Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Twain: "Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion." Tom Robbins: "A sense of humor, properly developed, is superior to any religion so far devised." Salud, gentlemen.
But the article is good all the way through. Many cheers!
If it wasn't for items like this, I don't think Americans would believe that there are other countries at all. *sigh* I guess it's a fair exchange... they read about us more than we think... and our nutballs are impressive these days.
I have to admit that after reading that yesterday, I was going to change my dog's name to Mohammed just because.
What is it about Spanish Catholics naming their sons Jesus, and Muslims naming their kids Mohammed? I understand if they don't want to name a pet by those names because you might end up talking about how "Jesus barfed a hairball in the kitchen" or something similar... but is it any better when a you give that name to a child? "Jesus won't eat his peas" or "Mohammed pooped in his diaper" what is the double standard here?
Does anyone name their kid Buddah? or Confucius? or any of those thousand Hindu names?
Trust me... I'm not trying to argue religion per se. I just thought the article was extremely interesting... especially when the author writes:
"Indeed, the distressed reaction from normal Muslims must be a very similar to what average Christians experience when they hear about yet another loud-mouthed gaggle of Bible zealots using Jesus as a weapon to attack and bash and impede, to go after gays and women and science and sex and terrifying little books about girls and magic dust and talking polar bears."
We were just talking about "The Catholic League" denouncing "Golden Compass." It's a bit of a tangle to explain to the children that fantasy stories are not evil per se... and that "evil" exists, not only in the destruction and degradation of our human physical condition (i.e. the actions of bad people), but also in attempting to control our thoughts (aka the thought police)... we are granted free will to choose good from evil... we are not automatons.
In view of the unfortunate words from the Pope, it would appear from my reading of history that organized religions are not immune from committing the inhuman acts committed by atheists... e.g. history is full of episodes like the Crusades and Inquisition. Perhaps it would be best for the Holy Father to appreciate that not all crimes of humanity are committed by communist tyrants like Mao and Stalin... for that is probably what he was commenting on when he made that comment... i.e. atheists=communists.
All this being said, I believe that the author goes over the top a bit with this next comment (which follows the first quote noted above):
"It's a common Christian lament. It's also a bit bogus, unconvincing, hollow. Because the fact is, the extremists of any religion merely serve to illuminate the fact that there's always something inherently dangerous in giving yourself (and your national identity) over to such divisive, woefully dualistic systems that, no matter what your stance, absolutely insist that man is but a flawed, lustful animal that can never truly know God. Or to put it more crudely: The fanatics may like to pee in the pool, but religion built the damn pool in the first place."
In a world were human beings have free will, it would not be odd to conclude that the author's opinions may not completely mirror my own. In terms of religions, they are as imperfect as their members and yet as they are the expression of a desire to reach out to a "greater good" (i.e. the divine), there will always be a place for them in the hearts of the faithful.
As for "building the pool in the first place..." I must admit that I became truly frustrated in class some months (religious education for adults) back when I tried to explain that good people from every religion as well as good people who lived their lives as agnostics or atheists would find themselves in "heaven" as a part of the love that bonds the "creator" with his beloved children (so says the teaching of the Catholic Church). A number of the students became truly angry over what I was teaching... it was as if they were saying, "if we don't get a benefit, why should we want to join this religion?" Trust me, I didn't let the word "schmucks" pass my lips.
In short, despite what the author opines, I would opine that religion didn't "build the damn pool in the first place..." the nature of human beings (religious or otherwise) is to divide the world between the "them" and the "us" and as such, it is people (both secular and those inclined to religion) who build "the damn pool" into which "fanatics" piss.
I think your reasoning is sorta, well, nihilistic. I think that deconstructing religion will help us deconstruct dualist political and social rhetoric - which religion has done much to create.
Religion is amongst the foremost creators of the idea that there is one special, blessed group of people existing in opposition to everyone else who does not belong to that group. Even in political reasoning, the kind of nationalism that states that people in one country are inherently better than another is (deservedly and hopefully permanently) out of fashion. Religion is the only large social movement nowadays where it is globally acceptable to say things like, "Oh, everyone who isn't part of my social group is damned to hell/locked on the wheel of time/suffering for eternity".
So, by deconstructing religion, we are deconstructing one of the chief causes of the us vs. them, we're special vs. they're damned idiots kind of thinking.
Perhaps we have different definitions of nihilistic? In terms of the existence of good and evil, I see the existence of both of these forces in the world. While evil always looks like it is going to prevail, I acknowledge that with love, all things are possible. Furthermore, in terms of humanism without reference to religion, the "golden rule" sufficiently sets out the guideline for all human beings who seek to be instruments of good. Perhaps, it is my fault that I did not make my positions more clear and that you were misled by my poor diction into believing that my expressions were nihilistic.
In terms of your observations regarding religion, I think we must simply agree to disagree. I do not write this to avoid a debate nor do I wish to start a debate; I write this with the full understanding that both of our positions have been well thought out by each of us, that we have already expressed our positions and that there appears to be little or no common ground for meaningful dialog. I will accept your position regarding religion as your own and I ask that you accept that I cannot be moved to accept your position in light of my beliefs.
As for your premise that "in political reasoning, the kind of nationalism that states that people in one country are inherently better than another is (deservedly and hopefully permanently) out of fashion..." I would opine that your position is not accurate or at least naive. I think nationalism, national elitism and national pride still exists... but as previously indicated, I think we should probably agree to disagree on this point as well.
As for your premise: "Religion is the only large social movement nowadays where it is globally acceptable to say things like, 'Oh, everyone who isn't part of my social group is damned to hell/locked on the wheel of time/suffering for eternity...'" You are in error in terms of the Roman Catholic Church in which I practice.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges that individuals who lead lives of charity and love will find themselves in heaven upon their death... despite their religious affiliation, e.g. Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu... or whether they are atheist or agnostic... the final judge will be the source of of pure and divine love... God. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that God is there to find fault with each of us and cast us into a the flames of Hell, I would offer this quote from Augustin, God's sense of justice is exceeded by his sense of mercy. In terms of my own life and shortcomings, I am relying that God has a sense of humor and the overwhelming desire to forgive me.
Yes, my adult "students" who are currently studying to become members of the Catholic Church had difficulty with this concept "inclusiveness." As you indicated, they are products of a life where "exclusion" in organized religion was the norm. Yes, religion is thick with people who want to make judgments... who want to articulate that there will be those who are saved and those who are dammed... and yet, that exclusivism is contrary to the concept of God's love and forgiveness... no that doesn't sound very Christian to me either.
Yes, it is terrible when "a man of God" stands there and talks about how "we" are saved and "they" are dammed. The God I believe in would find a way to bring his children to him in the next life. The God I believe in works through imperfect human beings to bring the real message of love to the least of our brothers and sisters... and yes, when I find men and women who are the very instruments of God's love, I feel like there is hope... and yes, when certain certain "men of God" refuse to focus on God's love, I cringe... especially when it is Catholic Priest or Bishop.
I considered whether or not I should post this link for fear that it might offend my Christrian friends. But in the end I decided to post it because I *did* like what Morford had to say, and to not post it struck me as cowardly.
Here is why I liked it: I would not call myself an atheist. I'm open to the existance of the "divine', but my version would be a very broad, everything-is-composed-of-the-same-elements-everything-is-connected kinda version. I can't say that I believe in the concept of "soul" (at least how it is commonly understood as a "self" that exists outside of the brain), although I find the idea of "soul" a comforting idea. I believe in trying to live a moral life based on the Golden Rule, which just strikes me as the best and most sensible way to live.
So while I understand the need for everyone to come to terms with Life and/or The Divine, I get off the bus when we start to talk about the world's organized religions. I believe that all organized religions are creations of humans trying to come to grips with the divine,life, death, the universe, etc. But the minute a group defines a system then that negates other systems. If someone is "saved" that implies someone else is "damned". If there are a Chosen People then there are others who are not chosen. If you surrender to God, as one does in Islam, then who speaks for God? Not God, but some other human, who probably has some sort of agenda that involves power rather than enlightenment.
This is why I agreed with the pool analogy. Humans built the system/religion/pool, and fanatics take the system to it's extreme.
BTW: I'm currently reading Karen Andersen's A History of God. I tried to read it a year or so ago and never got through it. Now I'm trying again. Book Club possibility? I did read the last chapter and found it interesting that several modern Christian and Jewish scholars have moved towards the more God Is In Everything approach, very much like some of modern paganism. I think a key dividing point is whether or not one believes God is an entity that takes an active interest in life, or whether God is just another term denoting the connectedness of all things.
Isn't it funny how religious fashions change? I'd like to think that the religious teaching are based on documents that haven't changed very much, but they seem to change a lot, books vanish, get edited, or tolerance for some aspect rises/falls. It all seems pretty random and whimsical, and not something that you could rally stack your beliefs behind.
Read Christopher Moore's "Lamb" I think you'd like it.
There is another one I really enjoyed called "the bad popes" a look at the worst Popes in history... I even found my favorite Pope included...poor guy.
Are you saying that the King James version of the bible is not the direct and literal word of God? That Jesus didn't speak in KJ English? What's wrong with you? (Gad ... that conversation really happened, not in those words, but between my spouse and her roommate and some religious fanatic on BART years ago ... the person refused to believe that the bible had gone through many translations, and that Jesus did not speak KJ English ... gah!)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "King James" wasn't published until the 17th Century.
As an aside (in view of your spouse's experience)... it's interesting when a Fundamentalist or Born Again Christian tries to tell me that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in the Bible... that had happened several times.
Having been brought up Southern Baptist, I can tell you that this particular sect does not teach ANY history about other religions, because frankly they don't want you to know anything about them. Dumb, but there you go. I think that if you want to refute another religion's beliefs, you should know something about it first ... it gives you SOMETHING to work from, anyway. But yeah, the fundamentalist/born-agains are often (not always) very uninformed ... sigh.
The KJ version of the bible I grew up with read the latter. Maybe you had some "modern" translation of that? I honestly don't know. I know there are some newer translations of the KJ bible. Don't know why anyone felt it necessary, but there you go. <g> (For poetry, the KJ is rather cool, IMO ...)
But that's not even the main problem with that line! When you go from Latin to English, the word "daily" is something very different, that no one is sure of the meaning of! The more you look, the more fun it is.
To use your words, I just got off the bus when the author blamed religion for building "the damned pool" as I see the "pool" building as a societal issue with no requirement for religion. After re-reading what you and I have written as well as the author's words, I think we may be reading the author's point differently... that being said, I think we both agree on the concept that human beings, by their very nature, become exclusive in building the "pool" in society and that organized religion is not immune from this.
All this being said, I believe that the author goes over the top a bit
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but ... this is Mark Morford, after all. Of course it's over the top. "Over the top" is his schtick, his stock in trade, his signature, his meat and drink. This particular column falls in the most sober, dignified, and least frothing 5% of his output. Bless his heart. His "act" is to embody everything the Far Right wants to believe about San Francisco liberals. I find it delightfully refreshing, but one would not be advised to take the columns as literal and sincere in the details -- only as sincere in the underlying message.
Ah. I am not real familiar with the man's work, this is the first article I was aware of. I felt he rather overstated things, but I generally agreed with much of the concept behind what he was saying. I suppose for all those right-wing extremists there have to be some left-wing ones as well, eh?
Interesting post. The many responses are also intersting. I feel so "simple" compared to everyone else. LOL.. I had to read some of these posts very slowly and carefully in order to understand.
I see myself as a person of faith personally connected to my god.
I see my religion as an organization of people with the same rituals and who profess similar faiths.
I seem my church as a political institution that provides a place for the religious community to come together and share our faith experience (a good thing) as well as a place where politics are enacted by a smaller controlling group who are empowered to control and manipulate that religious community (can be good or bad depending on the agenda of the men at the top).
I embrace my faith. I am leery of the politics and hidden agendas of my church. I do not allow the politics to dictate my faith or actions.
I think any time you get a group of people who are big enough to sort themselves into "Them" and "us", you get cliques. Every clique has its fanatics. Rational people need to be thoughtful and reflective, not reactive or bespelled by clever rhetoric.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 06:38 pm (UTC)But the article is good all the way through. Many cheers!
no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 07:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-05 07:16 pm (UTC)I have to admit that after reading that yesterday, I was going to change my dog's name to Mohammed just because.
What is it about Spanish Catholics naming their sons Jesus, and Muslims naming their kids Mohammed? I understand if they don't want to name a pet by those names because you might end up talking about how "Jesus barfed a hairball in the kitchen" or something similar... but is it any better when a you give that name to a child? "Jesus won't eat his peas" or "Mohammed pooped in his diaper" what is the double standard here?
Does anyone name their kid Buddah? or Confucius? or any of those thousand Hindu names?
Just a random comment from someone with a different orientation...
Date: 2007-12-05 08:43 pm (UTC)"Indeed, the distressed reaction from normal Muslims must be a very similar to what average Christians experience when they hear about yet another loud-mouthed gaggle of Bible zealots using Jesus as a weapon to attack and bash and impede, to go after gays and women and science and sex and terrifying little books about girls and magic dust and talking polar bears."
We were just talking about "The Catholic League" denouncing "Golden Compass." It's a bit of a tangle to explain to the children that fantasy stories are not evil per se... and that "evil" exists, not only in the destruction and degradation of our human physical condition (i.e. the actions of bad people), but also in attempting to control our thoughts (aka the thought police)... we are granted free will to choose good from evil... we are not automatons.
In view of the unfortunate words from the Pope, it would appear from my reading of history that organized religions are not immune from committing the inhuman acts committed by atheists... e.g. history is full of episodes like the Crusades and Inquisition. Perhaps it would be best for the Holy Father to appreciate that not all crimes of humanity are committed by communist tyrants like Mao and Stalin... for that is probably what he was commenting on when he made that comment... i.e. atheists=communists.
All this being said, I believe that the author goes over the top a bit with this next comment (which follows the first quote noted above):
"It's a common Christian lament. It's also a bit bogus, unconvincing, hollow. Because the fact is, the extremists of any religion merely serve to illuminate the fact that there's always something inherently dangerous in giving yourself (and your national identity) over to such divisive, woefully dualistic systems that, no matter what your stance, absolutely insist that man is but a flawed, lustful animal that can never truly know God. Or to put it more crudely: The fanatics may like to pee in the pool, but religion built the damn pool in the first place."
In a world were human beings have free will, it would not be odd to conclude that the author's opinions may not completely mirror my own. In terms of religions, they are as imperfect as their members and yet as they are the expression of a desire to reach out to a "greater good" (i.e. the divine), there will always be a place for them in the hearts of the faithful.
As for "building the pool in the first place..." I must admit that I became truly frustrated in class some months (religious education for adults) back when I tried to explain that good people from every religion as well as good people who lived their lives as agnostics or atheists would find themselves in "heaven" as a part of the love that bonds the "creator" with his beloved children (so says the teaching of the Catholic Church). A number of the students became truly angry over what I was teaching... it was as if they were saying, "if we don't get a benefit, why should we want to join this religion?" Trust me, I didn't let the word "schmucks" pass my lips.
In short, despite what the author opines, I would opine that religion didn't "build the damn pool in the first place..." the nature of human beings (religious or otherwise) is to divide the world between the "them" and the "us" and as such, it is people (both secular and those inclined to religion) who build "the damn pool" into which "fanatics" piss.
Re: Just a random comment from someone with a different orientation...
Date: 2007-12-05 09:36 pm (UTC)Religion is amongst the foremost creators of the idea that there is one special, blessed group of people existing in opposition to everyone else who does not belong to that group. Even in political reasoning, the kind of nationalism that states that people in one country are inherently better than another is (deservedly and hopefully permanently) out of fashion. Religion is the only large social movement nowadays where it is globally acceptable to say things like, "Oh, everyone who isn't part of my social group is damned to hell/locked on the wheel of time/suffering for eternity".
So, by deconstructing religion, we are deconstructing one of the chief causes of the us vs. them, we're special vs. they're damned idiots kind of thinking.
Re: Just a random comment from someone with a different orientation...
Date: 2007-12-06 12:57 am (UTC)In terms of your observations regarding religion, I think we must simply agree to disagree. I do not write this to avoid a debate nor do I wish to start a debate; I write this with the full understanding that both of our positions have been well thought out by each of us, that we have already expressed our positions and that there appears to be little or no common ground for meaningful dialog. I will accept your position regarding religion as your own and I ask that you accept that I cannot be moved to accept your position in light of my beliefs.
As for your premise that "in political reasoning, the kind of nationalism that states that people in one country are inherently better than another is (deservedly and hopefully permanently) out of fashion..." I would opine that your position is not accurate or at least naive. I think nationalism, national elitism and national pride still exists... but as previously indicated, I think we should probably agree to disagree on this point as well.
As for your premise: "Religion is the only large social movement nowadays where it is globally acceptable to say things like, 'Oh, everyone who isn't part of my social group is damned to hell/locked on the wheel of time/suffering for eternity...'" You are in error in terms of the Roman Catholic Church in which I practice.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges that individuals who lead lives of charity and love will find themselves in heaven upon their death... despite their religious affiliation, e.g. Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu... or whether they are atheist or agnostic... the final judge will be the source of of pure and divine love... God. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that God is there to find fault with each of us and cast us into a the flames of Hell, I would offer this quote from Augustin, God's sense of justice is exceeded by his sense of mercy. In terms of my own life and shortcomings, I am relying that God has a sense of humor and the overwhelming desire to forgive me.
Yes, my adult "students" who are currently studying to become members of the Catholic Church had difficulty with this concept "inclusiveness." As you indicated, they are products of a life where "exclusion" in organized religion was the norm. Yes, religion is thick with people who want to make judgments... who want to articulate that there will be those who are saved and those who are dammed... and yet, that exclusivism is contrary to the concept of God's love and forgiveness... no that doesn't sound very Christian to me either.
Yes, it is terrible when "a man of God" stands there and talks about how "we" are saved and "they" are dammed. The God I believe in would find a way to bring his children to him in the next life. The God I believe in works through imperfect human beings to bring the real message of love to the least of our brothers and sisters... and yes, when I find men and women who are the very instruments of God's love, I feel like there is hope... and yes, when certain certain "men of God" refuse to focus on God's love, I cringe... especially when it is Catholic Priest or Bishop.
Ah. I wondered if you would reply to this...
Date: 2007-12-05 09:40 pm (UTC)Here is why I liked it:
I would not call myself an atheist. I'm open to the existance of the "divine', but my version would be a very broad, everything-is-composed-of-the-same-elements-everything-is-connected kinda version. I can't say that I believe in the concept of "soul" (at least how it is commonly understood as a "self" that exists outside of the brain), although I find the idea of "soul" a comforting idea. I believe in trying to live a moral life based on the Golden Rule, which just strikes me as the best and most sensible way to live.
So while I understand the need for everyone to come to terms with Life and/or The Divine, I get off the bus when we start to talk about the world's organized religions. I believe that all organized religions are creations of humans trying to come to grips with the divine,life, death, the universe, etc. But the minute a group defines a system then that negates other systems. If someone is "saved" that implies someone else is "damned". If there are a Chosen People then there are others who are not chosen. If you surrender to God, as one does in Islam, then who speaks for God? Not God, but some other human, who probably has some sort of agenda that involves power rather than enlightenment.
This is why I agreed with the pool analogy. Humans built the system/religion/pool, and fanatics take the system to it's extreme.
BTW: I'm currently reading Karen Andersen's A History of God. I tried to read it a year or so ago and never got through it. Now I'm trying again. Book Club possibility? I did read the last chapter and found it interesting that several modern Christian and Jewish scholars have moved towards the more God Is In Everything approach, very much like some of modern paganism. I think a key dividing point is whether or not one believes God is an entity that takes an active interest in life, or whether God is just another term denoting the connectedness of all things.
Re: Ah. I wondered if you would reply to this...
Date: 2007-12-05 11:18 pm (UTC)Read Christopher Moore's "Lamb" I think you'd like it.
Lamb
Date: 2007-12-05 11:22 pm (UTC)Re: Lamb
Date: 2007-12-06 12:13 am (UTC)Re: Ah. I wondered if you would reply to this...
Date: 2007-12-06 12:55 am (UTC)Hebrew to Greek to Latin...
Date: 2007-12-06 01:06 am (UTC)As an aside (in view of your spouse's experience)... it's interesting when a Fundamentalist or Born Again Christian tries to tell me that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in the Bible... that had happened several times.
Re: Hebrew to Greek to Latin...
Date: 2007-12-06 01:11 am (UTC)Re: Ah. I wondered if you would reply to this...
Date: 2007-12-06 04:31 am (UTC)Re: Ah. I wondered if you would reply to this...
Date: 2007-12-06 04:13 pm (UTC)Love the In Nomine Icon, btw.
I thought it was an interesting article as well...
Date: 2007-12-06 01:23 am (UTC)Re: Just a random comment from someone with a different orientation...
Date: 2007-12-06 04:04 am (UTC)Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but ... this is Mark Morford, after all. Of course it's over the top. "Over the top" is his schtick, his stock in trade, his signature, his meat and drink. This particular column falls in the most sober, dignified, and least frothing 5% of his output. Bless his heart. His "act" is to embody everything the Far Right wants to believe about San Francisco liberals. I find it delightfully refreshing, but one would not be advised to take the columns as literal and sincere in the details -- only as sincere in the underlying message.
Re: Just a random comment from someone with a different orientation...
Date: 2007-12-06 05:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 11:50 pm (UTC)I see myself as a person of faith personally connected to my god.
I see my religion as an organization of people with the same rituals and who profess similar faiths.
I seem my church as a political institution that provides a place for the religious community to come together and share our faith experience (a good thing) as well as a place where politics are enacted by a smaller controlling group who are empowered to control and manipulate that religious community (can be good or bad depending on the agenda of the men at the top).
I embrace my faith. I am leery of the politics and hidden agendas of my church. I do not allow the politics to dictate my faith or actions.
I think any time you get a group of people who are big enough to sort themselves into "Them" and "us", you get cliques. Every clique has its fanatics. Rational people need to be thoughtful and reflective, not reactive or bespelled by clever rhetoric.