Author Archives

by

Tolerance… Religious Betrayal or Necessary Recognition

 

I have never been a big fan of the word tolerance.  To me to tolerate something is to put up with it.  I’d prefer words like celebrate, or acceptance.  It does not mean one has to celebrate something that he/she is not comfortable with, but at least “acceptance” has less of an edge.  It seems more peaceful.  Words mean a lot and the way we use and phrase them in certain situations set the tone.  Still true tolerance is still better than what we get at times when we refuse to disagree with someone without violence of thought, feelings or action.  

Most groups in my opinion have their challenges when it comes to tolerance, acceptance, or celebration on issues that run contrary to their core.  These are not limited to religious groups either.  Take the controversy over Barack Obama’s ministerial picks for the inauguration.  The gay and lesbian communities, as well as pro-choice advocates lost their minds over Rick Warren and his personal beliefs which opposed theirs.  I wrote a piece on that and also posted a column that someone else wrote talking about how Warren did his best to avoid getting caught up in the machine of the media wars concerning gay rights and abortion.  Sure he has his personal beliefs which are noted for the record.  But I didn’t recall him trying to force that on anyone else.  True indeed he supported the gay marriage ban in California days before the election.  He succumbed to the pressure put on by other evangelicals and added his name to the very machine he sought to avoid. 

Anytime a group is in a struggle, it’s difficult to learn how and when to pick battles.  I thought that to have a brain aneurysm over Rick Warren, a preacher who will not set Obama’s policy while disregarding Rev. Joseph Lowery, a pro gay rights advocate who also will not set policy, but will participate in the same ceremony was the wrong move.   The President Elect said all along during his campaign that he would allow differing voices to be heard within his administration, and he is keeping his word.  I also argued with several friends of mine, that at least Warren is not a hate monger.  If you look at the last eight years, there were no progressive ministerial voices at the White House.  As much as I disagree with some of the conservative voices out there – especially the extreme ones, I tend to figure their voices are strong enough that you cannot just shut them aside no more than they can shut me or my beliefs aside.  We can take turns running  Washington, overturning each other’s laws based on who has the majority, or we can try to dialogue with reasonable people who may disagree with us. 

For instance, is it not reasonable and possible that a Christian, or a Muslim may not believe that their perception of God endorses gay marriage?  Is it possible that a loving person of devout faith may feel that abortion is a sin under any circumstance?   Are we to just dismiss them as lunatics who need to be overthrown?   Its that kind of attitude that fosters this US against THEM mentality – where we never get anywhere. 

Some of my pro choice and pro gay rights friends simply reply to me that if the group were against rights for African-Americans that my stance would be different.  There is so much wrong with that statement – just on a personal level that I won’t get into.  Still I never bought into the idea that the gay and lesbian battle is the same as the ones being waged for African-Americans in this country.  But setting that aside, historically we have had to dialogue with adversaries for centuries on some level or another.  Lyndon B Johnson didn’t initially want to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He didn’t want to lose the Southern vote.  Kennedy didn’t want MLK to march in Alabama.  He asked him not to several times. You see it wasn’t just about the George Wallace’s and Bull Conner’s of the world that we had to deal with.  It was liberal thinking white people who were not fully convinced that they wanted blacks in their neighborhoods or dating their children – let alone have equal pay for jobs or god forbid be the boss.

  

I recall academy award winner Sidney Portier talking about how Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn were skeptical of what he would be like to act with on “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”  When they met, Hepburn didn’t even speak to him the first day.  Tracy was stand – offish too.   And they were liberals!  Portier knew that he had already won an oscar by that time, and if he were Paul Newman he wouldn’t have to take that crap.  And yet he understood that people like Tracey and Hepburn never met a black person who was not a janitor, a porter, housekeeper or cook.  They didn’t know any black doctors, teachers or lawyers.  So their scope was limited.  The hell we didn’t have to work with people who disagreed with us.  Hell most blacks do it everyday at work.  Sure it’s frustrating but it had to be done.  We had to and still have to pick our battles and not just try to overthrow every white person who does not see my freedom and passionately as I do. 

So why should the plight of gays any different?  Especially since many of them feel their battles are just like the one’s fought by African-Americans.  I’m just sayin.

by

Politics in the Pulpit~And The Identity of Jesus

Its funny how people talk about the separation of church and state.  Wherever there are strong church ties, the state has never been separated in reality.  Most every law on the books has it’s base within somebody’s interpretation of a  holy book.  This is the case in most major nations.  One could argue that even communist places such as China and North Korea have their own versions of church and state when it comes to the worship they require to be given to their political leaders.  I think the thought of church and state being intermingled are pretty acceptable to most. 

The issue in this nation in particular where one of our founding principles is freedom of religion, is that often that the followers of one religion, (most of the time extreme forms of Christianity) tries to rule over another.  This was particularly true when we look at the heavy right wing evangelical movement that helped produce two Bush administrations.   Bush who claims to be a born again Christian rode that Jesus train hard for two terms.

I still recall a church service I attended before the 2004 election where the preacher said, “I can’t tell you who to vote for, but God would not have you vote for someone who’s for killing babies.” 

After that I spoke to a congregation I used to belong to, and I talked about how there are essentially two Jesus’ in this country.  One who is concerned about abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, and the other one who cares about the poor, justice, and a person’s inward character.  One Jesus who is concerned about all people and another concerned about Americans who believe in Christianity.  One Jesus who was for bombing Iraq and one who was not.  One Jesus who is for evengelism, and another for colonialism.  One Jesus is poking his nose in the bedroom and the other doesn’t care how  person gets off as long as it’s consensual between two adults.  I was in one bible study where I heard a preacher tell a married couple that it as sinful for them to give one another oral sex.  (They never returned.) 

Who gets to speak for Jesus or God as you know him in these matters?   I can tell you from personal observation, there is nothing in the bible confirming nor denying the ethicality of oral sex for instance.  I can also tell you that there are many lessons to be learned from from a Ted Haggard, the infamous evangelical pastor who had to leave his post after he was discovered to be involved with drugs and a male prostitute.  (mostly male prostitute)  After three weeks of “intense counseling,” with four ministers, Haggard was said to be totally heterosexual.  Just as a side note, Haggard himself has said to his congregation before he stepped down that he struggled with his sexuality for most of his life.  Tim Ralph, the minister who said Haggard was delivered from homosexuality, said that it was just a short phase for Haggard.  There was no word on whether the good reverend was delivered from drugs or not. 

I find it particularly interesting that Haggard pastored a huge mega church all those years before, and that the congregation obviously found some benefit from being ministered to by a gay drug abuser.   I am sure many people “accepted Jesus Christ” as their lord and savior.  There were prayers given by Haggard to his parishioners, and I am sure some of those prayers were answered.  And yet when this little secret came out, he was taken down.  I mean where was God before the scandal broke loose and why did the church prosper if Haggard broke all of the moral laws?  What sins are really bad and which ones are just ok? 

Religion and politics are always intermingled.  The key is how we treat one another who don’t believe as we do, and how we make these differences respectful and functional within society.

by

Religion and Political Conflict “The Deity Factor”

**The assignment for this Religion and Political Conflict class was to answer the question of why people threaten voilence or wage war in the name of religion.  It was written in September of 2004.  This is still my take, what’s yours?

Fighting for Religion

(The Deity Factor)

 

Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, “Who shall be first to go up for us against the Canaanites to fight against them?”  And the Lord said, “Judah shall go up.  Indeed I have delivered the land into his hand.”  Judges 1:1-2

 

            The first reason I can think of as to why people threaten violence and wage war in the name of religion historically is because they sense or feel a mandate by god.  That sense of what I call the ‘deity factor’ can be the ultimate motivation to cause one to wage war in a most fierce manner.  There is no higher calling for a believer to have than the calling from a deified figure.  There are a couple reasons that come to mind.  First when a person or a nation feels they have a call from On High, the deity factor says that the calling is coming from One who is all powerful and able to win any battle against any opponent. After all no one believes his god is second to another.  Second the deity factor allows the god the attributes of creation as well as life sustaining power for and over the creation, causing the created to be grateful for life itself.  This sense of gratitude is a powerful motivator in that one doesn’t mind giving his life in service in order to fight his god’s battles.  The thinking is that even a tragic death on the battlefield in this type of service carries with it eternal reward for he who fought the good fight.

 

            There are also other rewards within the text.  In this case the Canaanites were on land that the Lord of the Children of Israel had given them.  This was also the case in many instances in the bible, including in Joshua where the Israelites were to cross over the Jordan.

 

Moses My servant is dead.  Now therefore, arise go over this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving them-the children of Israel.  Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses.  Joshua 1:2-3

 

Joshua also got that deified assurance mentioned previously in verse 5 of this same text.

 

No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.  I will not leave you nor forsake you.  Joshua 1:5

 

            Sure there are tangible benefits to waging and winning these battles.  Some would include wealth in the forms of land expansion.  The winning side at times has an opportunity to take hold of the conquered treasures.  But the deity factor can cause one to wage war with no tangible advantages at all, but only for the glory of the god giving the orders.

by

BB&G Explores Religion & Political Conflict

I was watching Meet The Press on Sunday morning, and of course one of the topics featured was the current crisis between Israel and Hamas.  As Hamas fires it’s missiles and Israel advances via ground, I imagine this is partly because there is a new administration coming into power later this month.  The Bush administration is of course an unrepentant supporter of Israel.  And while Obama says he also supports the nation just approaching 60 years since their declaration of independence, I don’t think the limits are known to Jews.  They may find it to their advantage to get a foot in certain geological and political places before Obama takes over.

What fascinates me as gas prices slowly rise again in the midst of this conflict, is the age old source of the initial conflict, religion.  In this case the beef between the Jews and a particularly radical group of Palestinians. 

I grew up experiencing and participating in various denominations of Christianity.  For a time I considered myself a rather devout Christian.  Now what that means to the reader is certainly subjective as we will get into later on.  I have also questioned and taken Christianity to task on differing subject matters.  I studied religion in college as well, and that really gave me an insight into how the religious beliefs of man determine lifestyles, laws, treaties, alliances and enemies.  It is the oldest and most consistent source of conflict in the world.  And when taken to such extremes, it seems as if it will never end.  Take the discussion on Meet The Press.  One of the guest was Jeffrey Goldberg, a Jewish American writer who currently writes for The Atlantic.  He had occasion to speak with Nizar Rayyan a late military leader of  Hamas who was said to be killed on New Years Day.  In his column from January 2,  Goldberg had asked Rayyan about the possibility of peace between Israel and Hamas.  This is what he wrote:

The question I wrestle with constantly is whether Hamas is truly, theologically implacable. That is to say, whether the organization can remain true to its understanding of Islamic law and God’s word and yet enter into a long-term non-aggression treaty with Israel.  I tend to think not, though I’ve noticed over the years a certain plasticity of belief among some Hamas ideologues. Also, this is the Middle East, so anything is possible.
 
There was no flexibility with Rayyan. This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: “The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don’t need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel.” There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. “Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God.”

And there you have it.  This guy’s way of looking at his faith, or so he said was that no way his God would allow another people to live peacefully and that the only reason for a cease fire was to load up weapons and artillery for future battles.  Now don’t get me wrong, I have opinions on this as well as other conflicts both current and historical.  This “Deity Factor,” a phrase I coined in college which I will post later explains this perfectly.  But that is not the purpose of this post or the series which I plan to explore for the week.

My question is how do we deal with religion in the 21st century.  I see religion as a binding entity that has helped a lot of people.  I see it as a unifying force that allow great things to be accomplished among followers.  Through it people learn discipline, submission, and servant-hood as there is a recognition of a higher power beyond human domain.  Religion has sparked many humanitarian efforts all over the world through aid in the midst of wars and natural disasters for instance.  Equally, religion and religious ideology has also been the source of most wars around the world.  Historically, one religion cannot exist without some group of another trying to eradicate it from the earth in the name of said religion.  Religion has divided nations, torn brotherhoods asunder, killed babies and colonized generations of people.  People have ravaged lands, raped women, burned people alive and even attempted to wipe an entire ethnicity off the face of the earth – all in the name of religion and a brand of faith.

As sophisticated and technologically sound as we are in this nation with our computers, internet, satellite and space shuttle capabilities etc., primal religion and faith are still the straw that stirs the drink of American thought and motivation.  I don’t care how secular some say this nation is, make no mistake about it;  A major play in this past presidential election as well as the two previous are fundamental religious beliefs among Americans. 

This week I would like to explore that thought, provoke some conversation and get the opinions of ordinary people about the state of religion and how it effects our lives.  Of course we can’t cover every aspect, but I would like to start the year by exploring what is THE most significant factor of political and personal thought. 

Is it possible to exist with a people who don’t believe another people should exist?  Are we too radical in our approaches, not just them but us?  (Whomever us is) Do we question the origins of our own beliefs enough?  Do we respect others who do not believe as we do?  Are we doomed to just fight one another until the end of the earth?  All this week as we cover different topics surrounding religion, I invite you to just talk about it.  Maybe we can come up with some ideas, perhaps start a positive movement.

Peace

by

First Debate of The New Year

It’s kinda slow on the trading floor today.  This chick has an extra large box of Apple Jacks on her desk.   As le cereal connoisseur that I are… I went on to talk about how the cinnamon toasty bites were always one of my favorites growing up – but that was back in the day when they were all one color.  ORANGE!

Well the chick said that they have always been multi-colored.  “Not!” I said.  “The jenks was one color not this milti-deal.” 

 She said I didn’t know what I was talking about.  To which I asked, “And how old are you?” 

 “23.” 

“Puuulease what do you know about the history of Kellogg’s, General Mills, Post or anything else for that matter. ”

That is when one of the traders from the back chimed in, “I have eaten at least one bowl of Apple Jacks per week for the last 35 years.  I assure you that they were always two colors.” 

 “Bullshit!” I said, I know my damn cereal and imma look it up!

Sure enough… according to Wikipedia, “Originally, all Apple Jacks cereal pieces were orange and O-shaped, although they have become brighter and more orange colored over the decades. In 1993, O-shaped green pieces were introduced.

SCOREBOARD! 

I told them to never question the cmac on cereal! 

To which the 35 year eating Apple Jacks man said, “Hey you got a series 7?  I need some help!”

This is going to be a great year!