Over the last few months, the rancor against Islam has been mounting among certain religious folks. Rumors are passed around as truth, false accusations are flying and emails are being sent to and fro with horrific messages of hate and intolerance. The very ideals that these people hold up to those of Islamic faith.
As an average, 'Christian' member of this country, I know very little about Islam other than a few vague ideas. I had, up until today been trying to ignore most of this storm around me. This evening, however, a friend sent me an email about former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, and his views on multiculturalism in Australia. His basic premise is that Australia belongs to Australians, and if someone doesn't like the rules there, then they shouldn't try to immigrate in the first place. If everyone bows to the most vocal/intolerant group of citizens, everyone will either become that group, or all group identities will be lost. ( Link to article in the Sydney Morning Herald ) The email concluded with the hope that Americans reading it would "grow a backbone" and subscribe to the same policies.
Although I understand his view, and see merit in his goal, I can not agree that it is Right, or that we in America should subscribe to such an ideal.
First, regardless of the past, there is no one religion with an overwhelming majority in this country. General Christianity accounts for 75% of the population, Secularism 13% and then Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and a bunch of other minority religions making up the other 2%. Some seem to think that this means that they, as Christians, have the Right to impose their personal religious beliefs on everyone else in the country as they are "the majority". But, if you break down this broad category, you find that of the total population there are 25% Catholics, 16% Baptists, 7% Methodists, 3% Presbyterians, 2% Pentecostals and 2% Episcopalians/Anglicans, 1% Latter-day Saint and the other 21% being made up of small Protestant denominations.
Following the logic pronounced earlier, since Catholics are the largest denomination, they should be able to dictate the way the rest of society is run. As a whole, Protestantism is larger than Catholicism in the United States, but, just as there are huge differences between Catholics and Protestants, so there are between the various Protestant denominations.
If you were to impose a religious observance to the governing of this country, an you were to choose Protestantism as that religion, which denomination would you choose? The Baptists? The Methodists? These groups are separate because they believe different things, they are different. Just as we have (or should have) the right to be equal, to all have the same opportunities, we should also have the right to be different, to be separate. The difference: it's our choice.
Back to the reason I'm writing this post. Why is there such a backlash against Islam? Fear. Fear of another attack in America (those only happen in other countries), fear of something that's different, fear that has been cultivated since the crusades.
After receiving this email, I decided to take a look at Sharia Law, the moral and legal code that governs all religious Muslims. There is more than one interpretation and execution of these laws, but they were first put into place when Islam was a young religion. After reading through these laws, I was amazed. For its time, it was hugely liberating, forward thinking and just. Today we can see it's flaws, but it was much closer to liberty of thought, liberty of action (within bounds) and liberty of belief than almost any European law at that time, or even centuries afterward. Even today, with a few exceptions, it is a fair and just legal system.
If you read the Qur'an, you will find it to be full of kindness, honesty and admonishments to fulfill your potential as a human being. There are also parts that are less benevolent, or even sinister. But, the same can be said about Judaism, and Christianity, there are parts of their scripture I could never adhere to, and neither do they, although all three groups will tell you that their religious book is completely true and written by God.
In the medieval period, the Islamic world was light-years ahead of Europe in terms of science, society, justice, hygiene, arts, and pretty much everything else. People tend to think of them as barbarians, but their heritage is greater than our own, and we could do better to remember that.
Instead of spreading fear of a religion or a whole group of people, we should be trying to root out what is actually evil: the idea that one group is better than another, the idea that one pattern of government is the best for everyone, the idea that everyone is the same or should be, the idea that government should interfere with matters of belief and on and on and on.
These evil ideas don't just live in the hearts of Muslim Extremists, but in the hearts of my friend who sent me that email, millions of Christians in this country who are preaching against Islam because they can, or are trying to force their brand of Christianity onto the rest of us, whether Christian or not. They say, prayer in school is good! but only their variety of prayer, if every schoolchild was required to even be present at a school-wide pagan ritual for peace, there would be an outcry. And why? for the same reason there is an outcry (although smaller) against any other religious ceremony being forced on young children.
Personally, I think all children should be presented with all religions at a young age to foster tolerance and understanding, but that is also frowned upon by the religious in this country (afraid that their children will be indoctrinated and fall away... that brings up the question, what's so bad about the other religions that you wouldn't want your child practicing it? Maybe that's where tolerance needs to start - a whole generation of children who leave their religion for another - breaking up the immovable force that is parental disapproval).
Finally, if every country had a "state religion" whether enforced or not - but one that was considered de-facto, where could anyone go and be guaranteed religious freedom? I wish every country had tolerance for those with beliefs not their own, for those small groups of people who suffer because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time.
John Howard might think that his country was founded on the ideals of Christianity. But, the people who founded that continent had a very different idea of the universe, and now these are some of the very people that he is wishing to exclude with his (and their) government.
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Hooray for Youth Activists
I ran into an article written by Sasha Mushegian, a Kansas City highschool student, decrying book censorship in school libraries and literature class reading lists. Specifically, she was condemning the actions of her local "fundamental Christian back to the roots, why are my children reading books with the F-word in it" group. Sasha does a wonderful job dissembling the core arguments of this group and most other censorship groups in general. Take a look.
Richard Dawkins had a tv program on in the UK called 'The root of all evil?' exploring, among other things, what affect religion has on young people (you can find a copy on YouTube). Of course he was very negative about it, being who he is and where he stands, but he had some good points. (paraphrase) “Children are labeled with their parent’s religion as babes, even though they could not have come to that decision on their own at that age. We do not label children with the political party of their parents, we expect them to make up their own mind about that sort of thing, why should religion be any different?” I think parents try to project their political outlooks on their children as well. If children are never given the chance to look outside the perfect box their parents put them in (even if the parents are not in it themselves), they will never question the validity of what they were taught. If they never question what they were taught, it can never expand, grow or become perfected. It is expected that parents will indoctrinate their children into their own beliefs. Is this ethical or even effective?
The fewer ideas that are inserted into a child's brain, the less data that child has in order to make decisions then and later in life as an adult. Lack of a decision making ability is severely crippling for anyone.
Many people do not think the FLDS (the polygamist group of Mormons in Texas who were in the news a couple months ago) should be allowed to raise their children because of the specific beliefs that the children are being taught. Is it any more ethical if you are brainwashing them to be Southern Baptists, Gays, Catholics, Wiccans, Presbyterians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, Buddhists, any other religion? How about Republicans, Democrats, Mac users, Doctors, Lawyers, Loggers, Mill workers, Spanish Speakers or overweight ... eh?
You have a right to be any of those things, and you have a right to NOT be any of those things. Everyone else has that right as well. It is almost impossible to raise a child without instilling in them some of your own ideas and ideals. That’s okay. It’s when you actively limit their choice and rebuke them for turning aside form your ideals that you are doing something wrong as a parent.
All that aside, does it even work? If the child is the same type of person as their parents (ie without pressure they would have chosen the same path as their parents) they will probably either A: shrug it off and continue on that path; B: feel hurt, distance themselves from their parents, even though they stay in rank; C: angrily leave the fold, joining a similar group, or becoming agnostic. If they are a different type of person than their parents (this is usually the majority) they might A: stick with what you have told them, even though it doesn’t fit them; B: drift away and join some other group that better fits their personality; C: rebel and try to revolutionize the group they grew up in; D: rebel and try to destroy/“reveal” the group they grew up in and/or anything like it. There are a lot of other possibilities, these are just some examples. Which category each child falls in depends on the way they are raised and their personality.
Which of these examples really accomplished the goal? Most of the first group does, although, only the first one was positive. Out of the second group, the first option would “look” like it worked. The child stays in the religion, from the outside everything looks great, even though they have no conviction that it is true. They stay in out of honor, comfort, fear, laziness or ignorance. Unfortunately, the majority of people in general fall into this category. If raised in a situation that they do not fully believe, they will stay in it as long as possible, which is usually until they die. This is the reason that revolutions do not happen until the conditions are so bad that they cannot be stood for another moment. Anger and aggravation rushes out at whatever is causing the discomfort until it is alleviated. Everyone then goes back to life until they are again discomforted.
You should not force your children to be like you are. Whether you are a member of the religious right, banning Harry Potter and Darwin or a polygamist banning everything possible or a scientist banning fantasy novels. It doesn't matter who you are or what you ban, your children are not you, you will either kill their brains or alienate them from your own way of thinking.
Why do parents do this to their children? They want them to grow up as happy as they were / are. The thing they forget is that they themselves were either A: brainwashed as a child, and never got over it (and as such they can be forgiven, they are just carrying out their programing) B: Converts to that way of thinking, and so they used their mental faculties to decide what was right for them rather than being forced. C: Different in personality their children. Children are not a small version of yourself, they have the right to think what they wish, be comfortable with what they want to be comfortable with, listen to their own music, even though all the adults think it is the devil's music (*shakes head* that one has been going on since someone figured out how to clap their hands to a beat... 'when I was your age, we didn't disgrace ourselves by beating our hands together. Noise, that's what it is! Noise! ... :-) )
As children are people too, they have a right to start choosing who they will be at a younger age than 18. I am really proud of the children who stand up for their rights.
Where is the boundary between the rights of children and the rights of parents? When good choices are removed. There is a difference between ethics and dogma. Teach your child to be a good person, let them decide on the rest. You can help them along by being a good example. I think you will do more by just being an example than by keeping all outside influences away from your children. They will respect you, even if they disagree with your doctrines because you taught them that the most important thing is the way you act, the way you treat other people. If we didn’t have that, we couldn’t call ourselves civilized.
Richard Dawkins had a tv program on in the UK called 'The root of all evil?' exploring, among other things, what affect religion has on young people (you can find a copy on YouTube). Of course he was very negative about it, being who he is and where he stands, but he had some good points. (paraphrase) “Children are labeled with their parent’s religion as babes, even though they could not have come to that decision on their own at that age. We do not label children with the political party of their parents, we expect them to make up their own mind about that sort of thing, why should religion be any different?” I think parents try to project their political outlooks on their children as well. If children are never given the chance to look outside the perfect box their parents put them in (even if the parents are not in it themselves), they will never question the validity of what they were taught. If they never question what they were taught, it can never expand, grow or become perfected. It is expected that parents will indoctrinate their children into their own beliefs. Is this ethical or even effective?
The fewer ideas that are inserted into a child's brain, the less data that child has in order to make decisions then and later in life as an adult. Lack of a decision making ability is severely crippling for anyone.
Many people do not think the FLDS (the polygamist group of Mormons in Texas who were in the news a couple months ago) should be allowed to raise their children because of the specific beliefs that the children are being taught. Is it any more ethical if you are brainwashing them to be Southern Baptists, Gays, Catholics, Wiccans, Presbyterians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, Buddhists, any other religion? How about Republicans, Democrats, Mac users, Doctors, Lawyers, Loggers, Mill workers, Spanish Speakers or overweight ... eh?
You have a right to be any of those things, and you have a right to NOT be any of those things. Everyone else has that right as well. It is almost impossible to raise a child without instilling in them some of your own ideas and ideals. That’s okay. It’s when you actively limit their choice and rebuke them for turning aside form your ideals that you are doing something wrong as a parent.
All that aside, does it even work? If the child is the same type of person as their parents (ie without pressure they would have chosen the same path as their parents) they will probably either A: shrug it off and continue on that path; B: feel hurt, distance themselves from their parents, even though they stay in rank; C: angrily leave the fold, joining a similar group, or becoming agnostic. If they are a different type of person than their parents (this is usually the majority) they might A: stick with what you have told them, even though it doesn’t fit them; B: drift away and join some other group that better fits their personality; C: rebel and try to revolutionize the group they grew up in; D: rebel and try to destroy/“reveal” the group they grew up in and/or anything like it. There are a lot of other possibilities, these are just some examples. Which category each child falls in depends on the way they are raised and their personality.
Which of these examples really accomplished the goal? Most of the first group does, although, only the first one was positive. Out of the second group, the first option would “look” like it worked. The child stays in the religion, from the outside everything looks great, even though they have no conviction that it is true. They stay in out of honor, comfort, fear, laziness or ignorance. Unfortunately, the majority of people in general fall into this category. If raised in a situation that they do not fully believe, they will stay in it as long as possible, which is usually until they die. This is the reason that revolutions do not happen until the conditions are so bad that they cannot be stood for another moment. Anger and aggravation rushes out at whatever is causing the discomfort until it is alleviated. Everyone then goes back to life until they are again discomforted.
You should not force your children to be like you are. Whether you are a member of the religious right, banning Harry Potter and Darwin or a polygamist banning everything possible or a scientist banning fantasy novels. It doesn't matter who you are or what you ban, your children are not you, you will either kill their brains or alienate them from your own way of thinking.
Why do parents do this to their children? They want them to grow up as happy as they were / are. The thing they forget is that they themselves were either A: brainwashed as a child, and never got over it (and as such they can be forgiven, they are just carrying out their programing) B: Converts to that way of thinking, and so they used their mental faculties to decide what was right for them rather than being forced. C: Different in personality their children. Children are not a small version of yourself, they have the right to think what they wish, be comfortable with what they want to be comfortable with, listen to their own music, even though all the adults think it is the devil's music (*shakes head* that one has been going on since someone figured out how to clap their hands to a beat... 'when I was your age, we didn't disgrace ourselves by beating our hands together. Noise, that's what it is! Noise! ... :-) )
As children are people too, they have a right to start choosing who they will be at a younger age than 18. I am really proud of the children who stand up for their rights.
Where is the boundary between the rights of children and the rights of parents? When good choices are removed. There is a difference between ethics and dogma. Teach your child to be a good person, let them decide on the rest. You can help them along by being a good example. I think you will do more by just being an example than by keeping all outside influences away from your children. They will respect you, even if they disagree with your doctrines because you taught them that the most important thing is the way you act, the way you treat other people. If we didn’t have that, we couldn’t call ourselves civilized.
Illegal Aliens cost us $338 Billion in Debt a year!! (or do they?)
I recently received an email regarding illegal aliens, and the horrible economic harm they are doing to our country.
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?Read this: Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the propagandathat it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.I now find that to be RIDICULOUS. I hope the following 14 reasons areforwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that thereader gets sick of reading them.I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal alienseach year.2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programssuch as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary schooleducation for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word ofEnglish!5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for theAmerican-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &social services by the American taxpayers.9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are causedby the illegal aliens.10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that'stwo and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in theUS11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliensthat crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegalaliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine,meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southernborder.Homeland Security Report:12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost ofmass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an averagecost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back totheir countries of origin.14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million SexCrimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States '.The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!Are we THAT stupid???If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message.If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of yourneck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the countryincluding every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a weekfor as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in ourpolicies and enforcement thereof.
That was the entire un-edited email.
There's nothing that irks me more than an 'article' that attacks a specific group of people (be it Muslims, Illegal Aliens or Mormons) without giving all the facts, so that all those who read it come away thinking who knows what. With that in mind, I want to offer a little perspective.
If you look at last year's US budget ( Wikipedia United States federal budget, 2007 ), you'll notice something interesting. $338 Billion dollars sounds like quite a lot, and it is! But, we paid $243.7 billion in debt interest ALONE last year. Just pause and think about that for a minute. That's almost as much as the figure in the email below ... compare that to what we are paying for our active military: $548.8 billion. Social Security/Medicare hits a combined total of $980.6 Billion ... wow. (and don't forget, that number will DOUBLE in ten years)
There are about 7 million illegal aliens in the country (mostly in California and Arizona), that's an average of 1.7 illegal aliens per 100 citizens. If we take the suggested $338 billion dollars and divide it up between them all, we come up with about $48,000 in spending per illegal alien. Maybe you should ask them what they are doing with all of that cash? The more reasonable explanation is that the numbers were inflated. If you check the numbers from The Center for Immigration Studies , you'll find that they figure $10.4 billion in deficit per year. Now, that's still a lot, but not enough to put us in debt, just enough to make us stop and try to figure out a solution. What that solution is, I guess the politicians will argue about until someone does something about it. But, please! keep in mind that we're really talking about people, not numbers.
By the way, do you want to know the real reason we're in debt? (9.5 trillion, if you were wondering) The same reason any of us might be. By spending more than we earn (approx. 2.5 trillion earned and 2.8 trillion spent), as well as not budgeting in debt payments.
The Afterlife
This subject has imposed itself on me quite a few time this last month. I am beginning to feel that, yes, what we do in this life affects where we will go in the next, but there are millions of possibilities instead of two, three or even seven. Each possible afterlife is merely a gathering of like souls. So, if you are a miser, you will go to a place filled with misers. No one will help you out, but you can save to your heart's delight. If you spent your life serving others, you will go somewhere with others who live to serve. Imagine what that would be like. It could either be very satisfying, or it could be incredibly annoying. But, for the most part, we are not quite so archetypal as all that! Think of it as being gathered up with all of your possible soul mates - all in one place! You may not be exactly the same, but everyone there connects with you - they are all the people who you admire, and who in turn admire you. That isn't to say that everyone who falls into that category in this life will go to the same place - there are choices made that can kick them into another sphere, murder would be a good example.
Let's take Tolkien for an example. Not all (or even most) of his fans would be in the same place as he. But other linguists, historians, etc would - this is a place of equals!
'Getting' to live with who you are is the best punishment/reward I can think of. And, as a bonus, I don't see a lot in the scriptures that specifically contradict this notion.
Let's take Tolkien for an example. Not all (or even most) of his fans would be in the same place as he. But other linguists, historians, etc would - this is a place of equals!
'Getting' to live with who you are is the best punishment/reward I can think of. And, as a bonus, I don't see a lot in the scriptures that specifically contradict this notion.
Justice and Mercy in Mormonism
There are quite a few strange things about mormon doctrines. One common idea is that Mercy is utterly opposed to Justice and visa versa. Let me wander down the isles of the thought processes that have led us there.
The GOD of the old testament seems harsh, brutal, quick to dish out punishment, and slow to let transgressions go without some recompense. The Law of Torah is filled with death penalties for trivial crimes (or so they seem to us). We do not like to think of God in this light, as we believe that our souls and our futures are in his hands. Along comes Jesus! From the new testament we can see that he is loving, forgiving and fair. Whew! we know we can trust this guy not to kill us for stepping out of line.
In traditional christian thought, Jesus and the Father are one being, so what Jesus is, so is the Father, and we come up with ways to explain away the actions of the old testament god. The mormons, along with other modern arians, did not believe in the traditional trinity, but considered that the members of the godhead were all separate beings. Well, this brought up the idea of the vengeful old testament god again. If there was no new testament Jesus side to god himself, new explanations would have to be found, or the old testament would need to be downplayed (as many modern christian denominations do).
Now, I'm not sure when the Justice vs Mercy doctrine became very popular in mormonism, I'll have to do some research, but, perhaps it stemmed from these early days of the church. The basic premises of the idea is that God represents JUSTICE! perfect justice that must be satisfied at all costs! and Jesus represents MERCY! perfect mercy that could forgive those who were killing him as it was being done. When we sin, God demands that justice be served, thrusting us out into the darkness if we are the least bit imperfect - and then, Jesus saves us with his mercy, by forgiving us and taking on our sins for himself. How this works exactly is up for debate. When we are through with this history lesson, I want to show why this was a false idea in all of its incarnations.
In the very early 1900s, the mormons still believed that god the father was Jehovah or LORD of the old testament, and Jesus was a separate person who played a role as explained above. The modern era was approaching, many converts were joining the church, and as a result, many of the members of the church were becoming uncomfortable with the idea of this GOD, personally untempered by a kinder half.
Luckily for them (or not, as your point of view may be), Talmage came along and introduced what I like to call reformed trinitarianism. Basically, the old testament God, Jehovah, really was Jesus - just pretending. Besides all of the weird stuff that does to your brain (if you were brought up to be a non-trinitarian) like Jesus talking about himself in third person; Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Moses were really talking to Jesus, not the father; and apparently you prayed to Jesus before he came and the Father after etc., it neatly solved the current moral dilemma by placing the mormon godhead in the same murky water as the rest of christianity. Even though this didn't really solve the problem, it DID in so many people's minds, that it didn't really matter one way or the other.
In this doctrinal setting (Jesus is Jehovah), the idea of Justice vs Mercy would not have become as important since both roles were being played by the same person anyway (thus the internal cohesion (or confusion, as I like to think of it as) of the two would have been emphasized rather than the separateness).
Now for the fun part! How is this idea fundamentally flawed?
First off, separating these two attributes between the pair of them implies that God cannot forgive, or is incapable of mercy. Many would tend to agree with this - he represents the LAW, and it would be unbefitting of him to bend it for us (as many a tale about kings exemplifies). But, the other side to this would be that Jesus cannot exhibit justice, or met out retribution. Before you say 'of course he does not judge us - he loves us all unconditionally', remember his words to the scribes and pharisees, remember how he scourged the temple of the money changers, how he scorched the fruitless fig tree. These are not the actions of a man without justice. The thing that Jesus did, that I think was remarkable, was he knew when people were selfish or greedy or abusive, and called them on it - even if it was an acceptable practice for the day. He also associated himself with, and forgave, those that society had cast out. In short, he could see through social and cultural labels down into the human soul.
I would also like to point out that God in the old testament isn't as unmerciful as many think. Just peruse through the search result for forgive in the old testament. As an example (as I am running out of time)
The GOD of the old testament seems harsh, brutal, quick to dish out punishment, and slow to let transgressions go without some recompense. The Law of Torah is filled with death penalties for trivial crimes (or so they seem to us). We do not like to think of God in this light, as we believe that our souls and our futures are in his hands. Along comes Jesus! From the new testament we can see that he is loving, forgiving and fair. Whew! we know we can trust this guy not to kill us for stepping out of line.
In traditional christian thought, Jesus and the Father are one being, so what Jesus is, so is the Father, and we come up with ways to explain away the actions of the old testament god. The mormons, along with other modern arians, did not believe in the traditional trinity, but considered that the members of the godhead were all separate beings. Well, this brought up the idea of the vengeful old testament god again. If there was no new testament Jesus side to god himself, new explanations would have to be found, or the old testament would need to be downplayed (as many modern christian denominations do).
Now, I'm not sure when the Justice vs Mercy doctrine became very popular in mormonism, I'll have to do some research, but, perhaps it stemmed from these early days of the church. The basic premises of the idea is that God represents JUSTICE! perfect justice that must be satisfied at all costs! and Jesus represents MERCY! perfect mercy that could forgive those who were killing him as it was being done. When we sin, God demands that justice be served, thrusting us out into the darkness if we are the least bit imperfect - and then, Jesus saves us with his mercy, by forgiving us and taking on our sins for himself. How this works exactly is up for debate. When we are through with this history lesson, I want to show why this was a false idea in all of its incarnations.
In the very early 1900s, the mormons still believed that god the father was Jehovah or LORD of the old testament, and Jesus was a separate person who played a role as explained above. The modern era was approaching, many converts were joining the church, and as a result, many of the members of the church were becoming uncomfortable with the idea of this GOD, personally untempered by a kinder half.
Luckily for them (or not, as your point of view may be), Talmage came along and introduced what I like to call reformed trinitarianism. Basically, the old testament God, Jehovah, really was Jesus - just pretending. Besides all of the weird stuff that does to your brain (if you were brought up to be a non-trinitarian) like Jesus talking about himself in third person; Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Moses were really talking to Jesus, not the father; and apparently you prayed to Jesus before he came and the Father after etc., it neatly solved the current moral dilemma by placing the mormon godhead in the same murky water as the rest of christianity. Even though this didn't really solve the problem, it DID in so many people's minds, that it didn't really matter one way or the other.
In this doctrinal setting (Jesus is Jehovah), the idea of Justice vs Mercy would not have become as important since both roles were being played by the same person anyway (thus the internal cohesion (or confusion, as I like to think of it as) of the two would have been emphasized rather than the separateness).
Now for the fun part! How is this idea fundamentally flawed?
First off, separating these two attributes between the pair of them implies that God cannot forgive, or is incapable of mercy. Many would tend to agree with this - he represents the LAW, and it would be unbefitting of him to bend it for us (as many a tale about kings exemplifies). But, the other side to this would be that Jesus cannot exhibit justice, or met out retribution. Before you say 'of course he does not judge us - he loves us all unconditionally', remember his words to the scribes and pharisees, remember how he scourged the temple of the money changers, how he scorched the fruitless fig tree. These are not the actions of a man without justice. The thing that Jesus did, that I think was remarkable, was he knew when people were selfish or greedy or abusive, and called them on it - even if it was an acceptable practice for the day. He also associated himself with, and forgave, those that society had cast out. In short, he could see through social and cultural labels down into the human soul.
I would also like to point out that God in the old testament isn't as unmerciful as many think. Just peruse through the search result for forgive in the old testament. As an example (as I am running out of time)
Psalms 86: 5 For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.
There are examples of god the father forgiving people without requiring a sacrifice BEFORE Jesus is born and is killed. There are also examples of Jesus freely forgiving those he met in his life "your sins are forgiven you, go and sin no more". What does this mean? There was no Justice exacted before forgiveness was granted - how is this possible in the DEATH=SIN/SIN=PUNISHMENT model of things?
Lastly, this idea sets up two different ideals - one just and the other merciful. If God and Jesus are both perfect, shouldn't they share an ideal rather than separating it out between them? Is perfection Just, or is it Merciful? If we are to be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect, should we show no mercy, but demand justice in every case? What becomes of the message of Jesus to forgive everyone who crosses our path?
We ourselves should be striving for a balance between the two, and so why not our prime examples in this life as well? God is merciful, Jesus is Just. Instead of patching up things we don't want to hear, we should take a close look at our holy books and either denounce their ideals as not our own, or come to an understanding of the message which the authors were intending.
Christians and Indians (and the Creation)
I was struck the other day at how both of these groups respond to the idea that their idea of the creation may not be scientifically accurate.
The Christians are dealing with the rejection of the idea that an all-powerful being made the earth in 7 earth days, 6000 years ago. The Religious Indians are dealing with a variety of beliefs, for instance, that they lived in an underworld, and climbed up a large bamboo or a pine tree or ... through a hole in the ground, to the American Southwest. Or perhaps, we are all living on the back of a giant turtle.
I am intensely curious as to what the average creationist American would have to say concerning the religious beliefs of the Native Americans. Would they scoff and point out the DNA evidence that shows they came from Asia? Would they accept their stories as true and factual?
Most religious groups will be defending their standpoint against "Science" to their last breath. And, "Science" will be putting forth their ideas as well. The difference between science and other systems of belief is Science loves to change, to find more truth! And most of the others are trying to keep their old ideas firmly established. Hopefully they will remember that their version of the story is really no more factual than any religion (well, maybe a *little* more factual), we still have a long way to go before any of us really understands what happened in the beginning of the universe, the beginning of this galaxy or the beginning of the human race.
The Christians are dealing with the rejection of the idea that an all-powerful being made the earth in 7 earth days, 6000 years ago. The Religious Indians are dealing with a variety of beliefs, for instance, that they lived in an underworld, and climbed up a large bamboo or a pine tree or ... through a hole in the ground, to the American Southwest. Or perhaps, we are all living on the back of a giant turtle.
I am intensely curious as to what the average creationist American would have to say concerning the religious beliefs of the Native Americans. Would they scoff and point out the DNA evidence that shows they came from Asia? Would they accept their stories as true and factual?
Most religious groups will be defending their standpoint against "Science" to their last breath. And, "Science" will be putting forth their ideas as well. The difference between science and other systems of belief is Science loves to change, to find more truth! And most of the others are trying to keep their old ideas firmly established. Hopefully they will remember that their version of the story is really no more factual than any religion (well, maybe a *little* more factual), we still have a long way to go before any of us really understands what happened in the beginning of the universe, the beginning of this galaxy or the beginning of the human race.
NPCs, Quakers and Pawns
Through a confluence of events, I spent about half an hour yesterday thinking about the roles of heroes, Quakers and chess. I was wondering what a quaker chess set would look like, since they promote the idea that we are all on an equal playing ground - that the king is no better than the peasant and vice-versa. At first, I considered that the whole set would be pawns. But, that wouldn't be really true, just because everyone is "equal" doesn't mean we are all at the lowest common denominator, or even that we are all the SAME. A lot of people confuse equal with same.
I think equality truly means that we all have an equal chance to become whatever type of chess piece we want to become. Some people will be pawns - just going through life, getting in the way, good luck, bad luck ... being Non-Player-Characters (to use an RPG term) to be used and thrown away when they are through. This may seem harsh, especially since there are people like this - but, I believe it is through their own choice. The alternative to being a pawn, would to be one of the "heroic" pieces, the ones that have more choices open to them about how to act, what they want to achieve and so on.
One could argue that there is a social and economic bar placed over a portion of the population that keeps them from being able to be more than a pawn in life. But, I would argue that this is not true! This is because there are numerous examples of rich people who have lived and died and have only been well educated and comfortable pawns, but pawns none the less. You must also remember that you don't have to be Gandhi, or the president of the united states in order to move away from being a pawn. Anyone who can change the world about them (for good or ill) in a way that will last (hopefully) beyond their own life has moved from being a pawn to being something that has made a difference. And, isn't that one of the reasons we are here? If we do not make a difference, what difference did it make that we were born?
I think equality truly means that we all have an equal chance to become whatever type of chess piece we want to become. Some people will be pawns - just going through life, getting in the way, good luck, bad luck ... being Non-Player-Characters (to use an RPG term) to be used and thrown away when they are through. This may seem harsh, especially since there are people like this - but, I believe it is through their own choice. The alternative to being a pawn, would to be one of the "heroic" pieces, the ones that have more choices open to them about how to act, what they want to achieve and so on.
One could argue that there is a social and economic bar placed over a portion of the population that keeps them from being able to be more than a pawn in life. But, I would argue that this is not true! This is because there are numerous examples of rich people who have lived and died and have only been well educated and comfortable pawns, but pawns none the less. You must also remember that you don't have to be Gandhi, or the president of the united states in order to move away from being a pawn. Anyone who can change the world about them (for good or ill) in a way that will last (hopefully) beyond their own life has moved from being a pawn to being something that has made a difference. And, isn't that one of the reasons we are here? If we do not make a difference, what difference did it make that we were born?
Dedicating the Statue of Liberty to the LORD
The statue of liberty was a “gift” from the French government to the American people, as if from a knowing father to an unexperienced child. The sculptor prided himself in creating gargantuan statuary that rivaled that of the ancients. The Statue of Liberty was no exception, it was commonly known that this statue would rival the Colossus of Rhodes, one of the Seven Wonder of the Ancient World (which was also situated in the midst of a busy harbor). The design of the Statue of Liberty was intended to be a depiction of the Roman Goddess, Libertas wearing a representation of the Phrygian cap, which was the mark of a freed slave. In her hand she bore a torch, representing (in the mind of the sculptor) the enlightenment of France being bestowed upon America as a gift (as if the Americans could not find it themselves. This all adds up to a statue of dubious character, and we could all wonder why it has become such a loved emblem of this country. The answer to this lies in the short poem written to raise funds for the base of the proposed statue by a woman named Emma Lazarus. Emma was a Sephardic Jewish woman born in New York City in 1849.
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
As most Americans know, this poem was later engraved onto a plaque which was placed on the base of the statue. What most Americans don’t know, however, is the message she was trying to give to the world with her poem. By comparing this poem to a selection of her other poetry and by remembering her Jewish upbringing, we can suddenly see a clear message of revolt from the Babylon of Europe, into the welcoming arms of a new mother, a new Zion where true liberty prevails. Let us take this monumental poem phrase by phrase and learn how this Jewish woman dedicated an unavoidable symbol of the corruption of the Old World into a Declaration of the Light of her LORD to all the people of the earth.
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
The poem starts out by proclaiming that this new statue is not like the old Colossus of Rhodes, Apollo, with conquering limbs astride from land to land. Liberty could not be obtained through warfare and domination! What does she replace this standard of European thought with?
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles.
The Mother of Exiles is a mighty woman carrying a torch, but who is she? To answer that question, we can turn to another of Emma’s poems, 1492 (written in 1883) which describes the “two-faced year” in which the Jews were exiled from Spain and a New World was discovered for them to flee to.
1492
Thou two-faced year, Mother of Change and Fate,
Didst weep when Spain cast forth with flaming sword,
The children of the prophets of the Lord,
Prince, priest, and people, spurned by zealot hate.
Hounded from sea to sea, from state to state,
The West refused them, and the East abhorred.
No anchorage the known world could afford,
Close-locked was every port, barred every gate.
Then smiling, thou unveil'dst, O two-faced year,
A virgin world where doors of sunset part,
Saying, "Ho, all who weary, enter here!
There falls each ancient barrier that the art
Of race or creed or rank devised, to rear
Grim bulwarked hatred between heart and heart!"
One cannot help but see the similarity between these two lines: Then smiling, thou unveil'dst, O two-faced year, // A virgin world where doors of sunset part and Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand // A mighty woman with a torch. The lands of America (North and South) were a refuge for the Jews who were being actively cast forth from their homes. Where else could they turn? In another poem, written by Emma during the same time period as The New Colossus, we catch another glimpse of this Mother of Exiles.
By the Waters of Babylon
Part V. - Currents
Vast oceanic movements, the flux and reflux of immeasurable tides oversweep our continent.
From the far Caucasian steppes, from the squalid Ghettoes of Europe,
From Odessa and Bucharest, from Kief and Ekaterinoslav,
Hark to the cry of the exiles of Babylon, the voice of Rachel mourning for her children, of Israel lamenting for Zion.
And lo, like a turbid stream, the long-pent flood bursts the dykes of oppression and rushes hitherward.
Unto her ample breast, the generous mother of nations welcomes them.
The herdsman of Canaan and the seed of Jerusalem's royal shepherd renew their youth amid the pastoral plains of Texas and the golden valleys of the Sierras.
Hark to the cry of the exiles of Babylon, the voice of Rachel mourning for her children, of Israel lamenting for Zion. The Jewish people have been exiled from their homes, cast forth by religion and government, they are crying for peace and freedom. They burst forth from the Old World like a broken dam and flow into the New World, welcomed by The Mother of Nations. Zion and Israel are often depicted in the Scriptures as a woman, the bride of the LORD. It is fitting then, that their lamentations were answered with a new land, a new Zion, where they could proser without turning away from their LORD.
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
The imprisoned lightning that glows in her torch is a welcoming light for all the world, and this is exemplified by the imagery which casts her as a guardian of the harbor (which, incidentally, was the original purpose of the Colossus of Rhodes) in the next few lines:
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
The message hinted at in the first lines are now brought home; Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp! America has no need of the corruption and religious persecution that had cast so many from their homes. You might also compare the wording of these lines to the end of her poem, 1492. And so, we come to the last line of this poem:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The lamp of the Mother of Exiles could represent one of many things, but the most compelling is referenced in yet another of Emma’s poems, titled Gifts:
Gifts
"O World-God, give me Wealth!" the Egyptian cried.
His prayer was granted. High as heaven, behold
Palace and Pyramid; the brimming tide
Of lavish Nile washed all his land with gold.
Armies of slaves toiled ant-wise at his feet,
World-circling traffic roared through mart and street,
His priests were gods, his spice-balmed kings enshrined,
Set death at naught in rock-ribbed channels deep.
Seek Pharaoh's race to-day and ye shall find
Rust and the moth, silence and dusty sleep.
"O World-God, give me beauty!" cried the Greek.
His prayer was granted. All the earth became
Plastic and vocal to his sense; each peak,
Each grove, each stream, quick with Promethean flame,
Peopled the world with imaged grace and light.
The lyre was his, and his the breathing might
Of the immortal marble, his the play
Of diamond-pointed thought and golden tongue.
Go seek the sun-shine race, ye find to-day
A broken column and a lute unstrung.
"O World-God, give me Power!" the Roman cried.
His prayer was granted. The vast world was chained
A captive to the chariot of his pride.
The blood of myriad provinces was drained
To feed that fierce, insatiable red heart.
Invulnerably bulwarked every part
With serried legions and with close-meshed Code,
Within, the burrowing worm had gnawed its home,
A roofless ruin stands where once abode
The imperial race of everlasting Rome.
"O Godhead, give me Truth!" the Hebrew cried.
His prayer was granted; he became the slave
Of the Idea, a pilgrim far and wide,
Cursed, hated, spurned, and scourged with none to save.
The Pharaohs knew him, and when Greece beheld,
His wisdom wore the hoary crown of Eld.
Beauty he hath forsworn, and wealth and power.
Seek him to-day, and find in every land.
No fire consumes him, neither floods devour;
Immortal through the lamp within his hand.
The Lamp of the Hebrews is Truth from the LORD. This theme can be found in a number of Emma’s other works, including "The Choice," "The Feast of Lights," and "In Exile." It isn’t too far of a leap to suggest that the lamp that the Mother of Exiles holds next to the golden door, might be this same lamp mentioned in her other poetry.
In the end, the original message of the Statue of Liberty became turned around from one of condescending light shining forth from the Ancient and Civilized Lands into the Young Lands guiding their reckless venture of freedom into more traditional and tested forms of power and control into a welcoming light of moral truths on which this country was founded shining forth into the rest of the weary world. Emma Lazarus did our world a favor when she dedicated the Statue of Liberty to her LORD and changed her name to the Mother of Exiles.
I would like to give credit to Daniel Marom and his book Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History for giving me the idea of writing this essay, and also to Emma Lazarus for being brave enough to combat tendrils of Babylon that had begun to creep into her Zion. May we all have as much courage as her in our own struggles.
the bible
I love the bible! but I do not believe it to be true.
How can that be? If you love the Bible, you must truly believe it to be true in your heart.
If I believed the bible to be true, I would hate it. Instead, I have loosened my grasping reliance on this book so that I can love it for what it really is. How many things do we love in this world, even though they are not perfect? True love overlooks imperfections and faults. I love the bible, despite its flaws and falsehoods.
How can that be? If you love the Bible, you must truly believe it to be true in your heart.
If I believed the bible to be true, I would hate it. Instead, I have loosened my grasping reliance on this book so that I can love it for what it really is. How many things do we love in this world, even though they are not perfect? True love overlooks imperfections and faults. I love the bible, despite its flaws and falsehoods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)