Thats my opinion
Thats my opinion's JournalAt the end of a year
Last week I quoted a poem by Howard Thurman, a great pastor and theologian. Here is his celebration at the end of a year.
Blessings at Year's End
Howard Thurman
I remember with gratitude the fruits of the labors of others, which I have shared as a part of the normal experience of daily living.
I remember the beautiful things that I have seen, heard, and felt - some as a result of seeking on my part, and many that came unheralded into my path, warming my heart and rejoicing my spirit.
I remember the moments of distress that proved to be groundless and those that taught me profoundly about the evilness of evil and the goodness of good.
I remember the new people I have met, from whom I have caught glimpses of the meaning of my own life and true character of human dignity.
I remember the dreams that haunted me during the year, keeping me mindful of goals and hopes which I did not realize but from which I drew inspiration to sustain my life and keep steady my purposes.
I remember the awareness of the spirit of God that sought me out in my aloneness and gave to me a sense of assurance that undercut my despair and confirmed my life with new courage and abiding hope.
I too am thankful for the year that is past. And for the conversations here I have had with believers and with the many open atheists and agnostics who are on the same search for meaning and beauty, which is my quest.
Beyond the manger
While the Biblical stories of Christmas are beautiful, they, at their core, offer a way of life. After serving on the faculty of Howard University, Howard Thurman founded the “Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples.” in San Francisco. His final post was as Dean of Marsh Chapel at Boston University (1953-65). But perhaps
For Thurman, as for many millions of others, the message of Christmas is the entrée to a life-changing encounter with the Holy, and that means with the world. The mystery surrounding Jesus’ birth is far more than the telling of a beautiful story of angels, shepherds, wise men and a star hanging over the manger. So what do we do when the last carol is a fading memory and the remnants of the feast have been safely refrigerated? Here is how Thurman put it:
When the song of the angels is stilled,
When the star in the sky is gone,
When the kings and the princes are home,
When the shepherds are back with their flock,
The work of Christmas begins:
To find the lost,
To heal the broken,
To feed the hungry,
To release the prisoner,
To rebuild the nations,
To bring peace among brothers,
To make music in the heart.
From The Mood of Christmas and Other Celebrations
Howard Thurman
Friends United Press, 2001 edition.
For many of us these stories are call to bind up the world’s wounds. People see what they see. But what moves millions of us each year, when the angels have gone and the star is dimmed, is living with and knowing about people all over the world, of all religions—and none, who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of peace, justice, compassion and the vision of a better world. That is what the story of the Christ child is at its core, and that is the heart not only of Christianity, but most other religions and a non-religious ethical sensitivity. Thurman’s vision is what goes on these days in seminaries, in thousands of congregations and in millions of homes, even as the decorations are being taken down and safely put in their boxes.
What is unfaithfulness and how does it relate to the Newtown tragedy?
I have maintained that human unfaithfulness bears significant responsibility for the Newtown tragedy. Fundamentalists, and those who are not at all religious but assume the same things as the fundies do, hold that faithfulness has to do with doctrines. The fundies see it positively. Many non-religious see it negatively, and insist that all religion holds doctrine as the key to faithfulness.
To the contrary, faithfulness has little to do with doctrinal belief. It has to do with action toward the earth and all its creatures. The basic attributes of faithfulness are to recognize the ethical norms dealing with how we relate to one another. It is about human action, not doctrine. Kant said it best when he described his religion as paying attention to “the starry heavens above and the moral law within.” This moral law is written into the heart of human relationships.
All major religions have some variation of the golden rule, “Do unto others …” When we harm others, or allow them to be harmed, that is unfaithfulness. So in this instance we have perpetuated an inhuman unfaithful culture of violence. To treat anyone or to support anything that treats anyone as less than human, or as worthless is to be unfaithful to the moral code at the heart of the universe.
Specifically:
Our trust in war as the epitome of a violent culture.
The ubiquity of lessons of destruction and killing in the video games and other outlets which bathe our youngsters—and all the rest of us--in violence, and which sees any other person as less than worthwhile.
The dependence on weapons to solve human problems, and a failure to fight the manufacturer, sale or use of these weapons when they are specifically designed to destroy other humans.
The failure in our national budgets to address the critical needs of the mentally ill.
Any religious system which condemns to hell anyone not holding certain doctrines—the ultimate in projected human violence.
In short, there is a moral law written into the universe that both religion and non-religion can recognize as what to is right and good. Religion simply has sought ways to codify that moral law—but those of no religion are often just as aware as the most pious religionist. To violate that code which lies at the heart of life, is to be unfaithful.
To the extent our culture has violated that moral law ls to share responsibility for the Newtown tragedy.
How liberal religious institutions talked about the Newtown tragedy, during Sunday services.
I have multiple contacts with a variety of churches and other religious institutions. In almost every case, last Sunday the ministers aborted their sermons and talked honestly about what we might do to see that this sort of slaughter does not continue to happen. There were four topics almost universally covered.
The first was the imperative of standing in compassion with the families of the children and the adults who were gunned down.
The second was about what can be done to foster intelligent gun control, and how we need to be involved.
The third was about the nature of God, who suffers with the suffering. Jesus was known as “the suffering servant.” The common message in these churches was that God is involved in all of life-- in all the processes of life-- that God lives in all things and all events. So God suffers with the suffering.
The fourth was that to ask ”Where was God?” is the wrong question, as if God micromanages human affairs. The real question should be, “Where were we?” Since we have been given the earth to take care of, these events are our responsibility, not God’s
This change in direction during the church services was particularly important because the third Sunday in Advent is JOY Sunday. So instead of Joy, there was mourning.
What will happen in these churches is an immediate focus on gun control and support for Diane Feinstein, the President and others. While the liberal religious community will certainly not be the only voice, it will be an important aggressive voice.
If you are interested in my feeling about gun control, check out the gun forum in DU.
What does religion say about the Newtown tragedy?
The Newtown tragedy raises a number of serious religious issues.
Most of them have to do with what we mean by God.
I am humiliated as I read the responses of some of my fellow religionists. It is sickening and defenseless. For Huckabee and a few others to say we deserved it because we took God and prayer out of public schools, is obscene. So these children paid the price. That sort of statement makes God to be an angry, vengeful tyrant who is not worthy of anyone’s faith. Sometimes when I see those here describe the kind of God they hate, I say, ”Right! That is the same notion of God I hate.” It is the same struggle with fundamentalism I have had for many years. We Christians have to confront it. It is our battle, not someone else's
Then there are those who describe God as an omnipotent power who could have stopped the slaughter if he wanted to. But maybe God does not micromanage what goes on here. Maybe that’s our job.
So the question “where was God?” is the wrong question. The real question is, “Where were we?” We were given the task of taking care of things down here. It is human unfaithfulness and violence that is the cause we must stop wherever it occurs, not God.
The story inherent in the Christian message is that God is really a fellow sufferer. Our pain is God’s pain. God’s in within us so that our tragedy is God’s tragedy. This is what the death of Jesus is all about. Not that God gets him killed so that God can feel better about sin—now washed away in Jesus’ blood. But that the only God we can know, we see in the life of Jesus, who suffered on account of human evil.
A woman wanted to commit suicide, having lost everything worthwhile—family, job, hope-- but couldn't’ find a way to do it. Late in the day, weary and heartsick, she entered St. Patrick’s cathedral looked up, saw a man on a cross, and said, “Maybe he can understand what my life is about.’’ Do we mourn over the death of these children? Since God dwells within us, God mourns with us. Our heartache is God’s heartache
When the price of individualism is just too high
Individual rights, like everything else, has its price. When that price far exceeds the benefits, society has the duty to curtail the right. I believe we have gone far beyond the tipping point when it comes to gun ownership. I assume that even if the Supreme Court wrongly interpreted the thrust of the 2nd Amendment, their decision is, in fact, the law of the land. If, however, a democracy is unable to correct its most egregious mistakes, what use is it?
So why is it that despite a myriad of facts concerning America’s yearly slaughter, we refuse to reconsider the gun issue? I suggest that we are at the mercy of the gun lobby, which includes not only the National Rifle Association, but also those who manufacture and sell firearms. Killing off Americans, including the 20 murdered children, flows from the political clout of a big lucrative business, and there is not a politician in sight who dares to confront that well-financed lobby.
The last time I ventured onto this thin ice, in another forum, there were three responses that repeated the shibboleth,“Guns don’t kill people, people do.” I was reminded that cars kill more people than guns, and no one is in favor of doing away with automobiles. How absurd! I use my car for lots of things, but it was not manufactured and sold to me with the sole purpose of giving me the ability to put a large hole in someone—or twenty someones.
I believe there are three steps that might be quickly taken that will not deny appropriate gun ownership.
1-The reinstitution of the prohibition on the ownership of assault weapons. Outside military use, they have no purpose other than mass killing. We don’t allow civilians to purchase or own machine guns or bazookas.
2-The control of extended ammunition clips. While we cannot easily control guns, we can control bullets. The only purpose for ammunition clips of 50 projectiles is mass slaughter.
3-The carefully control of gun sales by making them available in licensed stores where there is both a waiting period and a thorough background check of potential customers. The easy availability of almost any weapon in sporting goods stores or in gun shows makes it almost impossible to keep them from the hands of the mentally ill, or common criminals.
I assume, and will be quickly corrected if I am wrong, that none of these three steps would violated the guarantees of the 2nd amendment. But nor would their implementation solve the larger problem. Nevertheless, they may be reasonable steps that might make far less likely the slaughter of children in some community grade school while they are safely learning how to read.
Tolerance is the hallmark of rational discourse
The absence of it defines bigotry. My argument with religious fundamentalists rests on their unwillingness to hear other perspectives, indeed to consign anyone who disagrees with them to eternal damnation. On the other hand, those who can make their arguments, while both hearing and understand opposing other points of view, constitute the real liberals in any society. Religious fundamentalists are not the only societal bigots.
Rabbi Michael Gotleib writing in today’s Los Angeles Times, discusses a controversy in Santa Monica regarding a nativity scene which for decades has appeared on public land.
Here is the entire OP ED.
http://soc.li/UMDFdrk
Part of his statement involves what he sees as a new form of atheism.
Today's atheism is different from the atheism of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Nietzsche, Russell and Voltaire did not gloat over the presumed death or nonexistence of God. There was no triumphalism in their assertions. While not enamored of organized religion, they did not view it as a singular force for evil.
Things have changed. Outspoken, angry 21st century atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens have sought to eradicate God and organized religion from the planet; faith-based religion in any form is unacceptable to them. When studying these modern-day thinkers, the late Herbert Marcuse's lament proves fitting and prescient: "We, no matter the side, become fanatical in our own anti-fanaticism."
Today's atheists hold that religion educates children and adults to hate in the name of their pious doctrines. Religion, they tell us, encourages followers to engage in God-directed slaughter and conquest of innocents. Its mission is to convert skeptics — or worse, subdue nonbelievers — until the whole world buckles.
The truth is, they're partly right. There have always been people who commit evil in the name of God and religion. They do indeed give religion and God a horrible name. Such behavior is perverse, inexcusable and, of course, sinful.
But today's atheists are as extreme in their convictions as the fire-and-brimstone believer. The resolute follower knows beyond any doubt that God exists, whereas the atheist knows beyond any doubt that God is a figment of the imagination. I'm reminded of the aphorism: To the believer there are no questions; to the atheist, there are no answers.
In “religion” and elsewhere there are those who enter the dialogue with clear points of view but who acknowledge that those who seriously disagree with them may have concerns worth listening to. They constitute the authentic liberals in these conversations.
"The mills of the gods grind slowly...."
This morning THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, the leading independent Catholic news outlet in the nation, endorsed the ordination of women to the priesthood. I believe it is intelligent to support and encourage progress from those both inside and outside the church. It is certainly far more productive than blasting away at what hasn't happened.
The role of religion in the election
What role did religion play in the recent political campaign. It seemed far less important than we might have expected. Given the significant slice of the population made up of evangelical Christians, we have been left to wonder what happened to the social issues they had continually raised. While they played a heavy-handed part in the devastating Republican primaries, they all but disappeared in the general campaign. If they were mentioned in the debates or the ads, I missed it. Mitt Romney’s lurch to the center during the last weeks, all but seem to abandon his far right religious constituency. Or did it? My guess is he rightly assumed that their support was already secure, and that the center provided the only fertile electoral ground. But why didn’t the Christian right scream in pain at their abandonment? What happened to their religious fervor?
Until recently, one of our major fears was that these right-wing religionists would take over the GOP. Barry Goldwater once remarked,
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can‘t and won’t compromise. I know. I’ve tried to deal with them.”
So what happened? One theory is that their power had already passed its “use-by” date.” The evangelicals were already a diminishing contingent in American culture. Billy Graham and Pat Robertson were passé. Jerry Falwell had gone to his reward. The moral majority and its successors were no more. While all that may be true, in the red states,as well as in much of the rest of the county, very conservative Christians still constituted a significant population.
Nevertheless their substantial numbers never left Romney. Why? I believe there is a reason for the silence. I find the clue in the candidacy of a committed Mormon. If most evangelical Christians had formerly been sure of anything, it was that Mormonism was a heresy—probably a non-Christian cult. Five years ago Amy Sullivan, editor of the of the Washington Monthly, wrote,
“Moderate Republicans aren't the ones who could derail a Romney (2008)candidacy. His obstacle is the evangelical base--a voting bloc that now makes up 30 percent of the Republican electorate. It is hard to overestimate the importance of evangelicalism in the modern Republican Party, and it is nearly impossible to overemphasize the problem evangelicals have with Mormonism. Evangelicals don't have the same vague anti-LDS prejudice that some other Americans do. For them it's a doctrinal thing, based on very specific theological disputes. Romney's journalistic boosters either don't understand these doctrinal issues or try to sidestep them. But ignoring them won't make them go away. To evangelicals, Mormonism isn't just another religion. It’s a cult.”
There is no indication that Mitt was abandoned by the evangelicals for doctrinal reasons. They hung with him in spite of his “cultic” identity. Here is my conclusion. For most evangelicals, religion may only be a screen behind which they hide. Their real commitment is to a radically conservative social philosophy. Religion may serve that purpose, but when push comes to shove, right-wing politics trumps religious fervor.
One sees behind this pious screen a substantial dose of racism, classism, xenophobia, nationalism, a trust in guns and their accompanying violence—and a series of other convictions buried in right-wing causes. None of these things naturally flow from the Christian affirmation. These hard right sociological concerns, not Christian faith, may be at the core of the identity of many Christian fundamentalists. So what they knew to be a cultic candidate was simply put aside because he and his Party represented far more important commitments. Religion didn’t really matter.
How conservative Christianity managed to migrate from doctrine to right-wing social theory still puzzles me. But that is a subject for a future post.
Hope!
In the Christian calendar, the four Sundays prior to Christmas are celebrated as “Advent.” The word means, coming into place”, or “anticipation.” While each of the Sundays has its own theme, the basic concern of this traditional season is “hope.” Hope is distinguished from optimism, which denotes only a happy attitude no matter what is happening.
Hope is what the slaves held onto when they sang, “Sweet low sweet chariot, comin for to carry me home”—meaning the underground railroad. Their hope was that another group of Christians, basically in the north, were not like their masters who also claimed to be followers of Jesus. That hope held them together until freedom finally came. Hope is the conviction that written into the substance of things is that energy which drives all of creation up through the hard realities. It is not just that things will be all right, but that there is written into the heart of all things an impulse for what is noble. It is what gave life meaning to Anne Frank who wrote, “Despite all that has happened, I still believed in the goodness of people.”
At the funeral of his brother, the great atheistic lecturer Robert Ingersoll said, “hope sees a star, and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing.” Christians believe that there is that positive impulse which relates everything to everything else, and that there is a benevolent will in all of us—theist and atheist alike—and in all creation. It is that which causes us to reach into the future and being back into the present what we hope for. It is what the prophet Micah said when he held that the day would come when warriors would “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.“ An early Christian held that there were only three things that held life together---“faith, hope and love.” Whatever your basic convictions are, for me these are enough to hold onto no matter what.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Jan 21, 2011, 07:38 PMNumber of posts: 2,001
