To what extent should religion influence your electoral vote? This is the question implicitly raised by the U.S. Catholic bishops in a soon to be released statement entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” Being a “faithful citizen,” of course, means voting in line with the values of the Catholic Church, and not voting for pro-choice or pro-gay marriage candidates.
The statement has yet to be finalized, but Raymond Burke, the Archbishop of St. Louis who announced four years ago that he would not give communion to John Kerry because of his pro-choice views, has already stated that he would deny communion to Rudy Giuliani for the same reason.
This troubles me for two reasons. First, I think the decision to take communion should be between a parishioner and God. Second, if voting for a pro-life or pro-gay marriage candidate is thought to carry some eternal stigma with regard to one’s relationship with God, a conclusion that many Catholics will inevitably draw from the political meddling of their clergy, have the Bishops just pulled off a coup in America?
I have no problem with voters being influenced by their religion and conscience; on the contrary, I fear a country stripped of conscience. But I want people to think for themselves and not be placed under the thumb of a self-appointed ecclesiastical authority that imposes its morality with implicit threats of eternal damnation. That is theofascism, and fascisms of any type are a grave threat to democracy.
Theofascism is growing, and focusing only on its Islamic version allows us to ignore its influence in Israel and the United States.
As an American I am not troubled by the phrase “One nation under God,” but I am troubled by whose god the nation is under. Is it the god of greed worshipped by corporations, the god of endless consumerism worshipped by the average American, the god of war worshipped by many in the government, the god of who seems to be obsessed with gays, guns, and zygotes, or the god of the Hebrew prophets and Jesus who demands universal justice, kindness, and care for the least among us?
Personally, if I have to live in a country under God, I want that god to be the god of Bill W. who always appends the words “as you understand God” to his use of God in his Alcoholics Anonymous program. Theofascism cannot survive the pragmatic polytheism of Bill W., and that is why I support it.
The question we should ask our politicians isn’t, “Do you believe in God,” but “Which God do you believe in, and what are the ethical, moral, and political implications of that belief?” This is a question that feeds democracy and starves theofascism. Too bad no one dares ask it.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
A Torah Free Future
I got a glimpse of the Jewish future this morning, and it is vibrant, caring, global, and Torah-free. I volunteered to work at the United Jewish Community’s 76th General Assembly where the leaders of Jewish Federations and other communal groups gather to learn how to improve their ability to meet the needs of the Jewish community worldwide.
The delegates I met were dedicated, passionate, and devoted to the survival of the Jewish people. We are in good hands. And yet I was troubled by the fact that not a single program was offered in personal spiritual development.
There is a growing national concensus that we need to link social change with inner transformation, yet not a single class or workshop was offered discussing the link between inner and outer change and how to nourish your soul as you go about feeding other people’s bodies. Judaism is as rich in tikkun hanefesh (repairing the soul) as it is in tikkun haolam (repairing the world), yet you wouldn’t know this from the programming at the GA.
But I an outsider to the Federation world, so maybe this is too “new agey.” But where was the chance to study Torah? I understand that the GA is a business conference, but I would think that people who are putting so much money into Jewish education would want to learn a bit at their global convention. Some of the money that was spent bringing in major speakers on politics and Israel could have been used to bring in at least one “A List” scholar. Or, if they wanted to go on the cheap— me!
Yes, there was a 12-Step meeting each morning, and davvenen (prayer) at the appropriate times each day, but most of the delegates were sober and secular, and probably skipped both the meetings and the davvenen. (Please don’t write complaining about the sober allusion. I know AA people are sober; I’m just addicted to alliteration.) I would have liked to see a workshop for delegates interested in learning Jewish contemplative practices such as meditation and chanting, and how to integrate these into their life of service.
I am not blaming anyone for this. It may be that such programming has been tried in the past and was found wanting. It may be that Jewish professionals focused on tikkun haolam are just not interested in tikkun hanefesh. I don’t know, but I worry about a Jewry that is all about the externals of politics and social action. We will survive, but will we thrive? And does a Jewry that is Judaism-free even matter?
The delegates I met were dedicated, passionate, and devoted to the survival of the Jewish people. We are in good hands. And yet I was troubled by the fact that not a single program was offered in personal spiritual development.
There is a growing national concensus that we need to link social change with inner transformation, yet not a single class or workshop was offered discussing the link between inner and outer change and how to nourish your soul as you go about feeding other people’s bodies. Judaism is as rich in tikkun hanefesh (repairing the soul) as it is in tikkun haolam (repairing the world), yet you wouldn’t know this from the programming at the GA.
But I an outsider to the Federation world, so maybe this is too “new agey.” But where was the chance to study Torah? I understand that the GA is a business conference, but I would think that people who are putting so much money into Jewish education would want to learn a bit at their global convention. Some of the money that was spent bringing in major speakers on politics and Israel could have been used to bring in at least one “A List” scholar. Or, if they wanted to go on the cheap— me!
Yes, there was a 12-Step meeting each morning, and davvenen (prayer) at the appropriate times each day, but most of the delegates were sober and secular, and probably skipped both the meetings and the davvenen. (Please don’t write complaining about the sober allusion. I know AA people are sober; I’m just addicted to alliteration.) I would have liked to see a workshop for delegates interested in learning Jewish contemplative practices such as meditation and chanting, and how to integrate these into their life of service.
I am not blaming anyone for this. It may be that such programming has been tried in the past and was found wanting. It may be that Jewish professionals focused on tikkun haolam are just not interested in tikkun hanefesh. I don’t know, but I worry about a Jewry that is all about the externals of politics and social action. We will survive, but will we thrive? And does a Jewry that is Judaism-free even matter?
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Taking Science Seriously
I have been enthralled with science for decades. My 1981 rabbinic thesis, for example, focused on the impact of quantum theory on Jewish thought. It was a very short thesis. Last year I helped create the Mobius Center for Science and Spirituality, a partnership between my One River Foundation and Middle Tennessee State University. As part of Mobius I produced an undergraduate course called “The God of Science and the Science of God” that sought a new paradigm for dialogue between science and religion.
I take science seriously. I honor the scientific method, and do not dispute the truths it reveals. Where science disproves a religious claim, religion must change; hiding from truth behind the wall of scripture is cowardly, and ignoring astronomy, geology, cosmology, and biology in order to hold on to a specific theology is not an act of faith but of foolishness.
I also take religion seriously. Religion is a science in its own right, the science of human transcendence, transformation, and meaning. Where the astronomer uses a telescope and a biologist uses a microscope, the religionist uses poetry, myth, metaphor, and contemplative practice.
Science liberates us from magic. Religion liberates us from despair. And both liberate us from the narrow confines of ego, tribe, etc., to hold out new ways of seeing self and other that provides for a deep and compelling sense of awe and wonder. And then religion goes one step farther.
The step that religion takes that science cannot, is the step into meaning, justice and compassion. Science shows us how life works; religion shows us how best to live it. Science reveals the mind of God, religion reveals God’s heart.
I am of course speaking of religion and science at their best. There is bad science and bad religion. Both share a common trait: refusing to look beyond the biases of the scientist or theologian to see what is rather than what each wants there to be. Good science has reason to fear bad religion, and good religion has reason to fear bad science. But good science and good religion have nothing to fear from one another, for both point toward the ineffable mystery that manifests as reality is all its forms.
The more science I learn, and the more religion I study, the more deep my contemplation, and the more sacred the universe becomes. And the more sacred the universe becomes the more compelled I am to engage life with love. The God that emerges from good science and good religion is not a tribal warlord drooling over the chance to burn unbelievers in Hell, but an all–embracing nonduality delighting in infinite forms and levels of consciousness, surprising Itself now and again with a being that emerges, looks at the enormity of creation and says without the slightest hint of narcissism, “That’s me!”
I want to be that being. Sometimes I am. I wish the same for you as well.
I take science seriously. I honor the scientific method, and do not dispute the truths it reveals. Where science disproves a religious claim, religion must change; hiding from truth behind the wall of scripture is cowardly, and ignoring astronomy, geology, cosmology, and biology in order to hold on to a specific theology is not an act of faith but of foolishness.
I also take religion seriously. Religion is a science in its own right, the science of human transcendence, transformation, and meaning. Where the astronomer uses a telescope and a biologist uses a microscope, the religionist uses poetry, myth, metaphor, and contemplative practice.
Science liberates us from magic. Religion liberates us from despair. And both liberate us from the narrow confines of ego, tribe, etc., to hold out new ways of seeing self and other that provides for a deep and compelling sense of awe and wonder. And then religion goes one step farther.
The step that religion takes that science cannot, is the step into meaning, justice and compassion. Science shows us how life works; religion shows us how best to live it. Science reveals the mind of God, religion reveals God’s heart.
I am of course speaking of religion and science at their best. There is bad science and bad religion. Both share a common trait: refusing to look beyond the biases of the scientist or theologian to see what is rather than what each wants there to be. Good science has reason to fear bad religion, and good religion has reason to fear bad science. But good science and good religion have nothing to fear from one another, for both point toward the ineffable mystery that manifests as reality is all its forms.
The more science I learn, and the more religion I study, the more deep my contemplation, and the more sacred the universe becomes. And the more sacred the universe becomes the more compelled I am to engage life with love. The God that emerges from good science and good religion is not a tribal warlord drooling over the chance to burn unbelievers in Hell, but an all–embracing nonduality delighting in infinite forms and levels of consciousness, surprising Itself now and again with a being that emerges, looks at the enormity of creation and says without the slightest hint of narcissism, “That’s me!”
I want to be that being. Sometimes I am. I wish the same for you as well.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Do Jews Matter?
[This is a summary of a talk I gave this past Friday at Congregation Beth Israel in Northfield, NJ.]
What would the world lose if Jews disappeared tomorrow?
A similar question was asked over two thousand years ago of the High Priest Shimon haTzadik who answered with Torah, Avodah, and Gemilut Chasadim, revelation, worship, and generosity (Avot 1:2). Many years later Rabban Shimon Gamliel responded to the same question with justice, truth, and peace (Avot 1:18).
Given that most Jews know little of Torah, rarely engage in worship, and are not noticeably more generous, just, honest, and peaceful than their neighbors, is there any reason Jews need survive? Of course Jews have a right to exist, but do we have a reason for existing? Do we matter any more?
I answer these questions with an equivocal “yes.” “Yes” because there are things we Jews bring to the world that no else does. And “equivocal” because these things may be fading away.
We Jews bring two things to the world that are desperately needed: a love of paradox and pluralism, and religious humanism. Each of these comes with its own Hebrew catchphrase, and it is through these that I will explore our gifts to the world.
The first is Elu v’elu divrei Elohim Chayyim, this opinion and that opinion are both the words of the Living God. This comes from the Talmud where God declares that the mutually exclusive teachings of the competing rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai are both the words of the living God (Eruvin 13b). If you are not familiar with the Talmudic original, you probably know the street version: “Two Jews, three opinions.”
The Jewish mind is at home with paradox, and multiple and competing truths. We consider it a mark of true intelligence to be able to argue all sides of a case, and a sign of deep humility to grant your opponent’s rightness even as you argue passionately against it. No other civilization is rooted in Elu v’elu. The world needs this broad mindedness. It is the cure for fundamentalisms of all kinds.
Yet I worry that we are losing this trait. Traditional Jewish pedagogy rooted in passionate argument is being replaced by a gentile model of memorizing facts and mouthing well-worn truisms. We are teaching our children what it is to be a Jew rather than how it is. We are teaching content rather than attitude. We need both, but it is the latter that gives us our uniqueness.
The second gift of the Jews is captured in the phrase Lo baShamayyim he, it is not in heaven. The “it” here is mitzvot, the way of godliness. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14 Moses tells us that the way of mitzvah is “not in heaven, that you might excuse yourselves saying, ‘Who can ascend to heaven and get it for us, so that we can listen to it and perform it?’... Rather it is very near to you— in your mouth and your heart— to do it.”
The way of godliness— the way of justice, mercy, and humility as the prophet Micah defined it— is inside you. Don’t look to heaven for answers to your life challenges, look within. Which brings us to the Talmud (Bava Meztia 59b ) where we find the rabbis debating the fitness of an oven.
All but Rabbi Eliezer said the oven was fine. Failing to persuade his colleagues with reason, Eliezer said, “If the halakha (law) is according to me, let that carob tree prove it.” And a nearby carob tree walked across the yard and replanted itself in the ground. But the rabbis said, “What does a carob tree know of the law?”
Eliezer than said, “If the halakha is according to me, let this brook prove it.” And a nearby stream suddenly flipped and flowed in the opposite direction. Again the rabbis replied, “What does a brook know of the law?”
Rabbi Eliezer then said, “If the halakha is according to me, may the walls of this House of Study prove it.” And the walls of the House of Study began to collapse inward upon the rabbis. Rabbi Joshua rose up and rebuked the walls saying, “When rabbis argue with one another on matters of halakha, what right have you to interfere?” Out of respect for Rabbi Joshua the walls ceased to bend inward; and out of respect for Rabbi Eliezer they did not straighten up.
Finally Rabbi Eliezer said, “If the halakha is according to me, may Heaven itself say so!” Just then a heavenly voice cried out, “Why are you arguing with Rabbi Eliezer? He is right on every point!”
Again Rabbi Joshua rose up saying, “Lo baShamayyim he; it is not in heaven! The Torah is ours to decide according to the majority (Exodus 23:2); we do not pay attention to voices from heaven!”
Some time later, Rabbi Nathan met the prophet Elijah and asked him what God had done when rebuked by Rabbi Joshua. Elijah smiled and said, “He laughed and laughed saying, ‘At last! My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me!’”
Defeating God by working out our own understanding of godliness is so alien to most people that they don’t know what to make of it, yet it is just this kind of religious humanism that the world needs; affirming the truth of God while insisting that we work out the details of godliness for ourselves.
Yet are we passing this trait on to our children? When we teach the law are we still open to majority rule or have we made a fetish of tradition? Do we teach a living Torah to be explored or a fixed torah to be imitated? The world around us is based on imitation, worshipping the idols of fashion and following the heavenly voices of loud-mouthed pundits. Were to we turn inward? Yet it is this turning that is so desperately needed. Are we teaching our children to turn or merely to follow?
Elu v’elu and lo baShamayyim he, a love of paradox and religious humanism, are what Jews bring to the table. Yet these are not passed down by blood, but by pedagogy. It is not so much what we learn but how we learn that makes us who we are. Of course we must study Hebrew, history, and sacred text, but if we do so in the manner of the gentiles, choosing fixed truths over the open-ended search for multi-layered and often paradoxical meaning, following external moral absolutes rather than internal ethical prompts, we sacrifice what is most unique and important about us.
In a world being ripped apart by absolutes—religious, political, and economic— we need the open-hearted pluralism of elu v’elu. In a world pushed to the brink of World War IV by men inflamed by heavenly voices, we need the religious humanism of lo baShammayim he. In a world that has forgotten the art of conversation, we need people in love with dialogue. We Jews used to be that people. We can be again.
What would the world lose if Jews disappeared tomorrow?
A similar question was asked over two thousand years ago of the High Priest Shimon haTzadik who answered with Torah, Avodah, and Gemilut Chasadim, revelation, worship, and generosity (Avot 1:2). Many years later Rabban Shimon Gamliel responded to the same question with justice, truth, and peace (Avot 1:18).
Given that most Jews know little of Torah, rarely engage in worship, and are not noticeably more generous, just, honest, and peaceful than their neighbors, is there any reason Jews need survive? Of course Jews have a right to exist, but do we have a reason for existing? Do we matter any more?
I answer these questions with an equivocal “yes.” “Yes” because there are things we Jews bring to the world that no else does. And “equivocal” because these things may be fading away.
We Jews bring two things to the world that are desperately needed: a love of paradox and pluralism, and religious humanism. Each of these comes with its own Hebrew catchphrase, and it is through these that I will explore our gifts to the world.
The first is Elu v’elu divrei Elohim Chayyim, this opinion and that opinion are both the words of the Living God. This comes from the Talmud where God declares that the mutually exclusive teachings of the competing rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai are both the words of the living God (Eruvin 13b). If you are not familiar with the Talmudic original, you probably know the street version: “Two Jews, three opinions.”
The Jewish mind is at home with paradox, and multiple and competing truths. We consider it a mark of true intelligence to be able to argue all sides of a case, and a sign of deep humility to grant your opponent’s rightness even as you argue passionately against it. No other civilization is rooted in Elu v’elu. The world needs this broad mindedness. It is the cure for fundamentalisms of all kinds.
Yet I worry that we are losing this trait. Traditional Jewish pedagogy rooted in passionate argument is being replaced by a gentile model of memorizing facts and mouthing well-worn truisms. We are teaching our children what it is to be a Jew rather than how it is. We are teaching content rather than attitude. We need both, but it is the latter that gives us our uniqueness.
The second gift of the Jews is captured in the phrase Lo baShamayyim he, it is not in heaven. The “it” here is mitzvot, the way of godliness. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14 Moses tells us that the way of mitzvah is “not in heaven, that you might excuse yourselves saying, ‘Who can ascend to heaven and get it for us, so that we can listen to it and perform it?’... Rather it is very near to you— in your mouth and your heart— to do it.”
The way of godliness— the way of justice, mercy, and humility as the prophet Micah defined it— is inside you. Don’t look to heaven for answers to your life challenges, look within. Which brings us to the Talmud (Bava Meztia 59b ) where we find the rabbis debating the fitness of an oven.
All but Rabbi Eliezer said the oven was fine. Failing to persuade his colleagues with reason, Eliezer said, “If the halakha (law) is according to me, let that carob tree prove it.” And a nearby carob tree walked across the yard and replanted itself in the ground. But the rabbis said, “What does a carob tree know of the law?”
Eliezer than said, “If the halakha is according to me, let this brook prove it.” And a nearby stream suddenly flipped and flowed in the opposite direction. Again the rabbis replied, “What does a brook know of the law?”
Rabbi Eliezer then said, “If the halakha is according to me, may the walls of this House of Study prove it.” And the walls of the House of Study began to collapse inward upon the rabbis. Rabbi Joshua rose up and rebuked the walls saying, “When rabbis argue with one another on matters of halakha, what right have you to interfere?” Out of respect for Rabbi Joshua the walls ceased to bend inward; and out of respect for Rabbi Eliezer they did not straighten up.
Finally Rabbi Eliezer said, “If the halakha is according to me, may Heaven itself say so!” Just then a heavenly voice cried out, “Why are you arguing with Rabbi Eliezer? He is right on every point!”
Again Rabbi Joshua rose up saying, “Lo baShamayyim he; it is not in heaven! The Torah is ours to decide according to the majority (Exodus 23:2); we do not pay attention to voices from heaven!”
Some time later, Rabbi Nathan met the prophet Elijah and asked him what God had done when rebuked by Rabbi Joshua. Elijah smiled and said, “He laughed and laughed saying, ‘At last! My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me!’”
Defeating God by working out our own understanding of godliness is so alien to most people that they don’t know what to make of it, yet it is just this kind of religious humanism that the world needs; affirming the truth of God while insisting that we work out the details of godliness for ourselves.
Yet are we passing this trait on to our children? When we teach the law are we still open to majority rule or have we made a fetish of tradition? Do we teach a living Torah to be explored or a fixed torah to be imitated? The world around us is based on imitation, worshipping the idols of fashion and following the heavenly voices of loud-mouthed pundits. Were to we turn inward? Yet it is this turning that is so desperately needed. Are we teaching our children to turn or merely to follow?
Elu v’elu and lo baShamayyim he, a love of paradox and religious humanism, are what Jews bring to the table. Yet these are not passed down by blood, but by pedagogy. It is not so much what we learn but how we learn that makes us who we are. Of course we must study Hebrew, history, and sacred text, but if we do so in the manner of the gentiles, choosing fixed truths over the open-ended search for multi-layered and often paradoxical meaning, following external moral absolutes rather than internal ethical prompts, we sacrifice what is most unique and important about us.
In a world being ripped apart by absolutes—religious, political, and economic— we need the open-hearted pluralism of elu v’elu. In a world pushed to the brink of World War IV by men inflamed by heavenly voices, we need the religious humanism of lo baShammayim he. In a world that has forgotten the art of conversation, we need people in love with dialogue. We Jews used to be that people. We can be again.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Panties for Peace
Whenever I walk by a Victoria’s Secret store I feel sapped of male energy. Women’s underwear to me is what Kryptonite is to Superman. (The green kind, not the red.) I often suspect that this is the “secret” Victoria is keeping from us: women’s underwear is hazardous to men’s health.
For years I thought I was alone in this; in fact it was fear of having panties and bras thrown at me while on stage that prevented me from pursuing a career as a rock star. That and the fact that I suck at playing music, but mostly the panties.
Recently, however, I have discovered that I am not insane, only Burmese. It seems that the men of Myanmar (formerly Burma) believe that coming into contact with women’s underwear saps their strength. Damn straight! Of course I should make it clear that they are talking about women’s underwear sans women. I have no idea what the men of Myanmar experience when they see women wearing underwear. Personally I find women’s underwear with women in them far less frightening than women’s underwear without women in them. I suspect this is true of Myanmar men as well.
Anyway, now that the truth is out regarding the lethal power of panties and bras, a global network is forming to exploit it. People all over the world are shipping packages of panties and bras to Myanmar’s embassies hoping to topple the junta by sapping the strength of the men as then open the packages. This is like sending anthrax to congress people and newscasters, but trust me, women’s underwear is far easier to get.
Ordinarily I shy away from such violence, and given the fact that panties are dangerous to men I hesitate to suggest that men and women join in this effort for fear that men will suffer from handling the underwear, but the junta in Myanmar is evil and the Buddhist priests can’t defeat them alone. Especially since they, too, have no immunity against women’s underwear.
So, tossing caution to the wind, I am forming the Thongalese Liberation Front for the Liberation of Myanmar (TLFFTLOM), urging all my readers to join the “Panties for Peace” campaign and send women’s underwear to the Myanmar embassy nearest you.
Here are some slogans you might incorporate into your mailing: “Lift and Separate: Free the People of Myanmar!” “Thongs for the Memories: Don’t Forget Myanmar!” “Be BRAve!” “BRAvo Buddhists!” “Throw the Panty-loons Out!”
As the CEO of TLFFTLOM I am trying to contact the president of Victoria’s Secret to enlist the support of the company in making public service announcements showing Victoria Secret models taking off their underwear and throwing it at Myanmar embassy officials. But don’t wait for me. Approach your local Victoria’s Secret and speak to the manager about working with you to free the people of Myanmar.
[Warning to men. Do not handle women’s underwear without protection. I am pretty certain the power sapping capacity of the underwear cannot penetrate lead, so you might want to wear colored plastic gloves and aprons made in China.]
For years I thought I was alone in this; in fact it was fear of having panties and bras thrown at me while on stage that prevented me from pursuing a career as a rock star. That and the fact that I suck at playing music, but mostly the panties.
Recently, however, I have discovered that I am not insane, only Burmese. It seems that the men of Myanmar (formerly Burma) believe that coming into contact with women’s underwear saps their strength. Damn straight! Of course I should make it clear that they are talking about women’s underwear sans women. I have no idea what the men of Myanmar experience when they see women wearing underwear. Personally I find women’s underwear with women in them far less frightening than women’s underwear without women in them. I suspect this is true of Myanmar men as well.
Anyway, now that the truth is out regarding the lethal power of panties and bras, a global network is forming to exploit it. People all over the world are shipping packages of panties and bras to Myanmar’s embassies hoping to topple the junta by sapping the strength of the men as then open the packages. This is like sending anthrax to congress people and newscasters, but trust me, women’s underwear is far easier to get.
Ordinarily I shy away from such violence, and given the fact that panties are dangerous to men I hesitate to suggest that men and women join in this effort for fear that men will suffer from handling the underwear, but the junta in Myanmar is evil and the Buddhist priests can’t defeat them alone. Especially since they, too, have no immunity against women’s underwear.
So, tossing caution to the wind, I am forming the Thongalese Liberation Front for the Liberation of Myanmar (TLFFTLOM), urging all my readers to join the “Panties for Peace” campaign and send women’s underwear to the Myanmar embassy nearest you.
Here are some slogans you might incorporate into your mailing: “Lift and Separate: Free the People of Myanmar!” “Thongs for the Memories: Don’t Forget Myanmar!” “Be BRAve!” “BRAvo Buddhists!” “Throw the Panty-loons Out!”
As the CEO of TLFFTLOM I am trying to contact the president of Victoria’s Secret to enlist the support of the company in making public service announcements showing Victoria Secret models taking off their underwear and throwing it at Myanmar embassy officials. But don’t wait for me. Approach your local Victoria’s Secret and speak to the manager about working with you to free the people of Myanmar.
[Warning to men. Do not handle women’s underwear without protection. I am pretty certain the power sapping capacity of the underwear cannot penetrate lead, so you might want to wear colored plastic gloves and aprons made in China.]
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Self, Candy, and Being Present for Halloween
Tomorrow evening is Halloween. I plan to dress up as my self. Not my true Self, there is no costume for that; and not my polished persona, there is little that is scary about that. No, I plan to dress up as my ordinary self: my ego.
What will this look like? The Tasmanian Devil on steroids: a tornado of conflicting thoughts and feelings that change so fast that no one, not even me, can make sense of it.
I will fly up to a neighbor’s door, bang loudly, and when the door is opened scream, “Trick or treat, no wait, treat, treat, treat! No! Tricks just tricks. Gimme candy. And a new Prius and an iMac. Gimme something really cool, but even if you do I won’t care about it two minutes later so you better have something even more cool to give me after that. Oh, forget it. I don’t deserve anything anyway. Just keep your crappy candy. What I really need is a hug and a pat on the head. Good boy. Yeah, say, ‘Good boy,’ that would be nice. But what the hell do you know about me anyway? You don’t know me, so don’t pat my head or kick my butt. And don’t think I won’t kick yours. Who cares about you anyway? Unless you have candy. Gimme candy. And what about that car…”
Long before I finish all this I am certain my neighbor has called 911 or taken a shot at me himself, after all I noticed he subscribes to Guns and Gardens, a new magazine about life in the South (no, I’m not kidding). I don’t blame him. Meeting me would be terrifying, to me as well as to you. But I don’t know you, so I will focus on me.
I hate meeting me. I’m so messy. I try hard not to meet me by staying so busy that there just isn’t time. Yet I do bump into myself once in a while, coming and going; always on the fly or on the run. Never on the sit, which is the one place I really need to schedule the meeting.
So maybe that is what I will do this Halloween. Rather than run next door as me, I might just sit on my meditation cushions and spend some time with me. Which reminds me of a story Roshi Norm Fisher tells about Zen Master Ryon (I’m not certain of the spelling).
The master would call out loud to himself saying, “Rayon!” “Yes, master, here I am!” Rayon would reply. “Pay attention!” “Yes, master, I will.”
This is a good story and an even better practice. Call it Hinneni (Hebrew for Here I Am) practice. This is the way to meet myself: “Rami!” “Yes, rabbi, hinneni, I’m here!” “Pay attention! Don’t get wrapped up in the drama! Do justly! Love mercy! Walk humbly!” “Yes, rabbi, I will.”
My plan now is to sit on my cushions, and call to myself. And then I’ll walk next door and get that candy from my neighbor.
What will this look like? The Tasmanian Devil on steroids: a tornado of conflicting thoughts and feelings that change so fast that no one, not even me, can make sense of it.
I will fly up to a neighbor’s door, bang loudly, and when the door is opened scream, “Trick or treat, no wait, treat, treat, treat! No! Tricks just tricks. Gimme candy. And a new Prius and an iMac. Gimme something really cool, but even if you do I won’t care about it two minutes later so you better have something even more cool to give me after that. Oh, forget it. I don’t deserve anything anyway. Just keep your crappy candy. What I really need is a hug and a pat on the head. Good boy. Yeah, say, ‘Good boy,’ that would be nice. But what the hell do you know about me anyway? You don’t know me, so don’t pat my head or kick my butt. And don’t think I won’t kick yours. Who cares about you anyway? Unless you have candy. Gimme candy. And what about that car…”
Long before I finish all this I am certain my neighbor has called 911 or taken a shot at me himself, after all I noticed he subscribes to Guns and Gardens, a new magazine about life in the South (no, I’m not kidding). I don’t blame him. Meeting me would be terrifying, to me as well as to you. But I don’t know you, so I will focus on me.
I hate meeting me. I’m so messy. I try hard not to meet me by staying so busy that there just isn’t time. Yet I do bump into myself once in a while, coming and going; always on the fly or on the run. Never on the sit, which is the one place I really need to schedule the meeting.
So maybe that is what I will do this Halloween. Rather than run next door as me, I might just sit on my meditation cushions and spend some time with me. Which reminds me of a story Roshi Norm Fisher tells about Zen Master Ryon (I’m not certain of the spelling).
The master would call out loud to himself saying, “Rayon!” “Yes, master, here I am!” Rayon would reply. “Pay attention!” “Yes, master, I will.”
This is a good story and an even better practice. Call it Hinneni (Hebrew for Here I Am) practice. This is the way to meet myself: “Rami!” “Yes, rabbi, hinneni, I’m here!” “Pay attention! Don’t get wrapped up in the drama! Do justly! Love mercy! Walk humbly!” “Yes, rabbi, I will.”
My plan now is to sit on my cushions, and call to myself. And then I’ll walk next door and get that candy from my neighbor.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Spirit, Nature, and Story
[Here is a summary of a short talk I gave as part of an environmentalism conference called Spirit and Nature in September of ’07.]
Judaism loves the earth. In the Bible it, along with all creation, is judged “tov” and “tov meod”: good and very good. In the Psalms we are told that God’s glory permeates creation. In the Wisdom literature we are told to learn from the animals even the ant (Proverbs 6:6). In Jewish mysticism ancient, medieval, and modern creation is God manifest. So Judaism loves the earth. Jews, on the other hand, are something else.
Like every other people, most Jews are driven by fear, greed, alienation, and scarcity consciousness. Like almost every other person on this planet we suffer from the delusion of separateness, dualism, and The Other. The people who teach us “Love your neighbor” have lived in fear of their neighbors for two thousand years. “The people who teach us “Love the stranger” are themselves estranged and afraid. This wasn’t our doing, but it is our reality. It is our psyche wound that we have yet to name, let alone heal.
I know this sounds harsh, but it is necessary if we are to avoid the vapid romanticism that so often permeates meetings such as this one. Don’t romanticize religion or tradition, for all its good there is a concomitant evil. Don’t romanticize indigenous peoples, pretending that they somehow escape the human predicament. This demeans them and is a subtle form of racism. Don’t romanticize nature. She is both wondrous and terrifying. Global warming is not a threat to the earth but to humanity. Gaia will take care of herself and remove four billion of us in the process. This is not going to be pretty.
When we stop romanticizing the earth we will stop demonizing humanity. People are as natural to this planet as the earthworm. Yes, the herd must be thinned, but we still matter. On this planet we are one of the ways, perhaps even the only way, that Gaia gets to see herself and say, “Wow!”
The problem with humanity is that fewer and fewer of us still know how to say, “Wow!” We have lost the capacity to wonder, to stand in awe. We have lost the ability to tremble before infinite manifest in the finite.
To reclaim our capacity to wonder and tremble, we need to regain our capacity to tell stories.
At our core we humans are story–telling animals. It is through story that we make sense of our lives, our world, and ourselves. But our stories have grown stale, and for many, and here I would says Jews suffer greatly, insular. We need a new story of creation that honors what we know from science and provides meaning to human existence. We need a story that spans billions of years rather than six days. We need a story that makes explicit what Genesis leaves implicit: all is God. We need a story that establishes a new tribe, the tribe of the living. Unless and until we humans can tell a new and healing story, all our efforts to live in harmony with Gaia will fail.
Judaism loves the earth. In the Bible it, along with all creation, is judged “tov” and “tov meod”: good and very good. In the Psalms we are told that God’s glory permeates creation. In the Wisdom literature we are told to learn from the animals even the ant (Proverbs 6:6). In Jewish mysticism ancient, medieval, and modern creation is God manifest. So Judaism loves the earth. Jews, on the other hand, are something else.
Like every other people, most Jews are driven by fear, greed, alienation, and scarcity consciousness. Like almost every other person on this planet we suffer from the delusion of separateness, dualism, and The Other. The people who teach us “Love your neighbor” have lived in fear of their neighbors for two thousand years. “The people who teach us “Love the stranger” are themselves estranged and afraid. This wasn’t our doing, but it is our reality. It is our psyche wound that we have yet to name, let alone heal.
I know this sounds harsh, but it is necessary if we are to avoid the vapid romanticism that so often permeates meetings such as this one. Don’t romanticize religion or tradition, for all its good there is a concomitant evil. Don’t romanticize indigenous peoples, pretending that they somehow escape the human predicament. This demeans them and is a subtle form of racism. Don’t romanticize nature. She is both wondrous and terrifying. Global warming is not a threat to the earth but to humanity. Gaia will take care of herself and remove four billion of us in the process. This is not going to be pretty.
When we stop romanticizing the earth we will stop demonizing humanity. People are as natural to this planet as the earthworm. Yes, the herd must be thinned, but we still matter. On this planet we are one of the ways, perhaps even the only way, that Gaia gets to see herself and say, “Wow!”
The problem with humanity is that fewer and fewer of us still know how to say, “Wow!” We have lost the capacity to wonder, to stand in awe. We have lost the ability to tremble before infinite manifest in the finite.
To reclaim our capacity to wonder and tremble, we need to regain our capacity to tell stories.
At our core we humans are story–telling animals. It is through story that we make sense of our lives, our world, and ourselves. But our stories have grown stale, and for many, and here I would says Jews suffer greatly, insular. We need a new story of creation that honors what we know from science and provides meaning to human existence. We need a story that spans billions of years rather than six days. We need a story that makes explicit what Genesis leaves implicit: all is God. We need a story that establishes a new tribe, the tribe of the living. Unless and until we humans can tell a new and healing story, all our efforts to live in harmony with Gaia will fail.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Insult Voter
I am used to reading about Values Voters, Security Moms, and the dozen or so other sub-groupings of Americans who may vote in the 2008 presidential race. Today I would like to add another group to the list: the Insult Voter. The Insult Voter is a Christian Conservative who bashes a candidate’s religion while supporting his or her politics. The best example of an Insult Voter is Bob Jones III of Bob Jones University.
Jones said that while he is “completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism,” he is endorsing the former Massachusetts Governor candidacy. His logic? “What’s the alternative, Hillary’s lack of religion or an erroneous religion?” In other words, better to back a conservative who believes in a lie then a liberal who does not.
Logic aside, some in the press are dumping on Mitt for not defending his faith and rejecting the endorsement. But this isn’t fair. Most people who support Governor Romney now, and most of those who will vote for him in the primaries agree with Bob Jones III that Mormonism is a false religion. They aren’t voting for Mitt because he’s a Mormon, they are voting for him because he is, at least at the moment, pro-God, pro-Guns, pro-Life, and anti-Gay. They’d vote for the Anti-Christ if his politics were red enough, and the Rapture didn’t take them first.
Yet some claim that Mitt’s failure to defend his faith is a sign that he stands for nothing but winning. True he did seem willing to lean “blue” to become the governor of Massablusetts, and now he is leaning red to become president, but every candidate is doing that to one degree or another. Candidates essentially buy votes by backing policies that serve constituencies rather than the nation as a whole. And they stay in power by selling influence to wealthy special interests. So Governor Romney isn’t doing anything unusual here. In fact being able to make a deal with Bob Jones might suggest that Mitt has the capacity to broker agreements with America’s enemies, something our current Crusader in Chief cannot do.
But I think Mitt Romney ignored Bob Jones’ insults for a different reason. Mitt knows that as a good Mormon man he may someday become a god ruling over his own planet. At that point he can take his revenge on anyone he damn well pleases. In the meantime there is the New Hampshire primary to worry about.
Jones said that while he is “completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism,” he is endorsing the former Massachusetts Governor candidacy. His logic? “What’s the alternative, Hillary’s lack of religion or an erroneous religion?” In other words, better to back a conservative who believes in a lie then a liberal who does not.
Logic aside, some in the press are dumping on Mitt for not defending his faith and rejecting the endorsement. But this isn’t fair. Most people who support Governor Romney now, and most of those who will vote for him in the primaries agree with Bob Jones III that Mormonism is a false religion. They aren’t voting for Mitt because he’s a Mormon, they are voting for him because he is, at least at the moment, pro-God, pro-Guns, pro-Life, and anti-Gay. They’d vote for the Anti-Christ if his politics were red enough, and the Rapture didn’t take them first.
Yet some claim that Mitt’s failure to defend his faith is a sign that he stands for nothing but winning. True he did seem willing to lean “blue” to become the governor of Massablusetts, and now he is leaning red to become president, but every candidate is doing that to one degree or another. Candidates essentially buy votes by backing policies that serve constituencies rather than the nation as a whole. And they stay in power by selling influence to wealthy special interests. So Governor Romney isn’t doing anything unusual here. In fact being able to make a deal with Bob Jones might suggest that Mitt has the capacity to broker agreements with America’s enemies, something our current Crusader in Chief cannot do.
But I think Mitt Romney ignored Bob Jones’ insults for a different reason. Mitt knows that as a good Mormon man he may someday become a god ruling over his own planet. At that point he can take his revenge on anyone he damn well pleases. In the meantime there is the New Hampshire primary to worry about.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Dinesh D'Souza, A Response
In his essay “A Christian Foundation” (USA Today, October 22, 2007) Dinesh D’Souza argues, “Christianity has shaped the core institutions and values of the USA and the West. Christianity is responsible even for secular institutions such as democracy and science. It has fostered in our civilization values such as respect for human dignity, human rights, and human equality that even secular people cherish.”
While not wrong, Mr. D’Souza’s statement is meaningless. The West was overwhelmingly Christian, so of course the heroes of the Western democracy and science were Christian, but so too were the despots and madmen. Substitute “white men” for “Christianity” in his argument and, while still true, its silliness becomes even clearer. The fact that people of European Christian heritage brought us democracy and science does not mean that Christianity supported either.
For example, Roman Catholicism, and the Anglican and Lutheran churches supported the divine right of kings, not democracy; and Calvinist churches sought only to limit the king’s power not end it. And while it is true that the Puritans sought to escape the Anglican theocracy of Britain, they did not extend freedom of thought or worship to those who disagreed with them, and set up their own theocracies in America.
Regarding science Mr. D’Souza says, “The greatest scientists of the West…were Christians,” and lists Copernicus and Galileo to prove his point. Again this is meaningless! Copernicus feared death at the hands of the Inquisition if he published his theory that the earth orbits the sun. And when his “Revolution of the Celestial Spheres” was published after his death, the Church put it on its Index of Prohibited Books. And Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to recant his findings because they went against church doctrine, and then spent that last years of his life under house arrest. While Christian scientists struggled on in search of truth, they did so without the blessing of Christianity.
D’Souza then turns to the self-evident notion that “all men are created equal.” This, D’Souza claims, was only self-evident in Christian countries where “[e]very life has a worth no greater and no lesser than any other.” Ask Jews in Christian Europe if they were of equal worth. Ask Native Americans. Ask Africans slaves. Ask Indians. Ask women.
To prove the superiority of Christian civilization D’Souza then says, “Greek and Roman culture was built on slavery” implying that Christian culture was not. Talk about denial! Not only was America built on slavery; the overwhelmingly Christian South went to war because it was certain it could not survive without it. Yes, many devote Christians were passionate abolitionists, but Christian slaveholders were equally devote, and both justified their positions by citing their Christian values.
According to Mr. D’Souza, since Americans were (and are) overwhelmingly Christian, all things American are rooted in Christianity. Following this line of reasoning we could argue that Christianity is also responsible for slavery, the Civil War, the KKK, genocide against Native Americans, and racism. This wouldn’t be wrong, but it would be totally misleading.
I sympathize with Mr. D’Souza’s desire to defend his faith, but to do so in such an intellectually disingenuous manner does more harm than good.
While not wrong, Mr. D’Souza’s statement is meaningless. The West was overwhelmingly Christian, so of course the heroes of the Western democracy and science were Christian, but so too were the despots and madmen. Substitute “white men” for “Christianity” in his argument and, while still true, its silliness becomes even clearer. The fact that people of European Christian heritage brought us democracy and science does not mean that Christianity supported either.
For example, Roman Catholicism, and the Anglican and Lutheran churches supported the divine right of kings, not democracy; and Calvinist churches sought only to limit the king’s power not end it. And while it is true that the Puritans sought to escape the Anglican theocracy of Britain, they did not extend freedom of thought or worship to those who disagreed with them, and set up their own theocracies in America.
Regarding science Mr. D’Souza says, “The greatest scientists of the West…were Christians,” and lists Copernicus and Galileo to prove his point. Again this is meaningless! Copernicus feared death at the hands of the Inquisition if he published his theory that the earth orbits the sun. And when his “Revolution of the Celestial Spheres” was published after his death, the Church put it on its Index of Prohibited Books. And Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to recant his findings because they went against church doctrine, and then spent that last years of his life under house arrest. While Christian scientists struggled on in search of truth, they did so without the blessing of Christianity.
D’Souza then turns to the self-evident notion that “all men are created equal.” This, D’Souza claims, was only self-evident in Christian countries where “[e]very life has a worth no greater and no lesser than any other.” Ask Jews in Christian Europe if they were of equal worth. Ask Native Americans. Ask Africans slaves. Ask Indians. Ask women.
To prove the superiority of Christian civilization D’Souza then says, “Greek and Roman culture was built on slavery” implying that Christian culture was not. Talk about denial! Not only was America built on slavery; the overwhelmingly Christian South went to war because it was certain it could not survive without it. Yes, many devote Christians were passionate abolitionists, but Christian slaveholders were equally devote, and both justified their positions by citing their Christian values.
According to Mr. D’Souza, since Americans were (and are) overwhelmingly Christian, all things American are rooted in Christianity. Following this line of reasoning we could argue that Christianity is also responsible for slavery, the Civil War, the KKK, genocide against Native Americans, and racism. This wouldn’t be wrong, but it would be totally misleading.
I sympathize with Mr. D’Souza’s desire to defend his faith, but to do so in such an intellectually disingenuous manner does more harm than good.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Is Peace Possible?
[This is the text for a speech I plan to deliver this morning at Christ Community Church in Grand Haven, MI.]
Is peace possible? Not simply the absence of conflict, but true peace, the ability to engage life without anger, greed, jealousy, or hostility of any kind? Or are we doomed by our very nature to war, inner and outer?
I am not asking for an opinion or a conviction, but for an investigation. You may think one way or another, but your thinking is conditioned by your parents and peers, your religion and your politics. You may have been taught that peace is possible, and you may have spent your life cultivating it personally, professionally, and politically, but this doesn’t mean peace is really possible, only that you have been conditioned to think so. Or the opposite may be the case: you were taught that life is a zero-sum game; that if you are going to win others must lose; and that the only way to win is to grab all you can when you can regardless of the consequences.
I was taught the latter. I was taught that life is war, and I am warrior, albeit not a very effective one. My personality isn’t geared for war. I dislike conflict and shy away from it whenever possible. I would rather surrender my slice of pie than defend it. Of course there are limits; there are things for which I will rally, but I prize quiet and calm and being left alone too much to fight for much.
But quiet isn’t peace. The silence of guns and gangs isn’t peace. Being left alone isn’t peace. The battles continue in my own mind, and as long as there is war inside, there will be war outside.
So I am asking, can you be peace? I cannot answer this for you, I can only explore it for myself, and ask that you do the same. So lets look at this for a moment.
I am not peaceful now. I am even at this very moment a jumble of conflicting stories, drives, passions, longings, hungers, etc. To end this inner turmoil is only to add another conflict to the mix. It is bad enough that I am at war internally, now I must be at war with the fact that I am at war. I must declare war on my warring nature. I must defeat my desire to defeat. This is simply more of the same thing.
So, is peace possible? Not if I define peace as being other than I am. Yet if I simply accept what I am and act on it, that is not peace either. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t. A classic double bind.
Double binds are the gateway to transformation. The key is to learn to hold reality in a larger context, a bigger mind. Can I simply make room for war without identifying with it? Can I realize that anger, greed, jealously, hatred, fear, and the rest are a part of me, but not all of me? Can I allow them space without allowing them to define me?
This isn’t peace. This is freedom. Freedom allows me to engage the moment in a manner unscripted by my psychological, political, and religious conditioning. I can’t say in advance what this engagement will look life. There is only the truth of the moment. But coming from freedom rather than conditioning I suspect that compassion rather than conflict will be the norm.
Freedom isn’t won. That is another war. Freedom isn’t cultivated, or earned. That is more struggle. Freedom is here and now if you simply look at the reality within you. There is no awakening, or enlightenment, or salvation, or transformation. All these are trapped in linear time, and time implies change and change means conflict as you move from one way of being to another which you imagine is better.
Forget better and worse. Forget peace and conflict. Forget being other than you are. Simply see all that you are. The one who sees is free from what is seen. And that makes all the difference.
Is peace possible? No. Conflict is systemic to the human ego. Is freedom possible? Yes. There is something greater than the ego. And that something is the real you. Live from that.
Is peace possible? Not simply the absence of conflict, but true peace, the ability to engage life without anger, greed, jealousy, or hostility of any kind? Or are we doomed by our very nature to war, inner and outer?
I am not asking for an opinion or a conviction, but for an investigation. You may think one way or another, but your thinking is conditioned by your parents and peers, your religion and your politics. You may have been taught that peace is possible, and you may have spent your life cultivating it personally, professionally, and politically, but this doesn’t mean peace is really possible, only that you have been conditioned to think so. Or the opposite may be the case: you were taught that life is a zero-sum game; that if you are going to win others must lose; and that the only way to win is to grab all you can when you can regardless of the consequences.
I was taught the latter. I was taught that life is war, and I am warrior, albeit not a very effective one. My personality isn’t geared for war. I dislike conflict and shy away from it whenever possible. I would rather surrender my slice of pie than defend it. Of course there are limits; there are things for which I will rally, but I prize quiet and calm and being left alone too much to fight for much.
But quiet isn’t peace. The silence of guns and gangs isn’t peace. Being left alone isn’t peace. The battles continue in my own mind, and as long as there is war inside, there will be war outside.
So I am asking, can you be peace? I cannot answer this for you, I can only explore it for myself, and ask that you do the same. So lets look at this for a moment.
I am not peaceful now. I am even at this very moment a jumble of conflicting stories, drives, passions, longings, hungers, etc. To end this inner turmoil is only to add another conflict to the mix. It is bad enough that I am at war internally, now I must be at war with the fact that I am at war. I must declare war on my warring nature. I must defeat my desire to defeat. This is simply more of the same thing.
So, is peace possible? Not if I define peace as being other than I am. Yet if I simply accept what I am and act on it, that is not peace either. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t. A classic double bind.
Double binds are the gateway to transformation. The key is to learn to hold reality in a larger context, a bigger mind. Can I simply make room for war without identifying with it? Can I realize that anger, greed, jealously, hatred, fear, and the rest are a part of me, but not all of me? Can I allow them space without allowing them to define me?
This isn’t peace. This is freedom. Freedom allows me to engage the moment in a manner unscripted by my psychological, political, and religious conditioning. I can’t say in advance what this engagement will look life. There is only the truth of the moment. But coming from freedom rather than conditioning I suspect that compassion rather than conflict will be the norm.
Freedom isn’t won. That is another war. Freedom isn’t cultivated, or earned. That is more struggle. Freedom is here and now if you simply look at the reality within you. There is no awakening, or enlightenment, or salvation, or transformation. All these are trapped in linear time, and time implies change and change means conflict as you move from one way of being to another which you imagine is better.
Forget better and worse. Forget peace and conflict. Forget being other than you are. Simply see all that you are. The one who sees is free from what is seen. And that makes all the difference.
Is peace possible? No. Conflict is systemic to the human ego. Is freedom possible? Yes. There is something greater than the ego. And that something is the real you. Live from that.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
A Religious Litmus Test
For a nation that supposedly separates Church and State, it is both sad and ironic that we have a religious litmus test for those who wish to become President of the United States.
The test is an odd one, however. First you have to belong to a religion that doesn’t make most Americans nervous. At the moment that means Christianity and Judaism (Islam has made it into Congress, but it will take awhile to get beyond that). Belonging to Wicca or Santeria, for example, will probably keep you out of the Oval Office, for the foreseeable future.
Second you have to be willing to deny your faith in public: not deny that you are a believer, only deny that being a believer matters when it comes to being president: “While I have my personal beliefs, I seek to be president of all Americans, and will not foist my beliefs on others.” And with that we are all supposed to sigh with relief.
A president who can turn off his or her personal convictions for political gain, however, troubles me. If you really believe abortion is murder, then stand up, say so, and try to have it made illegal. I can respect that. But waffling on morality makes me nervous.
If we are going to have a religious litmus test let’s find out exactly what our presidential candidates believe. I would like to see presidential debate moderates ask the following questions:
“Is it true, Governor Romney, that as a Mormon you believe God has a wife?”
“Those of you who deny evolution in favor of creationism, just how old do you think the earth is?”
“Those of you professing the Christian faith, do you believe that non–Christian Americans are going to burn in hell for all eternity?”
“To those of you who profess to be Catholics, I would like to know how you are willing to risk your eternal soul and support American policies and laws the Catholic Church finds offensive?”
“Do you believe homosexuality is an abomination to God, and how do you feel about woman’s rights and their status within your respective churches?”
I would find the answers to these questions very helpful in making my choice on Election Day. I would not vote for a president who refused to take science seriously. I would not vote for a president who thought I was going to be tormented in hell for all eternity. I would not vote for a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, or surrogate for the Pope. I would not vote for a person who simply accepted religious doctrine without thinking it through and questioning it and coming to her or his own conclusions. In short, I would not vote for a person so totally unlike myself as to make me feel threatened in my own country. But unless we ask these kinds of questions, we won’t know for whom we are voting until it is too late.
The test is an odd one, however. First you have to belong to a religion that doesn’t make most Americans nervous. At the moment that means Christianity and Judaism (Islam has made it into Congress, but it will take awhile to get beyond that). Belonging to Wicca or Santeria, for example, will probably keep you out of the Oval Office, for the foreseeable future.
Second you have to be willing to deny your faith in public: not deny that you are a believer, only deny that being a believer matters when it comes to being president: “While I have my personal beliefs, I seek to be president of all Americans, and will not foist my beliefs on others.” And with that we are all supposed to sigh with relief.
A president who can turn off his or her personal convictions for political gain, however, troubles me. If you really believe abortion is murder, then stand up, say so, and try to have it made illegal. I can respect that. But waffling on morality makes me nervous.
If we are going to have a religious litmus test let’s find out exactly what our presidential candidates believe. I would like to see presidential debate moderates ask the following questions:
“Is it true, Governor Romney, that as a Mormon you believe God has a wife?”
“Those of you who deny evolution in favor of creationism, just how old do you think the earth is?”
“Those of you professing the Christian faith, do you believe that non–Christian Americans are going to burn in hell for all eternity?”
“To those of you who profess to be Catholics, I would like to know how you are willing to risk your eternal soul and support American policies and laws the Catholic Church finds offensive?”
“Do you believe homosexuality is an abomination to God, and how do you feel about woman’s rights and their status within your respective churches?”
I would find the answers to these questions very helpful in making my choice on Election Day. I would not vote for a president who refused to take science seriously. I would not vote for a president who thought I was going to be tormented in hell for all eternity. I would not vote for a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, or surrogate for the Pope. I would not vote for a person who simply accepted religious doctrine without thinking it through and questioning it and coming to her or his own conclusions. In short, I would not vote for a person so totally unlike myself as to make me feel threatened in my own country. But unless we ask these kinds of questions, we won’t know for whom we are voting until it is too late.
Monday, October 15, 2007
What's The Big Idea? Part Three: Anti Up
If you have read parts One and Two of my rant against the Big Idea contest sponsored by the Bronfman Foundation you know that I think the idea is well meaning and doomed. There is no Big Idea that will transform American Jewry because American Jews just don’t care about Judaism all that much. Sure it’s nice to know that we’re The Chosen, but if the Bid Idea is to get us to be more Jewish, it just isn’t going to happen.
But, once again, I seem to have blogged too soon, and I want to formally apologize to the Bronfmans and their Foundation for not thinking this through more carefully. I now believe that there is a Big Idea out there that can rekindle the Jewish passions and ethnic identity of American Jews. It’s called anti-Semitism.
Think about it. If the Greco-Syrians hadn’t demanded Jews bow down to their god we wouldn’t have had the Maccabean War. If American medical centers had hired Jewish doctors, we wouldn’t have so many Sinai Hospitals.
When the Southern Baptists declared that God doesn’t hear the prayer of Jews, we Jews went ballistic. The fact that most of us don’t pray or even believe in a God who listens to prayer, was irrelevant. The great Satan of Christian anti-Semitism had reared his ugly head, and we would rise to destroy him. Or at least get him to be quiet.
Similarly, the recent statement of the godly Ann Coulter that Jews need to be “perfected,” that is we need to become Christians, got us hot and bothered.
We may not know how to get Jews excited about Judaism, but we do know how to get them feeling Jewish: anti-Semitism works. The Big Idea that the Bronfman Foundation needs to fund, the one sure fire way to get Jews focused on their Jewishness is an all out revival of American anti-Semitism.
We don’t need a messiah, we need an anti-messiah. The Bronfman Foundation should secretly fund a charismatic Christian Rightist who will get America declared a Christian Nation, and set a Christian litmus test for political office holders. He or she will hold public burnings of the Talmud, and lobby Congress to outlaw circumcision, kosher food (I would add Chinese food as well just to be safe), and Seinfeld reruns.
Of course they would have to funnel money into Jewish organizations fighting this puppet madman so that Jews could rally and fight for their religion and ethnic pride. I am certain this would work. I am also certain nothing else can.
But, once again, I seem to have blogged too soon, and I want to formally apologize to the Bronfmans and their Foundation for not thinking this through more carefully. I now believe that there is a Big Idea out there that can rekindle the Jewish passions and ethnic identity of American Jews. It’s called anti-Semitism.
Think about it. If the Greco-Syrians hadn’t demanded Jews bow down to their god we wouldn’t have had the Maccabean War. If American medical centers had hired Jewish doctors, we wouldn’t have so many Sinai Hospitals.
When the Southern Baptists declared that God doesn’t hear the prayer of Jews, we Jews went ballistic. The fact that most of us don’t pray or even believe in a God who listens to prayer, was irrelevant. The great Satan of Christian anti-Semitism had reared his ugly head, and we would rise to destroy him. Or at least get him to be quiet.
Similarly, the recent statement of the godly Ann Coulter that Jews need to be “perfected,” that is we need to become Christians, got us hot and bothered.
We may not know how to get Jews excited about Judaism, but we do know how to get them feeling Jewish: anti-Semitism works. The Big Idea that the Bronfman Foundation needs to fund, the one sure fire way to get Jews focused on their Jewishness is an all out revival of American anti-Semitism.
We don’t need a messiah, we need an anti-messiah. The Bronfman Foundation should secretly fund a charismatic Christian Rightist who will get America declared a Christian Nation, and set a Christian litmus test for political office holders. He or she will hold public burnings of the Talmud, and lobby Congress to outlaw circumcision, kosher food (I would add Chinese food as well just to be safe), and Seinfeld reruns.
Of course they would have to funnel money into Jewish organizations fighting this puppet madman so that Jews could rally and fight for their religion and ethnic pride. I am certain this would work. I am also certain nothing else can.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
AC-JC and the Perfected Jew
Ann Coulter, in a nationally televised interview, said Jews need perfecting. By “perfecting” she means that Jews need Jesus.
AC wants a nation devoted to JC. It would be more convenient and efficient, she said. Pluralism and freedom are messy. And messy is just what the terrorists want. So come on, Heebs, if you are really loyal Americans you will accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
Ann Coulter’s capacity to outrage is in direct proportion to her capacity to make money, so the fact that she said this doesn’t surprise me. I have no intension of picking a fight with her. In fact, I think she has provided us with a wonderful opportunity to gauge the heart of Christian America.
In an age when Christians complain that American Muslims don’t speak up when their coreligionists attack America (verbally and otherwise) it will be interesting to see which if any Christian leaders speak out against the anti-Semitic ravings of one of their own.
Judging from her mock surprise that Jews might be insulted by her notion that they need perfecting, I suspect few true-red Christian will find anything offensive in her comments. After all, as far as they are concerned only Christians are going to heaven, and Jews (along with everyone else outside their self-defined circle of the saved) are damned to hell for all eternity. So what’s to be shocked? We have heard this crap for two thousand years. We should be used to it by now.
But wait, this isn’t supposed to happen in America. George Washington promised us that America not was a Christian nation and would welcome Jews. Thomas Jefferson said there is a wall between church and state that would protect us from state sanctioned religious persecution. America is different.
But America may not be America any more. Driven more by fear than reason, blaming everything from 9/11 to Iraq on Jews and the Israeli Lobby, informed by a media obsessed with ratings, and mistaking decibels for dialogue, we are a people more and more willing to sacrifice our values to secure our vices. As we move closer to electing a new president we seem to be thoughtlessly condoning increased levels of homophobia, misogyny, and racism. We are afraid to stand up for what we used to stand for, and toss our civil rights aside for fear of being soft on terrorism.
Ann Coulter certainly isn’t soft on terrorism, and neither is her Jesus. The Jesus Ms. Coulter wants us Jews to accept is more about the Kingdom of Greed than the Kingdom of God. He is more about sanctioning war than preaching peace. He is a Christ of conformity who wants a nation of June and Ward Cleevers. He is a Jesus whose baptism is water boarding, and whose sacrament is swallowing our conscience.
I hope to hear a lot of good Christians decrying Ann’s anti-Semitism. I won’t be surprised if I don’t. Sad, but not surprised.
AC wants a nation devoted to JC. It would be more convenient and efficient, she said. Pluralism and freedom are messy. And messy is just what the terrorists want. So come on, Heebs, if you are really loyal Americans you will accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
Ann Coulter’s capacity to outrage is in direct proportion to her capacity to make money, so the fact that she said this doesn’t surprise me. I have no intension of picking a fight with her. In fact, I think she has provided us with a wonderful opportunity to gauge the heart of Christian America.
In an age when Christians complain that American Muslims don’t speak up when their coreligionists attack America (verbally and otherwise) it will be interesting to see which if any Christian leaders speak out against the anti-Semitic ravings of one of their own.
Judging from her mock surprise that Jews might be insulted by her notion that they need perfecting, I suspect few true-red Christian will find anything offensive in her comments. After all, as far as they are concerned only Christians are going to heaven, and Jews (along with everyone else outside their self-defined circle of the saved) are damned to hell for all eternity. So what’s to be shocked? We have heard this crap for two thousand years. We should be used to it by now.
But wait, this isn’t supposed to happen in America. George Washington promised us that America not was a Christian nation and would welcome Jews. Thomas Jefferson said there is a wall between church and state that would protect us from state sanctioned religious persecution. America is different.
But America may not be America any more. Driven more by fear than reason, blaming everything from 9/11 to Iraq on Jews and the Israeli Lobby, informed by a media obsessed with ratings, and mistaking decibels for dialogue, we are a people more and more willing to sacrifice our values to secure our vices. As we move closer to electing a new president we seem to be thoughtlessly condoning increased levels of homophobia, misogyny, and racism. We are afraid to stand up for what we used to stand for, and toss our civil rights aside for fear of being soft on terrorism.
Ann Coulter certainly isn’t soft on terrorism, and neither is her Jesus. The Jesus Ms. Coulter wants us Jews to accept is more about the Kingdom of Greed than the Kingdom of God. He is more about sanctioning war than preaching peace. He is a Christ of conformity who wants a nation of June and Ward Cleevers. He is a Jesus whose baptism is water boarding, and whose sacrament is swallowing our conscience.
I hope to hear a lot of good Christians decrying Ann’s anti-Semitism. I won’t be surprised if I don’t. Sad, but not surprised.
Friday, October 12, 2007
What's The Big Idea? Part Two: Annointing a Secular Messiah
I have been giving more thought to the Bronfman Foundation’s contest to find the Big Idea that will transform American Judaism, and the more I think about it the more I pity the winner.
In effect the Foundation will anoint a secular messiah, set her or him on an academic throne for two years, and pay her to perfect the Big Idea. Can you imagine the stress this person will be under? The winning idea is supposed to change everything, to create a Judaism that will capture the imagination of millions of Jews, and it must be produced under the pressure of peer review, foundation watchdogs, and unrelenting media attention: “Have you got IT yet? Have we been transformed yet? Are we there yet? Huh, Mommy? Are we?”
And when it doesn’t work, and it won’t, what happens to our anointed one then?
Why won’t it work? Because we American Jews don’t want to be transformed. We like things just the way they are.
Think about it. If we wanted a more mystical Judaism, we could join CHaBaD Hasidism or Jewish Renewal. If we wanted a more secular Judaism we could join the Society for Humanistic Judaism. If we want a lot of tradition we have Orthodox Judaism, if we want less tradition we can try Conservative or Reform Judaisms. If we want to blend progressive humanist values with tradition we can become Reconstructionist Jews. And if we want Zionism we can make aliyah to Israel. There isn’t anything missing from our options. There is no Big Idea out there.
But even if there were such a Big Idea and a Bigger Brain to think it, it would never last the two years at Brandeis the Foundation is giving the winner to produce it. Why? Because we Jews are hyper-critical. We would pick the idea apart so viciously that the Thinker would have to rethink it so often that she would forget what the original idea was in the first place. Look at me: I am criticizing the very idea of a Big Idea. Just think what I will do to the poor sap who wins the Messiah contest? I will crucify him, and I promise you I won’t be alone.
In effect the Foundation will anoint a secular messiah, set her or him on an academic throne for two years, and pay her to perfect the Big Idea. Can you imagine the stress this person will be under? The winning idea is supposed to change everything, to create a Judaism that will capture the imagination of millions of Jews, and it must be produced under the pressure of peer review, foundation watchdogs, and unrelenting media attention: “Have you got IT yet? Have we been transformed yet? Are we there yet? Huh, Mommy? Are we?”
And when it doesn’t work, and it won’t, what happens to our anointed one then?
Why won’t it work? Because we American Jews don’t want to be transformed. We like things just the way they are.
Think about it. If we wanted a more mystical Judaism, we could join CHaBaD Hasidism or Jewish Renewal. If we wanted a more secular Judaism we could join the Society for Humanistic Judaism. If we want a lot of tradition we have Orthodox Judaism, if we want less tradition we can try Conservative or Reform Judaisms. If we want to blend progressive humanist values with tradition we can become Reconstructionist Jews. And if we want Zionism we can make aliyah to Israel. There isn’t anything missing from our options. There is no Big Idea out there.
But even if there were such a Big Idea and a Bigger Brain to think it, it would never last the two years at Brandeis the Foundation is giving the winner to produce it. Why? Because we Jews are hyper-critical. We would pick the idea apart so viciously that the Thinker would have to rethink it so often that she would forget what the original idea was in the first place. Look at me: I am criticizing the very idea of a Big Idea. Just think what I will do to the poor sap who wins the Messiah contest? I will crucify him, and I promise you I won’t be alone.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
What's The Big Idea?
Everybody loves a magic bullet; even people who should know better. The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Foundation, one of the most innovative and generous Jewish philanthropies, is looking for the “killer app” that will transform Jewish life. The Foundation is offering a two-year gig at Brandeis and a six-figure salary to the person with the next Big Idea. I have no doubt they will find one, and no doubt it will fail.
The project is offered in the spirit of the 1929 effort by then Sears Roebuck and Company chairman Julius Rosenwald who offered $10,000 to the person who could best answer the question, “How can Judaism best adjust itself to and influence modern life?” The winner was Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, my teacher, hero, and founder of Reconstructionist Judaism.
Is Bronfman looking for the next Kaplan? I hope so. MK was one of the most radical Jewish thinkers of all time, redefining “Who is a Jew” and “What is God” in drastically humanistic ways that did much to change Judaism over the ensuing decades. But the fact that few people today know who Kaplan is, and that the Reconstructionist movement itself is no longer Kaplanian or even neo-Kaplanian in its orientation suggests that no one person, no matter how brilliant, can trigger a real transformation of Jewish life.
It is not that Judaism lacks big ideas and geniuses to think them; it is that the day of the Big Idea for social transformation has passed. Even the Internet, the last great transformation trigger, was not one Big Idea of a many Big Ideas and many more little ones. The Internet birthed a continuing revolution, something Judaism needs but most likely cannot sustain. Indeed, the Bronfman idea of putting the Big Idea in a book and the Big Thinker at Brandeis will render both irrelevant a week after the New York Times prints its book review.
Judaism needs a drastic revolution akin to the rabbinic reinvention of Judaism following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. But it takes a disaster to trigger such a revolution, and Jews don’t take Judaism seriously enough to experience a disaster. The only disaster that would register in the minds of most Jews is an all out military attack on Israel’s survival, and that disaster would trigger a nuclear war that will make concerns about Jewish survival pale to insignificance.
The Bronfman Foundation shouldn’t be seeking to tap the wisdom of one Jew, but the wisdom of the Jewish crowd. My suggestion would be to create an on-line Jewish think-tank that invites Jews to solve their own problems without looking to a Big Thinker or any other authority figure.
It just so happens that I am working on this idea through www.simplyjewish.com (forthcoming). It will be a place where Jews are invited to solve the challenges of Jewish life not by finding one solution but by experimenting with many. I will write more about this when the site is up and running (which means when I get some serious money to build it, so don’t hold your breath). In the meantime, I’m praying that the Bronfman’s find another Mordecai Kaplan.
The project is offered in the spirit of the 1929 effort by then Sears Roebuck and Company chairman Julius Rosenwald who offered $10,000 to the person who could best answer the question, “How can Judaism best adjust itself to and influence modern life?” The winner was Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, my teacher, hero, and founder of Reconstructionist Judaism.
Is Bronfman looking for the next Kaplan? I hope so. MK was one of the most radical Jewish thinkers of all time, redefining “Who is a Jew” and “What is God” in drastically humanistic ways that did much to change Judaism over the ensuing decades. But the fact that few people today know who Kaplan is, and that the Reconstructionist movement itself is no longer Kaplanian or even neo-Kaplanian in its orientation suggests that no one person, no matter how brilliant, can trigger a real transformation of Jewish life.
It is not that Judaism lacks big ideas and geniuses to think them; it is that the day of the Big Idea for social transformation has passed. Even the Internet, the last great transformation trigger, was not one Big Idea of a many Big Ideas and many more little ones. The Internet birthed a continuing revolution, something Judaism needs but most likely cannot sustain. Indeed, the Bronfman idea of putting the Big Idea in a book and the Big Thinker at Brandeis will render both irrelevant a week after the New York Times prints its book review.
Judaism needs a drastic revolution akin to the rabbinic reinvention of Judaism following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. But it takes a disaster to trigger such a revolution, and Jews don’t take Judaism seriously enough to experience a disaster. The only disaster that would register in the minds of most Jews is an all out military attack on Israel’s survival, and that disaster would trigger a nuclear war that will make concerns about Jewish survival pale to insignificance.
The Bronfman Foundation shouldn’t be seeking to tap the wisdom of one Jew, but the wisdom of the Jewish crowd. My suggestion would be to create an on-line Jewish think-tank that invites Jews to solve their own problems without looking to a Big Thinker or any other authority figure.
It just so happens that I am working on this idea through www.simplyjewish.com (forthcoming). It will be a place where Jews are invited to solve the challenges of Jewish life not by finding one solution but by experimenting with many. I will write more about this when the site is up and running (which means when I get some serious money to build it, so don’t hold your breath). In the meantime, I’m praying that the Bronfman’s find another Mordecai Kaplan.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The End of Judeo-Christian
New times often require new language, and while I am not going to coin a term in this essay, I am going to suggest we retire one and replace it with another.
The term I wish to retire is “Judeo–Christian.” The term with which I want to replace it is “Abrahamic.”
I recently participated in an interfaith panel on community building. As I listened to several wise and well–meaning Christian speakers share their thoughts on the matter I cringed every time they used the word “Judeo–Christian” to refer to the values Jews and Christians share. First of all, the values they cited were no less Buddhist and humanist than Jewish or Christian, and, second, the term Judeo-Christian is insulting to Jews and Muslims alike.
It is insulting to Jews because it makes Judaism an appendage of Christianity, something many Christians believe it to be, and something no Jew would accept. Judaism is a religion in its own right. It doesn’t need to be completed by Christianity any more than Christianity needs to be completed by Islam. So, if for no other reason, let’s retire the term because it is insulting to Judaism. But there is another reason.
The other reason is that it is time (actually it is long passed time) that Jews and Christians recognize that there are three civilizations with roots in the Hebrew Bible: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. While there are clear differences among them, there are equally clear commonalities, and each traces its roots back to Abraham. By speaking of Judeo–Christian civilization we exclude Islam. By shifting to the term Abrahamic we widen the circle of inclusivity and speak more accurately. And, as we get more used to the term Abrahamic, I hope we will find ourselves encouraged to seek out basic knowledge about the three Abrahamic faiths and thereby find common ground on which to build true community.
But I want to urge caution when using the term as well, especially when it is used to define a set of values. Using the term “Abrahamic values” is not more helpful than Judeo–Christian values. For all his concern for hospitality and justice, Abraham also treated his consort and his sons in ways that would land him in prison today. And Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have and in some cases continue to countenance behavior that most thinking people would find reprehensible and immoral. So when it comes to “Abrahamic values” we must spell out what we mean, and when we do so we shall discover we are talking about a far more universal value set than the term Abrahamic allows.
Language matters. Let us take care to use words that are as accurate and as clear as possible. It is time to retire “Judeo–Christian,” adopt “Abrahamic,” and find a new term for values all humans share.
The term I wish to retire is “Judeo–Christian.” The term with which I want to replace it is “Abrahamic.”
I recently participated in an interfaith panel on community building. As I listened to several wise and well–meaning Christian speakers share their thoughts on the matter I cringed every time they used the word “Judeo–Christian” to refer to the values Jews and Christians share. First of all, the values they cited were no less Buddhist and humanist than Jewish or Christian, and, second, the term Judeo-Christian is insulting to Jews and Muslims alike.
It is insulting to Jews because it makes Judaism an appendage of Christianity, something many Christians believe it to be, and something no Jew would accept. Judaism is a religion in its own right. It doesn’t need to be completed by Christianity any more than Christianity needs to be completed by Islam. So, if for no other reason, let’s retire the term because it is insulting to Judaism. But there is another reason.
The other reason is that it is time (actually it is long passed time) that Jews and Christians recognize that there are three civilizations with roots in the Hebrew Bible: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. While there are clear differences among them, there are equally clear commonalities, and each traces its roots back to Abraham. By speaking of Judeo–Christian civilization we exclude Islam. By shifting to the term Abrahamic we widen the circle of inclusivity and speak more accurately. And, as we get more used to the term Abrahamic, I hope we will find ourselves encouraged to seek out basic knowledge about the three Abrahamic faiths and thereby find common ground on which to build true community.
But I want to urge caution when using the term as well, especially when it is used to define a set of values. Using the term “Abrahamic values” is not more helpful than Judeo–Christian values. For all his concern for hospitality and justice, Abraham also treated his consort and his sons in ways that would land him in prison today. And Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have and in some cases continue to countenance behavior that most thinking people would find reprehensible and immoral. So when it comes to “Abrahamic values” we must spell out what we mean, and when we do so we shall discover we are talking about a far more universal value set than the term Abrahamic allows.
Language matters. Let us take care to use words that are as accurate and as clear as possible. It is time to retire “Judeo–Christian,” adopt “Abrahamic,” and find a new term for values all humans share.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Word Wars
This morning I had this civilized chat with a fellow at a local coffee house:
Him: “Are you going to watch the Republican debates on TV?”
Me: “I doubt it. So far all the debates have been too scripted.”
Him: “But we have to know who to vote for; who thinks like us.”
Me: “You are assuming that you and I think alike.”
Him: “Don’t you? I’m Pro-life, Pro-Guns, Pro-Marriage, and Pro-family. Aren’t you?”
Me: “Yes, I am all of those things, but I wonder if we mean the same things by them. For example: I am Pro-Life. That means that in many cases I favor the life of the mother over the life of the unborn. That means I promote sexual education and the use of birth control. That means I am concerned with environmental sustainability and the survival of species other than my own. That means I am concerned with poverty, and social justice, and global climate change.
And I am Pro-gun. I want to see guns in the hands of responsible people: the police and the military. I want to see that civilian gun owners are trained in the use of firearms and have a license to own them, and that no one but the military and police have access to military-like hardware.
And I am Pro-Marriage. I want to keep the government out of our private lives, and leave marriage up to religion. The state should provide civil unions, and in this there should be no discrimination between gay and straight. If a couple wants a religious marriage they should go to a clergyperson who will provide such a service for them.
And I am Pro-Family, all kinds of families, gay and straight. And…
Him: Whoa! This isn’t what those words mean. You’ve got it all backwards.
Me: That is what they mean to me. If they mean the opposite to you, you should say so. You should ay you are anti-moms, anti-nature, anti-law and order, anti-religion, and anti-family. I would respect that. I just hate it when you take my words and use them for the opposite ends.
Him: Look, we own those words. They mean what we say they mean. We own ‘em because we coined ‘em. We own ‘em because we are the majority and the majority gets to decide what words mean. And you should stop using these words that way.
From here things degenerated into “I know you are, but what am I.” Still, he was a nice guy.
Him: “Are you going to watch the Republican debates on TV?”
Me: “I doubt it. So far all the debates have been too scripted.”
Him: “But we have to know who to vote for; who thinks like us.”
Me: “You are assuming that you and I think alike.”
Him: “Don’t you? I’m Pro-life, Pro-Guns, Pro-Marriage, and Pro-family. Aren’t you?”
Me: “Yes, I am all of those things, but I wonder if we mean the same things by them. For example: I am Pro-Life. That means that in many cases I favor the life of the mother over the life of the unborn. That means I promote sexual education and the use of birth control. That means I am concerned with environmental sustainability and the survival of species other than my own. That means I am concerned with poverty, and social justice, and global climate change.
And I am Pro-gun. I want to see guns in the hands of responsible people: the police and the military. I want to see that civilian gun owners are trained in the use of firearms and have a license to own them, and that no one but the military and police have access to military-like hardware.
And I am Pro-Marriage. I want to keep the government out of our private lives, and leave marriage up to religion. The state should provide civil unions, and in this there should be no discrimination between gay and straight. If a couple wants a religious marriage they should go to a clergyperson who will provide such a service for them.
And I am Pro-Family, all kinds of families, gay and straight. And…
Him: Whoa! This isn’t what those words mean. You’ve got it all backwards.
Me: That is what they mean to me. If they mean the opposite to you, you should say so. You should ay you are anti-moms, anti-nature, anti-law and order, anti-religion, and anti-family. I would respect that. I just hate it when you take my words and use them for the opposite ends.
Him: Look, we own those words. They mean what we say they mean. We own ‘em because we coined ‘em. We own ‘em because we are the majority and the majority gets to decide what words mean. And you should stop using these words that way.
From here things degenerated into “I know you are, but what am I.” Still, he was a nice guy.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Doomed If We Do; Doomed If We Don't
Let’s say, if only for argument’s sake, that there is a Creator God—self conscious, all–knowing, all–powerful, etc.—living somewhere outside of where and when, space and time. Let’s say, again if only for sake of argument, that this God created the world as the Hebrew Scriptures says He did: by sheer will in six days. Or, at the very least, let’s pretend that we are all believers in Intelligent Design admitting that the Bible may not be a science book, but that there is nonetheless a Wise and Intelligent Being beyond creation who initiated and shapes creation.
Given either position one must be ready to answer the question: To what end? Why did God create the heavens and the earth in such a manner as to have them end in total desolation?
There are currently three leading theories regarding the destiny of the universe: Accelerated Expansion, the Big Rip, and the Big Crunch.
Accelerated expansion argues that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and that in time, say 30 billion years from now give or take, everything will be so far away from everything else that you and I will die a dark, cold, death.
The Big Rip is no less appealing. As dark energy continues to strengthen over the next 30 billion years the universe, from atoms to galaxies, will suddenly be ripped apart like a size 34 pair of Dockers trying to hold a size 38 butt as it bends over to tie a shoelace.
And then there is the Big Crunch that argues that dark energy is not growing but fading, and gravity will eventually pull the universe back into the original point from which the Big Bang banged. Perhaps to bang again. Perhaps not.
These are our only options: death, death, or death. You choose. My question is why would God create a world that was doomed? Sure, 30 billion years is a long time, but only to those of us still young enough to enjoy it. What about your great, great, great… grandchild born just a few years from spread, rip, or crunch? What about her? Huh? Don’t you care about her? Doesn’t God care about her?
I guess not. The universe is doomed.
This is why I have decided to believe in the Rapture. It is not enough to get off the planet. The Chinese will eventually have colonies on Mars. We have to get out of the universe, and there is no other way to do this ‘cept the Rapture. According to Rapturists true believers in Jesus will be lifted up to heaven before the earth is destroyed by the Prince of Peace. While this will happen long before the 30 billion year lease on life is up, I am told that those who are raptured will escape the fate of creation.
So, Lord, take me now, or at least sometime in the next 29 plus billion years, ‘cause I certainly don’t want to be here at crunch time.
Given either position one must be ready to answer the question: To what end? Why did God create the heavens and the earth in such a manner as to have them end in total desolation?
There are currently three leading theories regarding the destiny of the universe: Accelerated Expansion, the Big Rip, and the Big Crunch.
Accelerated expansion argues that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and that in time, say 30 billion years from now give or take, everything will be so far away from everything else that you and I will die a dark, cold, death.
The Big Rip is no less appealing. As dark energy continues to strengthen over the next 30 billion years the universe, from atoms to galaxies, will suddenly be ripped apart like a size 34 pair of Dockers trying to hold a size 38 butt as it bends over to tie a shoelace.
And then there is the Big Crunch that argues that dark energy is not growing but fading, and gravity will eventually pull the universe back into the original point from which the Big Bang banged. Perhaps to bang again. Perhaps not.
These are our only options: death, death, or death. You choose. My question is why would God create a world that was doomed? Sure, 30 billion years is a long time, but only to those of us still young enough to enjoy it. What about your great, great, great… grandchild born just a few years from spread, rip, or crunch? What about her? Huh? Don’t you care about her? Doesn’t God care about her?
I guess not. The universe is doomed.
This is why I have decided to believe in the Rapture. It is not enough to get off the planet. The Chinese will eventually have colonies on Mars. We have to get out of the universe, and there is no other way to do this ‘cept the Rapture. According to Rapturists true believers in Jesus will be lifted up to heaven before the earth is destroyed by the Prince of Peace. While this will happen long before the 30 billion year lease on life is up, I am told that those who are raptured will escape the fate of creation.
So, Lord, take me now, or at least sometime in the next 29 plus billion years, ‘cause I certainly don’t want to be here at crunch time.
Friday, October 05, 2007
PC is BS
There are few things more absurd than political correctness. I am listening to an NPR pod cast dealing with religious radicalization of prisoners, both Christian and Muslim. The concern is that prisoners are recruited for terror–prone religious organization, and upon leaving prison, will turn to terrorism in the name of God. The show is interesting and the host and guest are well informed and intelligent.
Then the calls from listeners begin.
One caller says the entire concern is silly because everyone in America is radicalized. To prove his point he sights cheerleaders and their passion for their school’s sports teams. There is no difference between passion for your team and passion for your God and His Team, the caller says.
Had I been the host I would have jumped all over this caller. First, he is mistaking passion for radicalization. It is one thing to cheer your team on and chant for victory, it is another to plant bombs in the opposing team’s locker room. Second he is ignoring the fact that religion, not sports, is responsible for global terror.
What did the host do? He simply deflected the caller’s observation on to his guest, who did his best to justify it. Madness!
Several Muslim callers sought to defend Islam in the prisons, despite the fact that no one was attacking Islam. In the course of doing so, however, they latched on to all kinds of conspiracy theories to claim that so–called Islamic terrorists were in fact US government agents trying to stir up trouble among otherwise peace loving Wahabis.
What did the host do? Nothing. He didn’t ask for evidence to back up this claim, or challenge it in any way. This is worse than madness. This is complicity.
One caller even raised the question why the government might be concerned about Islam which was certainly a religion of peace. No one bothered to point out to the caller that at present the vast majority of active terrorists in the world are Muslims. It may well be that America’s fears of Islam are overblown, but they are in no way unfounded.
What bothers me is the willingness of intelligent people to allow stupidity to pass as legitimate opinion in order to stay politically correct.
When you hear BS call it BS regardless of PC mores. Otherwise there is no hope for intelligent dialogue or democracy. Terrorism won’t silence America, but politically correct cowardess might.
Then the calls from listeners begin.
One caller says the entire concern is silly because everyone in America is radicalized. To prove his point he sights cheerleaders and their passion for their school’s sports teams. There is no difference between passion for your team and passion for your God and His Team, the caller says.
Had I been the host I would have jumped all over this caller. First, he is mistaking passion for radicalization. It is one thing to cheer your team on and chant for victory, it is another to plant bombs in the opposing team’s locker room. Second he is ignoring the fact that religion, not sports, is responsible for global terror.
What did the host do? He simply deflected the caller’s observation on to his guest, who did his best to justify it. Madness!
Several Muslim callers sought to defend Islam in the prisons, despite the fact that no one was attacking Islam. In the course of doing so, however, they latched on to all kinds of conspiracy theories to claim that so–called Islamic terrorists were in fact US government agents trying to stir up trouble among otherwise peace loving Wahabis.
What did the host do? Nothing. He didn’t ask for evidence to back up this claim, or challenge it in any way. This is worse than madness. This is complicity.
One caller even raised the question why the government might be concerned about Islam which was certainly a religion of peace. No one bothered to point out to the caller that at present the vast majority of active terrorists in the world are Muslims. It may well be that America’s fears of Islam are overblown, but they are in no way unfounded.
What bothers me is the willingness of intelligent people to allow stupidity to pass as legitimate opinion in order to stay politically correct.
When you hear BS call it BS regardless of PC mores. Otherwise there is no hope for intelligent dialogue or democracy. Terrorism won’t silence America, but politically correct cowardess might.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
It Pays Not To Sow
Heterosexual intercourse is simple: Insert Tab A into Slot B. Repeat. It is the simplicity of the thing that worries our government. Almost anyone of a certain age can do it, and almost any female of a certain age can become pregnant from doing it. Since the government believes that babies are best born to a couple that has everything in common except gender, they are eager to make sure that Tab and Slot do not meet until man and woman are wed. Hence the millions of federal dollars now being spent to spread abstinence among unmarried adults up to age 29.
Abstinence programs don’t work with younger kids for whom sex is a curiosity, so the government must be thinking that it will work better among twenty-somethings who may not be so curious given the fact that over 90% of them have already had sex.
I love abstinence programs. They are simple, neat, and totally within the control of the people choosing to practice them. The fact that few people choose to practice them is a drawback, but one that is due, so the pro–abstinence faithful tell me, more to human depravity than an error in policy.
The government is concerned about the fact that unwed mothers gave birth to 998.262 babies in 2004. They believe that the only way to effectively reduce this number is to
“just say no” to sex. They are right, of course. Condoms and pills might help but they are not as effective in stopping pregnancy as is avoiding intercourse. To date only one birth to a virgin is on record. So while not 100% fool proof, abstinence is much closer to being so than any other method we know.
To see if this program has a chance in hell of succeeding, I spoke with a variety of university students, most of whom are devote Christians. I did find some who planned to wait until marriage to have sex, and some who had married young in order to have sex, and some who decided that waiting was foolish and that a couple should be sexually compatible before deciding to get married. Most of the sexually active students I spoke with use birth control even if their churches frown on it. While in no way a scientific study, I am pretty confident that abstinence won’t work with the twenty-something crowd any more than it does with teenagers.
When talking about sex, several male students used a farming metaphor: sowing one’s seed. That’s what triggered my own plan to lower the number of out–of–wedlock births. Just as the federal government pays farmers not to sow a variety of seeds, they could pay boys not to sow their seed. This would be a kind of reverse prostitution: you get paid not to have sex.
When I suggested this plan, a number of young men said they would abstain from sexual intercourse for an annual fee of $10,000. I don’t know how this stacks up against traditional farmers, but it seems reasonable. Of course the plan discriminates against women, but a similar discrimination exists among farmers as well. So share this with your government representatives as the election draws and let’s see what happens.
Abstinence programs don’t work with younger kids for whom sex is a curiosity, so the government must be thinking that it will work better among twenty-somethings who may not be so curious given the fact that over 90% of them have already had sex.
I love abstinence programs. They are simple, neat, and totally within the control of the people choosing to practice them. The fact that few people choose to practice them is a drawback, but one that is due, so the pro–abstinence faithful tell me, more to human depravity than an error in policy.
The government is concerned about the fact that unwed mothers gave birth to 998.262 babies in 2004. They believe that the only way to effectively reduce this number is to
“just say no” to sex. They are right, of course. Condoms and pills might help but they are not as effective in stopping pregnancy as is avoiding intercourse. To date only one birth to a virgin is on record. So while not 100% fool proof, abstinence is much closer to being so than any other method we know.
To see if this program has a chance in hell of succeeding, I spoke with a variety of university students, most of whom are devote Christians. I did find some who planned to wait until marriage to have sex, and some who had married young in order to have sex, and some who decided that waiting was foolish and that a couple should be sexually compatible before deciding to get married. Most of the sexually active students I spoke with use birth control even if their churches frown on it. While in no way a scientific study, I am pretty confident that abstinence won’t work with the twenty-something crowd any more than it does with teenagers.
When talking about sex, several male students used a farming metaphor: sowing one’s seed. That’s what triggered my own plan to lower the number of out–of–wedlock births. Just as the federal government pays farmers not to sow a variety of seeds, they could pay boys not to sow their seed. This would be a kind of reverse prostitution: you get paid not to have sex.
When I suggested this plan, a number of young men said they would abstain from sexual intercourse for an annual fee of $10,000. I don’t know how this stacks up against traditional farmers, but it seems reasonable. Of course the plan discriminates against women, but a similar discrimination exists among farmers as well. So share this with your government representatives as the election draws and let’s see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)