zionism failed because, as it turns out, most Jews have no desire to live in a Jewish state or serve in a Jewish army, and because, having sold its soul to the most Orthodox among us, Zionism has nothing but archeology to offer Jews as an alternative to rabbinic Judaism. Stones a plenty; Tablets, not a one.
Humanistic Judaism failed because it denied God rather than reinvented God. A religion focused on the self alone is too narcissistic to be spiritually compelling. Gathering together simply to gather together gets old very fast.
Reform Judaism failed because by making the self sovereign over God (you decide which of God’s laws to obey) it pulled the rug out from under rabbis altogether. Rabbinic authority rests on the fiction of the Dual Revelation. When the Torah is no longer binding rabbis are no longer relevant, which is why Reform rabbis are more like Protestant pastors than Talmudic sages.
Conservative Judaism, which sought to maintain the rabbinic conceit of the Talmudic sage by insisting that Jewish Law matters, failed because most Jews outside of Orthodoxy just don’t find a religion of law run by a cabal of lawyers spiritually compelling.
Reconstructionism was a true reinvention of Judaism outside the rabbinic frame, but the bold genius of its founder (and my teacher) Mordecai Kaplan was abandoned for a neo-conservatism that substituted leftist social mores and inclusive community (two good ideas in my opinion) for the radical Emersonian/Taoist reinvention of God and Judaism that was the soul of Kaplan’s heresy. Modern Reconstuctionism’s liturgical innovation of using lots of names for God doesn’t substitute for the fact that, without Kaplan, they have no compelling theology of God.
Jewish Renewal, another Judaism I value, failed because it requires a deep commitment to learning— Biblical, Talmudic, Kabbalistic and Hasidic— in which most Jews have no real interest. Rising in the shadow of its real promise is a pseudo (rather than the much needed and intended neo) Hasidism in which everyone is a rebbe and no one is a hasid, where new age platitudes pass for deep introspection, and hand-clapping and table pounding substitute for true ecstasy.
So what’s left? Orthodox Judaism of one stripe or another, of course. Orthodoxy, like other fundamentalisms, succeeds because it believes what it says and what it says is without nuance and therefore immune to irony and self-doubt. But Orthodoxy, too, has failed because most Jews just cannot take it seriously, and it is impossible to run an empire when everyone knows the emperor has no clothes.
So you can see why I am not hopeful about the future of Judaism. For all our poetic genius our liturgies are, by and large, lifeless and stultifying. For all our education we still lack a compelling vision of a postmodern and post tribal Judaism. For all our creativity our worship is, by and large, dull, predictable, and uninspiring. For all our Nobel Prize winning scientists we still promote a pre-Newtonian worldview irrelevant in our post-Einsteinian world.
But I haven’t given up all hope. There must be Jewish heretics out there burning with a new Judaism that will enflame our people with a new, creative, and intrinsically compelling understanding of God, Torah, and Israel. No, I’m not one of them. I’m too old, too jaded, and I’ve read too much Krishnamurti.
Why don’t we hear from them? Because they don’t have the means to unleash their memes. Those with new ideas have no funds, and those with funds are afraid of new ideas.
Instead of funding life support for the dying Judaism of the rabbis, we ought to be funding think tanks for heresies, and training camps for heretics. Sure, most of these will fail, but some might catch on, and even those that don’t may, in their dying, give rise to something even more heretical and enlivening, that we might again exclaim, “Judaism is dead. Long live Judaism!”
Will we? I doubt it. And Judaism will spiral ever faster into obsolescence. Jews will live, but we just won’t remember what for.
The fact that Judaism is dying doesn’t worry me. It has died before. What worries me is that this time it may stay dead.
In the past the death of one Judaism was followed by the birth of another. The death of the shamanic Judaism of Abraham was followed by the birth of the priestly and sacrificial Judaism of Aaron. The death of sacrificial Judaism was heralded by prophetic Judaism and followed by rabbinic Judaism. Now rabbinic Judaism is dying, and there is nothing to come after it.
Rabbinic Judaism is dying because its foundational idea—that God gave Moses two Torahs on Mount Sinai (one Written, one Oral) over which only rabbis have authority—is dying. Indeed for most Jews it is already dead.
We know it is dying because most Jews, perhaps the majority of Jews, do not take halacha (Jewish law) seriously; and most of those who do pick and choose among the mitzvot (divine commandments) and adapt them to their personal lifestyles. A Judaism of personal choice and convenience is not what the rabbis had in mind.
Rabbinic Judaism is a Judaism not of orthodoxy but orthopraxy, not of one mind but one practice. Conformity of behavior rather than conformity of thought was their concern. “Think what you want, and do what we say” was the unofficial rabbinic motto. But today most Jews do what their rabbi says only if the rabbi says what they want to hear. And if she or he doesn’t, they will change rabbis until they find one who does.
The death of rabbinic Judaism has been coming for quite a while, and a number of Judaisms have contended to replace it. All of them have failed.
Zionism failed because, as it turns out, most Jews have no desire to live in a Jewish state or serve in a Jewish army, and because, having sold its soul to the most Orthodox among us, Zionism has nothing but archeology to offer Jews as an alternative to rabbinic Judaism. Stones a plenty; Tablets, not a one.
Humanistic Judaism failed because it denied God rather than reinvented God. A religion focused on the self alone is too narcissistic to be spiritually compelling. Gathering together simply to gather together gets old very fast.
Reform Judaism failed because by making the self sovereign over God (you decide which of God’s laws to obey) it pulled the rug out from under rabbis altogether. Rabbinic authority rests on the fiction of the Dual Revelation. When the Torah is no longer binding rabbis are no longer relevant, which is why Reform rabbis are more like Protestant pastors than Talmudic sages.
Conservative Judaism, which sought to maintain the rabbinic conceit of the Talmudic sage by insisting that Jewish Law matters, failed because most Jews outside of Orthodoxy just don’t find a religion of law run by a cabal of lawyers spiritually compelling.
Reconstructionism was a true reinvention of Judaism outside the rabbinic frame, but the bold genius of its founder (and my teacher) Mordecai Kaplan was abandoned for a neo-conservatism that substituted leftist social mores and inclusive community (two good ideas in my opinion) for the radical Emersonian/Taoist reinvention of God and Judaism that was the soul of Kaplan’s heresy. Modern Reconstuctionism’s liturgical innovation of using lots of names for God doesn’t substitute for the fact that, without Kaplan, they have no compelling theology of God.
Jewish Renewal, another Judaism I value, failed because it requires a deep commitment to learning— Biblical, Talmudic, Kabbalistic and Hasidic— in which most Jews have no real interest. Rising in the shadow of its real promise is a pseudo (rather than the much needed and intended neo) Hasidism in which everyone is a rebbe and no one is a hasid, where new age platitudes pass for deep introspection, and hand-clapping and table pounding substitute for true ecstasy.
So what’s left? Orthodox Judaism of one stripe or another, of course. Orthodoxy, like other fundamentalisms, succeeds because it believes what it says and what it says is without nuance and therefore immune to irony and self-doubt. But Orthodoxy, too, has failed because most Jews just cannot take it seriously, and it is impossible to run an empire when everyone knows the emperor has no clothes.
So you can see why I am not hopeful about the future of Judaism. For all our poetic genius our liturgies are, by and large, lifeless and stultifying. For all our education we still lack a compelling vision of a postmodern and post tribal Judaism. For all our creativity our worship is, by and large, dull, predictable, and uninspiring. For all our Nobel Prize winning scientists we still promote a pre-Newtonian worldview irrelevant in our post-Einsteinian world.
But I haven’t given up all hope. There must be Jewish heretics out there burning with a new Judaism that will enflame our people with a new, creative, and intrinsically compelling understanding of God, Torah, and Israel. No, I’m not one of them. I’m too old, too jaded, and I’ve read too much Krishnamurti.
Why don’t we hear from them? Because they don’t have the means to unleash their memes. Those with new ideas have no funds, and those with funds are afraid of new ideas.
Instead of funding life support for the dying Judaism of the rabbis, we ought to be funding think tanks for heresies, and training camps for heretics. Sure, most of these will fail, but some might catch on, and even those that don’t may, in their dying, give rise to something even more heretical and enlivening, that we might again exclaim, “Judaism is dead. Long live Judaism!”
Will we? I doubt it. And Judaism will spiral ever faster into obsolescence. Jews will live, but we just won’t remember what for.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Michael Novak, What Were You Thinking?
Monday’s USA TODAY (July 21st, 2008) featured an essay by conservative columnist Michael Novak entitled Reconciling Evil with Faith. I found the essay so outrageous that I am writing a longer than usual blog as commentary. To be fair, you ought to read Mr. Novak's entire essay for yourself.
Michael Novak writes, “One of the oldest accusations against God in the Bible and in every generation since has been that there is too much evil in this world for there to be a good God… Of course ceasing to be a Jew or a Christian does not wipe these evils away… The rejection of God does not diminish evil in the world by a whit.”
Mr. Novak is absolutely correct. It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or disbelieve in God, evil continues. But what does this fact tell us? Only one thing: what you believe has no bearing on reality.
Mr. Novak continues: “In fact, the turn of Russia and Germany from more or less Christian regimes to boastfully atheist regimes did not lessen, but increased, the number of humans who have horribly suffered, by nearly 100 million.”
Again I am not certain what this fact tells us. Is it that atheists are more barbarian than theists? Or that theists are less technologically sophisticated than atheists when it comes to murdering human beings? And who said Hitler’s Germany was atheistic? In Mein Kamf Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Mr. Novak even enlists atheist science to make a point (though again I am uncertain as to what his point is): “Even under atheistic interpretations of science, the vast suffering under ferocious competition for survival, for a vastly longer era than was known, far exceeds the evils earlier generations knew.”
What does this mean? Is he saying that it is better to believe the world is only 10,000 years old as the Young Earth Creationists argue because then suffering is so much briefer? Is he saying that only atheists believe the world is billions of years old? It seems to me that the only difference between the atheist and the theist on this point is one of semantics. Whether one is an atheist or a theist, one cannot deny the facts of suffering. Given these facts we can either say that nature is a bitch or God is a bastard, depending on our theological leanings. Neither interpretation reduces the suffering Novak admits.
Then he goes on to say, “[T]hose who suffer most from injustice and oppression seem to find more consolation and dignity in the Jewish/Christian faith than in any other worldview.” How does he know this? Buddhism, for example, is all about suffering and the ending of suffering? Can it be that Judaism consoles better than Buddhism?
And it gets worse:
“Judaism and Christianity seem very good religions for those who suffer because they bestow on them justice and dignity. The realistic point of Judaism and Christianity is that suffering is a normal part of every human life.” Is this true? Again Buddhism also says that suffering is natural to human experience, but what it doesn’t say, and what Judaism and Christianity to do, is that suffering is caused by God because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Buddhism makes suffering natural; Judaism and Christianity insist it is the act of a wrathful God.
And as far as Judaism and Christianity bestow justice and dignity on those who suffer, just ask the slaves in Christian Europe and America. Ask the colonized peoples of Africa and India. Ask the Palestinians in the West Bank. Ask those tortured by Americans in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. What Judaism and Christianity seem to do is comfort the afflicted by holding out justice in the next world, while giving this world over to the madness of men and women whose god is more sadistic then they are, and who excuses every evil that they do.
And it gets worse still:
“In fact, the poor also delight in the beauties of God’s creation. On balance, even with their acute suffering, the poor also feel blessed. They sense the rapture of sunlight flashing across lake or ocean, and soft breezes at sunset, and the great starry sky.”
This is obscene! The fact that acute poverty cannot rob human beings of their sense of awe, wonder and mystery is a testament to human soulfulness, but is this a defense of faith? Does the fact that Jews in Nazi death camps managed to find some beauty in a rainbow somehow make the evil of Nazism less evil?
And it gets even worse:
“For Christianity, the interpretive key to this world is the cross—the cross on which the Son of God died. For Judaism, it is the long, long exile and pain of the Jewish people. If God has so treated his only son, and also his own people, why should anyone else expect Easy Street?”
I love this! In other words, if God is a sadistic abusive murderous S.O.B., well, what can you expect? If this isn’t an argument for atheism, I don’t know what is!
And it never ends:
“Worse, the world seen by evolutionary biology alone is even more rife with suffering, yet rather more merciless. That world is characterized by raw chance, accident and the death of about 90% of all species that have ever lived. Perhaps earthquakes, tsunami, tornado, disease and famine derive from chance, and signify nothing.”
Yes, maybe they do, but what is the alternative? If earthquakes, tsunami, tornado, disease and famine do not derive from chance (and they don’t, they derive from the necessities of nature) then they are God’s work and thus signify something horrible, evil, and malign. If nature is blind and shit happens, I can live with that. But if, as Michael Novak seems to imply, God is doing this to people on purpose, we should be tearing down every house of worship to this monstrous deity we can find!
I just don’t see what Mr. Novak thought he was doing with essay. If this was a defense of belief, it failed miserably. If it was an atheistic attempt to recruit new members using reverse psychology, it may have succeeded mightily. I don’t see how anyone reading this piece could continue to believe in God at all. At least not the conventional God of mainstream Judaism and Christianity.
He ends his essay with this, “Whether our lives are meaningless, or not, is not a trivial question.” I agree. This is a question worth asking and exploring. But to assume, as Michael Novak does, that science and atheism (which are not the same: science is a methodology, atheism is an ideology) are somehow on the side of meaninglessness, while God and religion are on the side of meaning is just too much to bear.
Evolution does not make life meaningless! Evolution is the way life develops a level of consciousness capable of discovering meaning; it is the way life becomes self aware and moral; it is the way life comes to think about its Source and Substance. Evolution is the way God manifests in time and space. Evolution is the way God gets to discover Herself and say, “Wow!”
To anyone who wishes to think far more profoundly than USA TODAY gives you credit for, I recommend three books:
Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd,
The View From the Center of the Universe by Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams, and
God and the Big Bang by Daniel Matt.
If I could afford it I’d send copies of each to Michael Novak and invite him to think this through again.
Michael Novak writes, “One of the oldest accusations against God in the Bible and in every generation since has been that there is too much evil in this world for there to be a good God… Of course ceasing to be a Jew or a Christian does not wipe these evils away… The rejection of God does not diminish evil in the world by a whit.”
Mr. Novak is absolutely correct. It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or disbelieve in God, evil continues. But what does this fact tell us? Only one thing: what you believe has no bearing on reality.
Mr. Novak continues: “In fact, the turn of Russia and Germany from more or less Christian regimes to boastfully atheist regimes did not lessen, but increased, the number of humans who have horribly suffered, by nearly 100 million.”
Again I am not certain what this fact tells us. Is it that atheists are more barbarian than theists? Or that theists are less technologically sophisticated than atheists when it comes to murdering human beings? And who said Hitler’s Germany was atheistic? In Mein Kamf Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Mr. Novak even enlists atheist science to make a point (though again I am uncertain as to what his point is): “Even under atheistic interpretations of science, the vast suffering under ferocious competition for survival, for a vastly longer era than was known, far exceeds the evils earlier generations knew.”
What does this mean? Is he saying that it is better to believe the world is only 10,000 years old as the Young Earth Creationists argue because then suffering is so much briefer? Is he saying that only atheists believe the world is billions of years old? It seems to me that the only difference between the atheist and the theist on this point is one of semantics. Whether one is an atheist or a theist, one cannot deny the facts of suffering. Given these facts we can either say that nature is a bitch or God is a bastard, depending on our theological leanings. Neither interpretation reduces the suffering Novak admits.
Then he goes on to say, “[T]hose who suffer most from injustice and oppression seem to find more consolation and dignity in the Jewish/Christian faith than in any other worldview.” How does he know this? Buddhism, for example, is all about suffering and the ending of suffering? Can it be that Judaism consoles better than Buddhism?
And it gets worse:
“Judaism and Christianity seem very good religions for those who suffer because they bestow on them justice and dignity. The realistic point of Judaism and Christianity is that suffering is a normal part of every human life.” Is this true? Again Buddhism also says that suffering is natural to human experience, but what it doesn’t say, and what Judaism and Christianity to do, is that suffering is caused by God because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Buddhism makes suffering natural; Judaism and Christianity insist it is the act of a wrathful God.
And as far as Judaism and Christianity bestow justice and dignity on those who suffer, just ask the slaves in Christian Europe and America. Ask the colonized peoples of Africa and India. Ask the Palestinians in the West Bank. Ask those tortured by Americans in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. What Judaism and Christianity seem to do is comfort the afflicted by holding out justice in the next world, while giving this world over to the madness of men and women whose god is more sadistic then they are, and who excuses every evil that they do.
And it gets worse still:
“In fact, the poor also delight in the beauties of God’s creation. On balance, even with their acute suffering, the poor also feel blessed. They sense the rapture of sunlight flashing across lake or ocean, and soft breezes at sunset, and the great starry sky.”
This is obscene! The fact that acute poverty cannot rob human beings of their sense of awe, wonder and mystery is a testament to human soulfulness, but is this a defense of faith? Does the fact that Jews in Nazi death camps managed to find some beauty in a rainbow somehow make the evil of Nazism less evil?
And it gets even worse:
“For Christianity, the interpretive key to this world is the cross—the cross on which the Son of God died. For Judaism, it is the long, long exile and pain of the Jewish people. If God has so treated his only son, and also his own people, why should anyone else expect Easy Street?”
I love this! In other words, if God is a sadistic abusive murderous S.O.B., well, what can you expect? If this isn’t an argument for atheism, I don’t know what is!
And it never ends:
“Worse, the world seen by evolutionary biology alone is even more rife with suffering, yet rather more merciless. That world is characterized by raw chance, accident and the death of about 90% of all species that have ever lived. Perhaps earthquakes, tsunami, tornado, disease and famine derive from chance, and signify nothing.”
Yes, maybe they do, but what is the alternative? If earthquakes, tsunami, tornado, disease and famine do not derive from chance (and they don’t, they derive from the necessities of nature) then they are God’s work and thus signify something horrible, evil, and malign. If nature is blind and shit happens, I can live with that. But if, as Michael Novak seems to imply, God is doing this to people on purpose, we should be tearing down every house of worship to this monstrous deity we can find!
I just don’t see what Mr. Novak thought he was doing with essay. If this was a defense of belief, it failed miserably. If it was an atheistic attempt to recruit new members using reverse psychology, it may have succeeded mightily. I don’t see how anyone reading this piece could continue to believe in God at all. At least not the conventional God of mainstream Judaism and Christianity.
He ends his essay with this, “Whether our lives are meaningless, or not, is not a trivial question.” I agree. This is a question worth asking and exploring. But to assume, as Michael Novak does, that science and atheism (which are not the same: science is a methodology, atheism is an ideology) are somehow on the side of meaninglessness, while God and religion are on the side of meaning is just too much to bear.
Evolution does not make life meaningless! Evolution is the way life develops a level of consciousness capable of discovering meaning; it is the way life becomes self aware and moral; it is the way life comes to think about its Source and Substance. Evolution is the way God manifests in time and space. Evolution is the way God gets to discover Herself and say, “Wow!”
To anyone who wishes to think far more profoundly than USA TODAY gives you credit for, I recommend three books:
Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd,
The View From the Center of the Universe by Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams, and
God and the Big Bang by Daniel Matt.
If I could afford it I’d send copies of each to Michael Novak and invite him to think this through again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)