In response to Sarah Palin’s recent claims that climate change is based on “junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood,” Al Gore said that global warming is not a political issue but a moral one. Which is it? Is it immoral to do nothing about global warming?
One theme common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the conviction that God has given us stewardship over the earth, making us partners in caring for the rest of creation. In Islam, this charge is especially poignant: according to the Qur’an, God first offered the trust for creation to the heavens, earth, and mountains themselves. But they were afraid, and it was only humans who were willing to accept it.
Like it or not, we’ve been given the trust of caring for this planet.
When we exhaust its resources, upset the balance of the ecosystem, or ignore the pollution resulting from our own carelessness—we betray the trust.
When we, as a developed industrial nation, continue to serve our own needs—at the expense of others affected by environmental degradation—we betray the trust.
When we deny climate problems we know may grow worse over time, instead of focusing on ways to protect the planet for future generations—we betray the trust.
An ancient Indian proverb reminds us of our true relationship to the planet:
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents,
it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the earth
from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
We do not inherit the earth, we are heirs to the trust God has placed in our hands. Perhaps we think we, too, can refuse that trust. But it’s too late for that now.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men
Christmas decorations at the White House include a crèche in the East Room (despite reports that White House social secretary Desirée Rogers suggested that the Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas.") Should the White House, whose residents serve all Americans, display a crèche or a menorah or any strictly religious symbols during the holidays?
The president’s decision to display a crèche in the White House is not intended as a slight to people of other faith traditions, nor does it represent a secret agenda for the U.S. to become a Christian nation. It’s one family’s way of expressing the spirit of their faith—an authentic hope for peace on earth, good will toward men.
For Christians, the crèche is a symbol of the coming of Jesus into the world, a reminder of the great joy and celebration proclaimed by an angel at his birth, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
But these sentiments are not exclusive to Christianity. The religious landscape in the U.S. includes a growing number of traditions—including Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Unitarian Universalism, Baha’i, Sikhism, Mormonism, Native American Religion, Spiritualist, Humanist, Scientology, Wiccan/Pagan/Druid, Taoist—and while each has its own distinctive character, most share a common goal of seeking harmony, peace, and unity for the people of the world.
If we accept these values as foundational to many faiths, then fighting over the appropriateness of a religious symbol in public places and government buildings is a political argument rather than a religious one. It’s a question not so much about freedom of religion as it is about freedom from religion. No one wants to have someone else’s faith forced on them, but all citizens should have the right to celebrate their own faith, in their own way, as long as it doesn’t limit another’s religious freedom. And this includes the president and his family.
President Obama marked the beginning of Hanukkah this week by asking that all Americans carry the message of this Jewish holiday in their hearts: “May Hanukkah's lessons inspire us all to give thanks for the blessings we enjoy, to find light in times of darkness, and to work together for a brighter, more hopeful tomorrow." So the question is not whether the president should display a traditional Christmas symbol—or any other symbol—in the White House, but whether religious and non-religious Americans can join together in a common hope and vision for the future of humankind.
“On earth peace, good will toward men.”
The president’s decision to display a crèche in the White House is not intended as a slight to people of other faith traditions, nor does it represent a secret agenda for the U.S. to become a Christian nation. It’s one family’s way of expressing the spirit of their faith—an authentic hope for peace on earth, good will toward men.
For Christians, the crèche is a symbol of the coming of Jesus into the world, a reminder of the great joy and celebration proclaimed by an angel at his birth, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
But these sentiments are not exclusive to Christianity. The religious landscape in the U.S. includes a growing number of traditions—including Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Unitarian Universalism, Baha’i, Sikhism, Mormonism, Native American Religion, Spiritualist, Humanist, Scientology, Wiccan/Pagan/Druid, Taoist—and while each has its own distinctive character, most share a common goal of seeking harmony, peace, and unity for the people of the world.
If we accept these values as foundational to many faiths, then fighting over the appropriateness of a religious symbol in public places and government buildings is a political argument rather than a religious one. It’s a question not so much about freedom of religion as it is about freedom from religion. No one wants to have someone else’s faith forced on them, but all citizens should have the right to celebrate their own faith, in their own way, as long as it doesn’t limit another’s religious freedom. And this includes the president and his family.
President Obama marked the beginning of Hanukkah this week by asking that all Americans carry the message of this Jewish holiday in their hearts: “May Hanukkah's lessons inspire us all to give thanks for the blessings we enjoy, to find light in times of darkness, and to work together for a brighter, more hopeful tomorrow." So the question is not whether the president should display a traditional Christmas symbol—or any other symbol—in the White House, but whether religious and non-religious Americans can join together in a common hope and vision for the future of humankind.
“On earth peace, good will toward men.”
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places
New technologies have expanded the possibilities for dating—giving us more ways to find romance, arrange dates, and connect with partners. But in the technological marketplace, love has become a commodity to be selected, put on a “wish list,” or discarded—as easy as shopping on e-Bay or Amazon.com.
In the past 15 years, the number of people using Internet dating sites has skyrocketed. Of the 10 million Internet users looking for partners, nearly three-fourths have used online dating. What these sites have done is turn romance into a shopping experience—offering a way to browse for partners without leaving home. Most users report being happy with their experiences, but more than half also think others lie about personal details or marital status.
Cell phones, too, have changed American dating practices, according to a recent piece in the Times. Along with e-mail, instant messaging, and social networking sites like Facebook, the use of texting allows would-be suitors to stay in contact with several partners simultaneously. Before making decisions about how (or with whom) to spend an evening, suitors use text messaging to rearrange and reprioritize their dates. With so many potential options—all available at a moment’s notice—people can switch back and forth between possible dates, comparison shopping for the “right” date. There’s a certain amount of duplicity in this approach, too, as “shoppers” make last-minute dating choices.
But it’s the dating reality shows on television that take duplicity to new heights (or lows). Would-be suitors (usually female) compete for the affection of one individual, often allowing themselves to be assigned sexist nick-names and to be humiliated in various ways. For all the talk of “true love,” the winners are those who display the most dishonesty, selfishness, and disloyalty—all the while pretending to be compassionate. Not only do these programs replace authentic human interaction with a performance, but they also co-opt the very idea of love and turn it into a shallow, voyeuristic, and competitive spectacle.
All of these approaches to dating, romance, and love have the potential to help people connect, but often they do just the opposite. By encouraging people to compartmentalize, they cause fragmentation, separation from a sense of community or belonging. Instead of reality, there is falsehood; instead of depth, shallowness; instead of connection, distance; instead of honesty, duplicity; and instead of love—there is self-serving competition or consumption.
The other day in a coffee shop, I saw a group of 20-somethings sitting at a table, and every single one of them was absorbed with a cell phone—either texting or checking email. I wondered what would happen if suddenly they were forced to sit with each other and just be. Then I noticed an older couple sitting a few tables away—they weren’t talking either but were sharing a bagel and a newspaper. Seeing them look at each other reassured me that the kind of love God intended for us, that Christ modeled for us, is still possible.
In the past 15 years, the number of people using Internet dating sites has skyrocketed. Of the 10 million Internet users looking for partners, nearly three-fourths have used online dating. What these sites have done is turn romance into a shopping experience—offering a way to browse for partners without leaving home. Most users report being happy with their experiences, but more than half also think others lie about personal details or marital status.
Cell phones, too, have changed American dating practices, according to a recent piece in the Times. Along with e-mail, instant messaging, and social networking sites like Facebook, the use of texting allows would-be suitors to stay in contact with several partners simultaneously. Before making decisions about how (or with whom) to spend an evening, suitors use text messaging to rearrange and reprioritize their dates. With so many potential options—all available at a moment’s notice—people can switch back and forth between possible dates, comparison shopping for the “right” date. There’s a certain amount of duplicity in this approach, too, as “shoppers” make last-minute dating choices.
But it’s the dating reality shows on television that take duplicity to new heights (or lows). Would-be suitors (usually female) compete for the affection of one individual, often allowing themselves to be assigned sexist nick-names and to be humiliated in various ways. For all the talk of “true love,” the winners are those who display the most dishonesty, selfishness, and disloyalty—all the while pretending to be compassionate. Not only do these programs replace authentic human interaction with a performance, but they also co-opt the very idea of love and turn it into a shallow, voyeuristic, and competitive spectacle.
All of these approaches to dating, romance, and love have the potential to help people connect, but often they do just the opposite. By encouraging people to compartmentalize, they cause fragmentation, separation from a sense of community or belonging. Instead of reality, there is falsehood; instead of depth, shallowness; instead of connection, distance; instead of honesty, duplicity; and instead of love—there is self-serving competition or consumption.
The other day in a coffee shop, I saw a group of 20-somethings sitting at a table, and every single one of them was absorbed with a cell phone—either texting or checking email. I wondered what would happen if suddenly they were forced to sit with each other and just be. Then I noticed an older couple sitting a few tables away—they weren’t talking either but were sharing a bagel and a newspaper. Seeing them look at each other reassured me that the kind of love God intended for us, that Christ modeled for us, is still possible.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Medium Is the Message
Maybe Marshall McLuhan was right: the medium is the message. In today’s media- and celebrity-driven environment, how and by whom a message is delivered may be much more important than the message itself.
The recent “60 Minutes”/Vanity Fair poll found that Rush Limbaugh is considered the nation’s most influential conservative voice. Twenty-six percent of those polled chose Limbaugh, followed by 11 percent who cited Glenn Beck.
Why are voices like Limbaugh’s and Beck’s heard so clearly and why do they exert such influence on the American public? Basically, they deliver the same idea packaged in various ways: liberals are bad and conservatives are good. So what’s behind their popularity and visibility and impact?
One possibility is that they’re the radio/TV talk show hosts we see all the time—they’re media celebrities—and most Americans know them: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc. These conservatives position themselves as experts on important issues but, instead of reporting or carrying out serious investigative journalism of their own, tend to simply comment on and criticize the work others are doing.
So maybe that’s the whole point about why we don’t hear progressive voices as clearly. Progressives more often than not work in print media—and who has time to read these days? Studies show that newspaper readership (and the number of newspapers) has been steadily declining in recent years, while TV viewing has reached an all-time high. The good news is that approximately 75 percent of Americans get their news online, but—while the Internet should be the great equalizer—conservatives have a strong Internet presence as well.
There are other implications of these trends. One study showed that the majority of viewers watching a controversial news program were not able to identify the consequences, implications, or ethical issues involved. Does this suggest that Americans are looking for news commentators to tell them what to think?
Almost all conservative TV and radio personalities condemn abortion, environmentalism, animal rights activism, feminism, and—most importantly—secular humanism. Their political agendas are inextricably entwined with a religious or moral agenda. Is this forum the new church in America today? We’ve long blurred the line between information and entertainment; have we now also eliminated any distinction between infotainment and religion? Is the conservative media a new “pulpit” for religious ideology, and are conservative talk-show and TV commentators the new preachers?
What would this mean if Jesus lived today rather than 2,000 years ago? He might appear on “Oprah,” probably land a book deal, and Fox News would work overtime to discredit him. He might get his own talk-show, go into national syndication, and have the media salivating for a scandal. Would he have to submit to the 12 stations of the media cross in order to be heard and taken seriously? Or would his teachings resonate with listeners no matter where and how he spoke, the message transcending the medium to become inspiration for a worldwide community of believers?
The recent “60 Minutes”/Vanity Fair poll found that Rush Limbaugh is considered the nation’s most influential conservative voice. Twenty-six percent of those polled chose Limbaugh, followed by 11 percent who cited Glenn Beck.
Why are voices like Limbaugh’s and Beck’s heard so clearly and why do they exert such influence on the American public? Basically, they deliver the same idea packaged in various ways: liberals are bad and conservatives are good. So what’s behind their popularity and visibility and impact?
One possibility is that they’re the radio/TV talk show hosts we see all the time—they’re media celebrities—and most Americans know them: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc. These conservatives position themselves as experts on important issues but, instead of reporting or carrying out serious investigative journalism of their own, tend to simply comment on and criticize the work others are doing.
So maybe that’s the whole point about why we don’t hear progressive voices as clearly. Progressives more often than not work in print media—and who has time to read these days? Studies show that newspaper readership (and the number of newspapers) has been steadily declining in recent years, while TV viewing has reached an all-time high. The good news is that approximately 75 percent of Americans get their news online, but—while the Internet should be the great equalizer—conservatives have a strong Internet presence as well.
There are other implications of these trends. One study showed that the majority of viewers watching a controversial news program were not able to identify the consequences, implications, or ethical issues involved. Does this suggest that Americans are looking for news commentators to tell them what to think?
Almost all conservative TV and radio personalities condemn abortion, environmentalism, animal rights activism, feminism, and—most importantly—secular humanism. Their political agendas are inextricably entwined with a religious or moral agenda. Is this forum the new church in America today? We’ve long blurred the line between information and entertainment; have we now also eliminated any distinction between infotainment and religion? Is the conservative media a new “pulpit” for religious ideology, and are conservative talk-show and TV commentators the new preachers?
What would this mean if Jesus lived today rather than 2,000 years ago? He might appear on “Oprah,” probably land a book deal, and Fox News would work overtime to discredit him. He might get his own talk-show, go into national syndication, and have the media salivating for a scandal. Would he have to submit to the 12 stations of the media cross in order to be heard and taken seriously? Or would his teachings resonate with listeners no matter where and how he spoke, the message transcending the medium to become inspiration for a worldwide community of believers?
This Land Is Whose Land?
What’s your reaction to Sunday’s decision by voters in Switzerland to ban construction of minarets, the slender towers from which Muslims are called to daily prayer?
The Swiss People’s Party (SVP)—in an attempt to prevent Islamic extremism in Switzerland—has itself used distorted and extremist approaches in order to advance its own anti-immigration agenda.
According to Swiss law, citizens have the right to propose a new law simply by gathering 100,000 names on a petition. The right-wing SVP, the largest party in Switzerland, has exercised this right and succeeded in winning the votes to ban construction of new minarets throughout Switzerland.
Proponents of this law claim that the construction of new minarets could inflame extremism and lead to rapid “Islamization” of the country; advocates back up their argument by pointing out that 70 percent of inmates in Swiss jails are foreign-born. In one fell swoop, the Swiss People’s Party has made the Muslim faith inseparable from extremism and criminal behavior.
The Swiss People’s Party is known for its racially-driven marketing campaigns; the poster campaign promoting the construction ban intentionally depicted the minarets as missile-like structures—effectively “inflaming” fear of extremist acts and anti-Muslim sentiments among Swiss citizens. In 2007, another poster pictured three white sheep standing on a Swiss flag kicking out a black sheep. With these strategies, the SVA is playing on a tendency of many Swiss to equate Islam and extremism (and by extension, terrorism) in order to fan the flames of xenophobia—using the political system to advance its anti-immigration agenda.
Interestingly enough, when a law was originally proposed to limit immigration, it failed to pass. The Swiss People’s Party then used similar tactics to attempt to prevent Muslims from practicing one of the pillars of their faith—daily prayer. Also interesting is the fact that, in a poll conducted before the voting began, a majority of respondents (53 percent) claimed they would not vote for banning the minarets, yet when all was said and done, the ban did pass (with 57 percent voting for it). Could it be that Swiss voters did not want to publicly admit to private racist attitudes they knew were inherently wrong?
This situation (although not as complex) is reminiscent of the conflict in Israel between Zionists and Palestinians. In their efforts to remove all non-Jews from Israel, Zionists have denied Palestinians the right to live freely in Israel and have consciously fostered a misperception around the world of all Arabs as terrorists. In shutting out those who are other, the Swiss—like the Zionists—are attempting to separate and exclude Muslims from the human family. But, by discriminating against Muslims, the Swiss are separating themselves from the human family. As people living in a multi-cultural world, they fail to see that difference brings mutual enrichment for humanity, as well as a chance for dialogue and unity.
Eighty-two percent of the Swiss population claims to be Christian. Yet, as Christians, they have forgotten that we all are born as children created in the image of God, equally blessed, equally heirs to God’s love and promise. As Christians, they have failed to see that every human—regardless of faith, race, gender, ethnicity, or national heritage—reveals God’s presence to us. And as Christians, they have turned away from the very thing Christ stood for—compassion, love of neighbor, and the sanctity of every human life.
The Swiss People’s Party (SVP)—in an attempt to prevent Islamic extremism in Switzerland—has itself used distorted and extremist approaches in order to advance its own anti-immigration agenda.
According to Swiss law, citizens have the right to propose a new law simply by gathering 100,000 names on a petition. The right-wing SVP, the largest party in Switzerland, has exercised this right and succeeded in winning the votes to ban construction of new minarets throughout Switzerland.
Proponents of this law claim that the construction of new minarets could inflame extremism and lead to rapid “Islamization” of the country; advocates back up their argument by pointing out that 70 percent of inmates in Swiss jails are foreign-born. In one fell swoop, the Swiss People’s Party has made the Muslim faith inseparable from extremism and criminal behavior.
The Swiss People’s Party is known for its racially-driven marketing campaigns; the poster campaign promoting the construction ban intentionally depicted the minarets as missile-like structures—effectively “inflaming” fear of extremist acts and anti-Muslim sentiments among Swiss citizens. In 2007, another poster pictured three white sheep standing on a Swiss flag kicking out a black sheep. With these strategies, the SVA is playing on a tendency of many Swiss to equate Islam and extremism (and by extension, terrorism) in order to fan the flames of xenophobia—using the political system to advance its anti-immigration agenda.
Interestingly enough, when a law was originally proposed to limit immigration, it failed to pass. The Swiss People’s Party then used similar tactics to attempt to prevent Muslims from practicing one of the pillars of their faith—daily prayer. Also interesting is the fact that, in a poll conducted before the voting began, a majority of respondents (53 percent) claimed they would not vote for banning the minarets, yet when all was said and done, the ban did pass (with 57 percent voting for it). Could it be that Swiss voters did not want to publicly admit to private racist attitudes they knew were inherently wrong?
This situation (although not as complex) is reminiscent of the conflict in Israel between Zionists and Palestinians. In their efforts to remove all non-Jews from Israel, Zionists have denied Palestinians the right to live freely in Israel and have consciously fostered a misperception around the world of all Arabs as terrorists. In shutting out those who are other, the Swiss—like the Zionists—are attempting to separate and exclude Muslims from the human family. But, by discriminating against Muslims, the Swiss are separating themselves from the human family. As people living in a multi-cultural world, they fail to see that difference brings mutual enrichment for humanity, as well as a chance for dialogue and unity.
Eighty-two percent of the Swiss population claims to be Christian. Yet, as Christians, they have forgotten that we all are born as children created in the image of God, equally blessed, equally heirs to God’s love and promise. As Christians, they have failed to see that every human—regardless of faith, race, gender, ethnicity, or national heritage—reveals God’s presence to us. And as Christians, they have turned away from the very thing Christ stood for—compassion, love of neighbor, and the sanctity of every human life.
Friday, November 20, 2009
A Very Vocal Minority
U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over healthcare reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have—or not have—in government policymaking?
During the Reagan administration, the Christian right urged Americans to become politically active on issues they felt important. The Moral Majority influenced policy issues in Reagan’s first term—particularly around school prayer and abortion—but in his campaign for re-election, strong involvement of the religious right had a negative effect. It was clear that the American public did not want one specific religious group having an active say in politics.
But we’ve come a long way since the 80s. President Obama’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives expands previous administrations’ faith-based programs in several ways. In addition to funding social programs of faith-based initiatives, this office offers policy guidance as well. And instead of the strong evangelical orientation of the Bush administration’s office, this one includes a panel of faith leaders from Judaism, Islam, mainline Protestant, and Catholic traditions, as well as representatives of secular organizations. The goal is not to favor one religious group over another, but to allow many faith leaders to have an equal voice in helping to make change in our communities and in helping to shape policy.
The U.S. Catholic bishops’ claim that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue is a flawed argument, though. The government is not in the business of legislating morality; instead its charge is to create an ethical code of conduct that affects society as a whole—and to come to a consensus about ethical guidelines through consultation with many faith leaders, not any one tradition. The issues the government—and its partner faith organizations—should be addressing are general questions related to fairness, justice, rights, obligations, and benefits to society—not questions about personal, individual morality.
Religious leaders of any faith tradition should care deeply about government policy. The U.S. Catholic bishops are confusing responsibility for the well being of the community with personal morality. Their role—any religious leader’s role—in policymaking should be limited to helping our leaders discern what is ethical, just, and fair—What is right and what is wrong?—for the nation as a whole. The question of What is right and wrong according to God? goes beyond the expectations of culture and society and should be left to religious leaders and believers to discern within their own faith traditions.
During the Reagan administration, the Christian right urged Americans to become politically active on issues they felt important. The Moral Majority influenced policy issues in Reagan’s first term—particularly around school prayer and abortion—but in his campaign for re-election, strong involvement of the religious right had a negative effect. It was clear that the American public did not want one specific religious group having an active say in politics.
But we’ve come a long way since the 80s. President Obama’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives expands previous administrations’ faith-based programs in several ways. In addition to funding social programs of faith-based initiatives, this office offers policy guidance as well. And instead of the strong evangelical orientation of the Bush administration’s office, this one includes a panel of faith leaders from Judaism, Islam, mainline Protestant, and Catholic traditions, as well as representatives of secular organizations. The goal is not to favor one religious group over another, but to allow many faith leaders to have an equal voice in helping to make change in our communities and in helping to shape policy.
The U.S. Catholic bishops’ claim that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue is a flawed argument, though. The government is not in the business of legislating morality; instead its charge is to create an ethical code of conduct that affects society as a whole—and to come to a consensus about ethical guidelines through consultation with many faith leaders, not any one tradition. The issues the government—and its partner faith organizations—should be addressing are general questions related to fairness, justice, rights, obligations, and benefits to society—not questions about personal, individual morality.
Religious leaders of any faith tradition should care deeply about government policy. The U.S. Catholic bishops are confusing responsibility for the well being of the community with personal morality. Their role—any religious leader’s role—in policymaking should be limited to helping our leaders discern what is ethical, just, and fair—What is right and what is wrong?—for the nation as a whole. The question of What is right and wrong according to God? goes beyond the expectations of culture and society and should be left to religious leaders and believers to discern within their own faith traditions.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
My Brother's Keeper
The Fort Hood shootings have raised questions again about how the military should handle the personal religious beliefs of its solders, whether they are evangelical Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and so on. What is the proper role of religion—and personal religious belief—in the U.S. Armed Forces? Should a particular religious affiliation disqualify someone from active military service? How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?
“Am I my brother’s keeper?” In the story of Cain and Abel that appears in the sacred scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Cain responds to God with these words when asked about the brother he’s just killed. When he murders Abel, Cain justifies his actions by severing the relationship with his brother—saying, in effect, “Who is he to me?”
Last week’s shooting at Fort Hood is a reflection of the Cain/Abel story. Brothers and sisters, linked together through common values and purpose, are supposed to protect one another. Military training, in fact, seeks to create a unified whole, so individual soldiers become part of a cohesive unit. We don’t know yet what motivated the killings, but Major Hasan, like Cain, severed the brotherly bond with his fellow soldiers through violence and bloodshed.
The Cain/Abel story and the shooting at Fort Hood remind us that in setting ourselves apart from our fellow humans—when we separate “us” from “them”—great evil is possible. Almost all human interaction bears traces of this. Everywhere we look, we see acts of exclusion, fear of difference, “othering”—starting with bias and prejudice and, in the most extreme cases, escalating to persecution and racism, exile and expulsion, murder and genocide.
The public response to the shooting also reveals this human tendency to separate “us” from “them.” Major Hasan’s faith clearly marks him as “other” for many Americans and maybe for some of the soldiers who witnessed or were involved in the tragedy. Ironically, war itself has been motivated by this same dynamic throughout history. The enemy is always other. But as the U.S. becomes more diverse, the lines between “us” and “them” become increasingly difficult to distinguish. Major Hasan is one of “us,” but he also is one of “them.”
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God; we are brothers and sisters in faiths originating from the same source. Believers in these three faiths hold that all are created in the image of God, all belong to the web of creation, and all are heirs to God’s love and promise. And yet, in our daily lives—and especially in conflicts between nations—we forget our common humanity.
If we ask whether Muslims should serve in the U.S. military, we also should ask whether Jews and Christians should. It is not religious affiliation that makes an individual fit or unfit to serve in the military—just as it isn’t race, class, gender, or sexual orientation. It’s the willingness to join with fellow soldiers in a common purpose, the capacity to put aside personal prejudice and fear of difference, and the ability to see both the necessity and the insanity of war, in all its complexity.
Religious affiliation should not disqualify someone from active military service. If the U.S. discriminates against those who wish to serve on the basis of faith, it would reinforce an attitude toward difference that inevitably leads to violence and bloodshed. Cain killing Abel, brother killing brother—on any scale—this is a distortion of God’s hope for humankind.
“Am I my brother’s keeper?” In the story of Cain and Abel that appears in the sacred scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Cain responds to God with these words when asked about the brother he’s just killed. When he murders Abel, Cain justifies his actions by severing the relationship with his brother—saying, in effect, “Who is he to me?”
Last week’s shooting at Fort Hood is a reflection of the Cain/Abel story. Brothers and sisters, linked together through common values and purpose, are supposed to protect one another. Military training, in fact, seeks to create a unified whole, so individual soldiers become part of a cohesive unit. We don’t know yet what motivated the killings, but Major Hasan, like Cain, severed the brotherly bond with his fellow soldiers through violence and bloodshed.
The Cain/Abel story and the shooting at Fort Hood remind us that in setting ourselves apart from our fellow humans—when we separate “us” from “them”—great evil is possible. Almost all human interaction bears traces of this. Everywhere we look, we see acts of exclusion, fear of difference, “othering”—starting with bias and prejudice and, in the most extreme cases, escalating to persecution and racism, exile and expulsion, murder and genocide.
The public response to the shooting also reveals this human tendency to separate “us” from “them.” Major Hasan’s faith clearly marks him as “other” for many Americans and maybe for some of the soldiers who witnessed or were involved in the tragedy. Ironically, war itself has been motivated by this same dynamic throughout history. The enemy is always other. But as the U.S. becomes more diverse, the lines between “us” and “them” become increasingly difficult to distinguish. Major Hasan is one of “us,” but he also is one of “them.”
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God; we are brothers and sisters in faiths originating from the same source. Believers in these three faiths hold that all are created in the image of God, all belong to the web of creation, and all are heirs to God’s love and promise. And yet, in our daily lives—and especially in conflicts between nations—we forget our common humanity.
If we ask whether Muslims should serve in the U.S. military, we also should ask whether Jews and Christians should. It is not religious affiliation that makes an individual fit or unfit to serve in the military—just as it isn’t race, class, gender, or sexual orientation. It’s the willingness to join with fellow soldiers in a common purpose, the capacity to put aside personal prejudice and fear of difference, and the ability to see both the necessity and the insanity of war, in all its complexity.
Religious affiliation should not disqualify someone from active military service. If the U.S. discriminates against those who wish to serve on the basis of faith, it would reinforce an attitude toward difference that inevitably leads to violence and bloodshed. Cain killing Abel, brother killing brother—on any scale—this is a distortion of God’s hope for humankind.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Whose Life Is It Anyway?
Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for "end-of-life" counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision—which Sarah Palin erroneously described as "death panels" for seniors—nearly derailed President Obama's health-care initiative. Some Republicans still argue that the provision would ration health care for the elderly. Does end-of-life care prolong life or does it prolong suffering? Should it be a part of health-care reform?
How do we define life? Is it merely brain waves and motor activity? Or is life defined by living in a broader sense? And who decides when life is over? An individual, family members, care providers—or some government entity?
The argument against the end-of-life provision is that—as Sarah Palin and other Republicans assert—the government and healthcare providers would determine an arbitrary age when life is considered over. They claim that the government is eliminating choice, when in fact the provision would expand choice by allowing the elderly to make informed decisions about how they want their lives to end.
My 92-year-old mother has outlived all her siblings and peers; she can’t see or hear very well, but her heart is strong and she’s healthy in every way. Yet she delights in her children and grandchildren and knows her life still matters. She recently wrote a living will refusing life support if needed. When the time comes, we’ll do everything we can to eliminate pain or suffering, and we will honor her life by honoring her choice.
Life is a series of choices. Most of us have the freedom to make decisions that shape the quality of our lives. As we reach old age, though, often the power to choose is abdicated to someone else. The ability to choose for ourselves ultimately determines our engagement in life, and when we can no longer choose, we’ve lost something precious. If choice is what determines full participation in life, the new end-of-life counseling for seniors is empowering and life-giving.
In 2008, nearly 40 percent of deaths in the U.S. were under hospice or palliative care. In its current form, palliative care does prolong life—perhaps beyond what individuals themselves want. But the new provision does not prolong life nor does it prolong suffering; instead it empowers the elderly to decide for themselves—while they are still able—how they want their lives to be lived out.
How do we define life? Is it merely brain waves and motor activity? Or is life defined by living in a broader sense? And who decides when life is over? An individual, family members, care providers—or some government entity?
The argument against the end-of-life provision is that—as Sarah Palin and other Republicans assert—the government and healthcare providers would determine an arbitrary age when life is considered over. They claim that the government is eliminating choice, when in fact the provision would expand choice by allowing the elderly to make informed decisions about how they want their lives to end.
My 92-year-old mother has outlived all her siblings and peers; she can’t see or hear very well, but her heart is strong and she’s healthy in every way. Yet she delights in her children and grandchildren and knows her life still matters. She recently wrote a living will refusing life support if needed. When the time comes, we’ll do everything we can to eliminate pain or suffering, and we will honor her life by honoring her choice.
Life is a series of choices. Most of us have the freedom to make decisions that shape the quality of our lives. As we reach old age, though, often the power to choose is abdicated to someone else. The ability to choose for ourselves ultimately determines our engagement in life, and when we can no longer choose, we’ve lost something precious. If choice is what determines full participation in life, the new end-of-life counseling for seniors is empowering and life-giving.
In 2008, nearly 40 percent of deaths in the U.S. were under hospice or palliative care. In its current form, palliative care does prolong life—perhaps beyond what individuals themselves want. But the new provision does not prolong life nor does it prolong suffering; instead it empowers the elderly to decide for themselves—while they are still able—how they want their lives to be lived out.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
God and Darwin: On the Same Page
Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?
The “good without God” movement is one small step for humans and one giant step for humankind. So much violence and evil has been done in the name of God, and the humanist movement seeks to reclaim the human capacity for good that has been hijacked and distorted by religious traditions over the centuries.
I agree that humans have the potential for great good and for great evil, and this has nothing to do with belief in a higher being. The Nazis were Christians, and the evils they committed during the Holocaust will forever represent the lowest point of man’s inhumanity to man. At the same time, most of those whom they victimized were Jews, whose helping and caring for each other showed the depth of human kindness possible even in the midst of unspeakable horror.
Darwin would say that living beings are on an evolutionary journey to higher levels, and that the cruelty and violence they inflict upon each other are merely the consequence of evolution. And so may belief in God be part of evolution: religious beliefs may have helped our ancestors survive great hardship. Certainly faith in God helps millions today cope with life’s challenges and suffering.
But religion also has been and can be a crutch, preventing people from taking a stand against great evil or allowing them to explain it away as “God’s will.” Where is the human responsibility and accountability in doing good or refraining from evil only because a higher being desires it? Human values and ethics—and the will and agency to choose the good—must come from within each of us rather than from conformity to a set of rules.
As life on this planet evolves toward greater and greater complexity—from particles to atoms to molecules to living beings to human populations and, finally, to the community of all created life—we will only survive through activities that are life-giving rather than life-taking: cooperation, empathy, caring, peace-making. And belief in God itself—if it is to be life-giving and if it is to further the evolutionary process—must evolve as we do, moving us toward greater human accountability and responsibility.
I believe in a God who is the author of everything—life and death, creation and destruction, good and evil. My sense of right and wrong comes from my belief that not only are humans created in God’s image, but also are imbued with God’s wisdom, passion, and creativity. As a practicing Christian, I also believe that the purpose of Christ’s humanity was to show us our origins in God and to give us a glimpse of who we are becoming, who we already, in some ways, are. To show us that the light of God is found not only in Christ, but in each and every human soul. With these gifts come a profound freedom and an enormous responsibility.
The “good without God” movement is one small step for humans and one giant step for humankind. So much violence and evil has been done in the name of God, and the humanist movement seeks to reclaim the human capacity for good that has been hijacked and distorted by religious traditions over the centuries.
I agree that humans have the potential for great good and for great evil, and this has nothing to do with belief in a higher being. The Nazis were Christians, and the evils they committed during the Holocaust will forever represent the lowest point of man’s inhumanity to man. At the same time, most of those whom they victimized were Jews, whose helping and caring for each other showed the depth of human kindness possible even in the midst of unspeakable horror.
Darwin would say that living beings are on an evolutionary journey to higher levels, and that the cruelty and violence they inflict upon each other are merely the consequence of evolution. And so may belief in God be part of evolution: religious beliefs may have helped our ancestors survive great hardship. Certainly faith in God helps millions today cope with life’s challenges and suffering.
But religion also has been and can be a crutch, preventing people from taking a stand against great evil or allowing them to explain it away as “God’s will.” Where is the human responsibility and accountability in doing good or refraining from evil only because a higher being desires it? Human values and ethics—and the will and agency to choose the good—must come from within each of us rather than from conformity to a set of rules.
As life on this planet evolves toward greater and greater complexity—from particles to atoms to molecules to living beings to human populations and, finally, to the community of all created life—we will only survive through activities that are life-giving rather than life-taking: cooperation, empathy, caring, peace-making. And belief in God itself—if it is to be life-giving and if it is to further the evolutionary process—must evolve as we do, moving us toward greater human accountability and responsibility.
I believe in a God who is the author of everything—life and death, creation and destruction, good and evil. My sense of right and wrong comes from my belief that not only are humans created in God’s image, but also are imbued with God’s wisdom, passion, and creativity. As a practicing Christian, I also believe that the purpose of Christ’s humanity was to show us our origins in God and to give us a glimpse of who we are becoming, who we already, in some ways, are. To show us that the light of God is found not only in Christ, but in each and every human soul. With these gifts come a profound freedom and an enormous responsibility.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Misfortune Telling
Talk of a second economic stimulus package has left me wondering if we’ll ever find a way out of this crisis: have we ratcheted up our debt to a point of no return? I’ve been reluctant to buy into the “rapacious rich crushing the downtrodden poor” argument as the cause of this crisis, but when you take a closer look at how the whole thing started, there is pure greed at the core of it.
When the mortgage companies began giving loans to lower-income home buyers, it was in response to an initiative begun way back with Jimmy Carter and continuing with Bill Clinton. So it wasn’t extending the loans in the first place that created the problem; it was Wall Street leveraging the loans to raise capital. The leveraged value far outpaced any real value in the properties, the housing market fell, foreclosures ensued, and the rest is history.
The intent of the deregulation introduced by Carter and Clinton was to encourage companies to give back to the poor. Lenders and mortgage companies, though, used it for their own purposes, distorting the original spirit of the law.
In Judaism, it's forbidden to charge interest on loans or to profit from someone else's misfortune. Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy offer clear mandates on this: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him…Do not take interest of any kind from him…You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.” (Lev 25.35-38)
For Christians, the ban on usury goes as far back as the third century, when it was grounds for excommunication from the Catholic church.
Islam also forbids Muslims riba—exploitative interest charged by a lender to a borrower: “If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay,” (Sura 2.280) and constitutes hoarding of wealth by the rich. Forgiving a loan is especially worthy.
Hoarding wealth is an abuse of the gifts given by God to all of creation. Perhaps it’s time to seek ethical guidance from world religions--and quit amassing fortunes built on the misfortunes of those in need.
When the mortgage companies began giving loans to lower-income home buyers, it was in response to an initiative begun way back with Jimmy Carter and continuing with Bill Clinton. So it wasn’t extending the loans in the first place that created the problem; it was Wall Street leveraging the loans to raise capital. The leveraged value far outpaced any real value in the properties, the housing market fell, foreclosures ensued, and the rest is history.
The intent of the deregulation introduced by Carter and Clinton was to encourage companies to give back to the poor. Lenders and mortgage companies, though, used it for their own purposes, distorting the original spirit of the law.
In Judaism, it's forbidden to charge interest on loans or to profit from someone else's misfortune. Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy offer clear mandates on this: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him…Do not take interest of any kind from him…You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.” (Lev 25.35-38)
For Christians, the ban on usury goes as far back as the third century, when it was grounds for excommunication from the Catholic church.
Islam also forbids Muslims riba—exploitative interest charged by a lender to a borrower: “If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay,” (Sura 2.280) and constitutes hoarding of wealth by the rich. Forgiving a loan is especially worthy.
Hoarding wealth is an abuse of the gifts given by God to all of creation. Perhaps it’s time to seek ethical guidance from world religions--and quit amassing fortunes built on the misfortunes of those in need.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
When Hate Becomes the Norm
Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add "sexual orientation" to a list that already includes "race, color, religion, or national origin." Is this necessary? Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry, and hatred? Isn't a crime a crime?
Gay-bashing is alive and well in this country—from the seemingly innocuous bullying and name-calling taking place in schools, to derision and persecution in the military and in prisons, to full-scale beatings and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.
The fact is that it’s still okay to ridicule, discount, or condemn homosexuality—just as it has been (and still is, to some extent) accepted practice to marginalize, oppress, and persecute women, African-Americans, and Jews.
Arguments in favor of slavery (and, subsequently, against African Americans) were based on an absurd belief that all humans were not created equal; this same belief has fueled misogynistic and anti-Semitic attitudes. Intolerance always presumes the superiority of one group over another: the supremacy of white people over African Americans; the authority and power of males over females; and the primacy of Christianity over Judaism. Interestingly enough, many “haters” of women, blacks, and Jews, like gay-bashers, have found justification for their views through narrow, literal readings of the Bible.
When hateful or supremacist attitudes are allowed to flourish, hate crimes follow. And if hate crimes are minimized or ignored, hate itself can become institutionalized. Sexism, racism, anti-Semitism: each of these at one time became institutionalized when those in power failed to protect certain groups or, even worse, legitimized the assumption of one group’s superiority over another.
It is for this very reason that hate crime laws must be enacted—to counter cultural attitudes that lead to persecution of certain groups. For those in power to take a stand against the inhumanity behind hate crimes. To refuse to accept or condone hateful behaviors. To stop the spread of hate that resulted in lynching and violence against African Americans, the prevalence of rape and domestic violence experienced by women, and ongoing religious persecution of Jews.
Hate crimes are worse than ordinary crimes in their determination to silence, persecute, or annihilate whole groups of individuals. Not only do hate crimes have the potential to foster fear and loathing in the broader community, but they also constitute a sin against humanity itself, against God’s good creation.
Yes, it is crucial that we enact special laws against crimes motivated by hatred and intolerance, and this includes crimes based on sexual orientation. All individuals deserve the protection of the law to discourage others from using hate as a weapon against them, to stem the spread of hate from one individual to an entire community.
Gay-bashing is alive and well in this country—from the seemingly innocuous bullying and name-calling taking place in schools, to derision and persecution in the military and in prisons, to full-scale beatings and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.
The fact is that it’s still okay to ridicule, discount, or condemn homosexuality—just as it has been (and still is, to some extent) accepted practice to marginalize, oppress, and persecute women, African-Americans, and Jews.
Arguments in favor of slavery (and, subsequently, against African Americans) were based on an absurd belief that all humans were not created equal; this same belief has fueled misogynistic and anti-Semitic attitudes. Intolerance always presumes the superiority of one group over another: the supremacy of white people over African Americans; the authority and power of males over females; and the primacy of Christianity over Judaism. Interestingly enough, many “haters” of women, blacks, and Jews, like gay-bashers, have found justification for their views through narrow, literal readings of the Bible.
When hateful or supremacist attitudes are allowed to flourish, hate crimes follow. And if hate crimes are minimized or ignored, hate itself can become institutionalized. Sexism, racism, anti-Semitism: each of these at one time became institutionalized when those in power failed to protect certain groups or, even worse, legitimized the assumption of one group’s superiority over another.
It is for this very reason that hate crime laws must be enacted—to counter cultural attitudes that lead to persecution of certain groups. For those in power to take a stand against the inhumanity behind hate crimes. To refuse to accept or condone hateful behaviors. To stop the spread of hate that resulted in lynching and violence against African Americans, the prevalence of rape and domestic violence experienced by women, and ongoing religious persecution of Jews.
Hate crimes are worse than ordinary crimes in their determination to silence, persecute, or annihilate whole groups of individuals. Not only do hate crimes have the potential to foster fear and loathing in the broader community, but they also constitute a sin against humanity itself, against God’s good creation.
Yes, it is crucial that we enact special laws against crimes motivated by hatred and intolerance, and this includes crimes based on sexual orientation. All individuals deserve the protection of the law to discourage others from using hate as a weapon against them, to stem the spread of hate from one individual to an entire community.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself
Polls show a majority of Americans are concerned about the H1N1 virus (swine flu), but also about the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine. Is it ethical to say no to this or any vaccine? Are there valid religious reasons to accept or decline a vaccine? Will you get a swine flu shot? Will your children?
America is a culture of fear. We’re afraid of violence, natural disasters, terrorists, street crimes, fraud, job loss, poverty, illness—you name it. Fear-mongering is rampant, but the most interesting part is this: Americans love fear.
Those who deny the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine are choosing fear over a possible solution. And they don’t have to look very far to find scare-mongers who will feed their worst expectations.
These voices speak the loudest, of course, but they also play on a preoccupation with, and a morbid interest in, tragedy. Like gawking at a car accident or watching a house burn down, this obsession with disaster can lift people out of the daily grind and make life more exciting. Buying into unfounded fears or believing worst-case scenarios allows people to see the world as essentially unsafe. It allows them to throw up their hands and avoid responsibility for making choices that could enhance their lives.
This is the reason Internet rumors about the swine flu vaccine, regardless of the source or credibility, carry more weight than valid information from public-health officials.
It’s also the reason religious groups are able to control people through fear. Earlier this year, a Wisconsin mother faced charges of second-degree homicide for the death of her daughter from untreated juvenile diabetes. The mother’s faith taught her—and she chose to believe—that medical treatment would harm, rather than help, her daughter.
And it’s the reason pop culture figures and celebrities can get away with posing as authorities on politics, ethics, and health care. Jenny McCarthy, for example, a former Playboy model and MTV star, speaks publicly (and has written several books) about the dangers of vaccines and her belief that they are a primary cause of autism—a belief not grounded in scientific fact.
“Fear Factor” was a hit show for six seasons precisely because it played on this human fascination with the grotesque. Other reality shows speak to a voyeuristic interest in car crashes and near-death experiences. Even a cursory look at American entertainment today reveals a belief that humans are powerless in the face of inevitable calamity. After all, there is a kind of safety in believing this.
The H1N1 virus, by last count, has shown up in 191 countries, infecting millions and killing nearly 4,000 people. Every adult has a legal right to refuse the vaccine. But each person also has a moral obligation to protect children who don’t have the right to choose. There also is an ethical call for accountability to the community, to not harm or put others at risk as a result of individual choices. It is time for Americans to stop believing the scare-mongers, to become informed about possible solutions to problems, and to take responsibility for safeguarding themselves, their children, and members of their communities.
America is a culture of fear. We’re afraid of violence, natural disasters, terrorists, street crimes, fraud, job loss, poverty, illness—you name it. Fear-mongering is rampant, but the most interesting part is this: Americans love fear.
Those who deny the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine are choosing fear over a possible solution. And they don’t have to look very far to find scare-mongers who will feed their worst expectations.
These voices speak the loudest, of course, but they also play on a preoccupation with, and a morbid interest in, tragedy. Like gawking at a car accident or watching a house burn down, this obsession with disaster can lift people out of the daily grind and make life more exciting. Buying into unfounded fears or believing worst-case scenarios allows people to see the world as essentially unsafe. It allows them to throw up their hands and avoid responsibility for making choices that could enhance their lives.
This is the reason Internet rumors about the swine flu vaccine, regardless of the source or credibility, carry more weight than valid information from public-health officials.
It’s also the reason religious groups are able to control people through fear. Earlier this year, a Wisconsin mother faced charges of second-degree homicide for the death of her daughter from untreated juvenile diabetes. The mother’s faith taught her—and she chose to believe—that medical treatment would harm, rather than help, her daughter.
And it’s the reason pop culture figures and celebrities can get away with posing as authorities on politics, ethics, and health care. Jenny McCarthy, for example, a former Playboy model and MTV star, speaks publicly (and has written several books) about the dangers of vaccines and her belief that they are a primary cause of autism—a belief not grounded in scientific fact.
“Fear Factor” was a hit show for six seasons precisely because it played on this human fascination with the grotesque. Other reality shows speak to a voyeuristic interest in car crashes and near-death experiences. Even a cursory look at American entertainment today reveals a belief that humans are powerless in the face of inevitable calamity. After all, there is a kind of safety in believing this.
The H1N1 virus, by last count, has shown up in 191 countries, infecting millions and killing nearly 4,000 people. Every adult has a legal right to refuse the vaccine. But each person also has a moral obligation to protect children who don’t have the right to choose. There also is an ethical call for accountability to the community, to not harm or put others at risk as a result of individual choices. It is time for Americans to stop believing the scare-mongers, to become informed about possible solutions to problems, and to take responsibility for safeguarding themselves, their children, and members of their communities.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Patriotism and Peace: Unlikely Partners
What does the controversy over President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize tell us about patriotism in our country today?
The Republican National Committee attributed the award to the president’s “star power,” and claim that he took it away from those who’ve made real progress toward peace and human rights. Other opponents have sided with the Taliban and Hamas in claiming that President Obama doesn’t deserve the award.
SNL joked that he won it for not being Bush. One conservative commentator noted that “God has a sense of humor,” suggesting the award is a joke on God’s part. The most offensive comment comes from RedState.com, claiming that the prize reflects “an affirmative action quota.”
Rush Limbaugh accused the president of emasculating the America and claims that the “elites” of the world are rooting for a “weakened, neutered U.S.”
Is this what passes for patriotism today?
The president himself accepted the award as a call to action, a “call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.” This statement, reflective of his intent to promote an agenda of peace and justice, is offensive to some Americans.
A year ago, the World Council of Churches sponsored an international conference among 300 religious leaders from around the world. What these leaders confirmed is that religious traditions the world over value dialogue and respect as avenues for peace and reconciliation—and for finding solutions to global problems like poverty, injustice, and war.
This is exactly what President Obama has attempted to do—inject the values of dialogue, respect, and collaboration into his administration—the values most crucial for moving us toward solutions. But promoting peace is now considered emasculating and weakening our nation. It’s downright unpatriotic.
What does the controversy over President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize tell us about patriotism in our country today?
The Republican National Committee attributed the award to the president’s “star power,” and claim that he took it away from those who’ve made real progress toward peace and human rights. Other opponents have sided with the Taliban and Hamas in claiming that President Obama doesn’t deserve the award.
SNL joked that he won it for not being Bush. One conservative commentator noted that “God has a sense of humor,” suggesting the award is a joke on God’s part. The most offensive comment comes from RedState.com, claiming that the prize reflects “an affirmative action quota.”
Rush Limbaugh accused the president of emasculating the America and claims that the “elites” of the world are rooting for a “weakened, neutered U.S.”
Is this what passes for patriotism today?
The president himself accepted the award as a call to action, a “call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.” This statement, reflective of his intent to promote an agenda of peace and justice, is offensive to some Americans.
A year ago, the World Council of Churches sponsored an international conference among 300 religious leaders from around the world. What these leaders confirmed is that religious traditions the world over value dialogue and respect as avenues for peace and reconciliation—and for finding solutions to global problems like poverty, injustice, and war.
This is exactly what President Obama has attempted to do—inject the values of dialogue, respect, and collaboration into his administration—the values most crucial for moving us toward solutions. But promoting peace is now considered emasculating and weakening our nation. It’s downright unpatriotic.
The World According to Beck
Glenn Beck and the American Family Association have cost the American public $7.5 million in an effort to oppose government spending. Interesting.
For a mere $30 a pop, 2.5 million supporters of this campaign have clicked a button to have “pink slips” sent to all 535 members of Congress—warning them that they’ll lose their jobs if they “continue to flout American values.”
According to Beck, these values are honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude—and he is the self-appointed arbiter of those values. Most people would agree that these are important values, but the AFA claims that our current administration has failed to uphold them. In response, Beck proposes a radical drive to “take back control of our country” by ousting House and Senate representatives from their jobs.
The header on the AFA Web site reads: “We the People Demand Answers.” Doesn’t “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution refer to all Americans? Is this campaign targeted to all Americans, or just those increasingly outraged that “their country” doesn’t look the way it did 100 or 200 years ago?
Beck’s aim is get America back to “everyone thinking like it is September 12th, 2001 again.” And what exactly would this look like? A world of fear and terror, grief, mistrust of “outsiders,” despair and a loss of hope, a sense of American exceptionalism? Is this the world Beck envisions and hopes to lead us back to?
Glenn Beck and the American Family Association have cost the American public $7.5 million in an effort to oppose government spending. Interesting.
For a mere $30 a pop, 2.5 million supporters of this campaign have clicked a button to have “pink slips” sent to all 535 members of Congress—warning them that they’ll lose their jobs if they “continue to flout American values.”
According to Beck, these values are honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude—and he is the self-appointed arbiter of those values. Most people would agree that these are important values, but the AFA claims that our current administration has failed to uphold them. In response, Beck proposes a radical drive to “take back control of our country” by ousting House and Senate representatives from their jobs.
The header on the AFA Web site reads: “We the People Demand Answers.” Doesn’t “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution refer to all Americans? Is this campaign targeted to all Americans, or just those increasingly outraged that “their country” doesn’t look the way it did 100 or 200 years ago?
Beck’s aim is get America back to “everyone thinking like it is September 12th, 2001 again.” And what exactly would this look like? A world of fear and terror, grief, mistrust of “outsiders,” despair and a loss of hope, a sense of American exceptionalism? Is this the world Beck envisions and hopes to lead us back to?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
One More Nation Under God (Indivisible?)
Eight years after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, fighting continues. Religious extremists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda retain significant power there. What is our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan? If religion is part of the problem there, how can it be part of the solution?
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the goal was to eliminate the safe haven the Taliban offered al-Qaeda terrorists, who presented a direct and very real threat to our nation’s security. In our efforts to protect the U.S., we also helped safeguard the people of Afghanistan against religious oppression.
Because the U.S. has the ability and resources to protect Afghans from religious and human rights violations suffered at the hands of the Taliban, we are morally bound to prevent the Taliban from regaining power. There also is a quid pro quo here: the U.S. occupied Afghanistan for our own gain, and it would be opportunistic to take what we need and leave the Afghan people at the mercy of a corrupt regime.
But the question is more complicated than simply safeguarding human rights. At the heart of this conflict is the deeper question of authority. The civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias, in fact, began with a disagreement over the question of the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad. Leaders in both sects believed they had the power to decide, and centuries of fighting have ensued.
So, too, Taliban leaders today believe they alone have the authority to interpret al-Sharī‘ah, the body of law guiding the Muslim community. Driven by a strict interpretation of the law, the Taliban has become an oppressive and extremist theocracy, imposing violent and brutal punishment on those not bowing to their way of faith and life.
It is ironic that at the very heart of Islam is the idea of submission to the authority of the one God. For Muslim believers, total and unconditional surrender of one’s desires to God’s authority is thought to bring personal peace. But for Afghans, “surrendering” to the authority of the Taliban has not brought peace; instead it has led to terror and violence at the hands of fundamentalist mullahs.
Does a political entity like the U.S., then, have the authority to intervene in a religious conflict? When religion is at the heart of the problem in an oppressive regime, what can be done politically and militarily to restore religious freedom?
By continuing to fight on behalf of the Afghan people, the U.S. can protect the ideal of religious freedom, standing firm in the belief that religious authority does not lie with political leaders, with ruling parties or with competing sects. We can stand against those who claim to have the “correct” interpretation of the written texts or a direct line to the prophets and teachers who bring the word of God, those who believe they are the designated interpreters of those messages—by not allowing them the forum to hijack an authority that is not rightly theirs.
As peacekeepers in Afghanistan, the U.S. can prevent the Taliban from appropriating religious authority and help restore freedom to Afghans, lifting the political to the spiritual and perhaps finding a path to lasting peace. Our actions can support the principle that religious authority—the divine guidance for how to live our lives according to God’s plan—lies nowhere but in the voice and power of the supreme, holy One we call Allah, God and Yahweh.
Eight years after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, fighting continues. Religious extremists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda retain significant power there. What is our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan? If religion is part of the problem there, how can it be part of the solution?
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the goal was to eliminate the safe haven the Taliban offered al-Qaeda terrorists, who presented a direct and very real threat to our nation’s security. In our efforts to protect the U.S., we also helped safeguard the people of Afghanistan against religious oppression.
Because the U.S. has the ability and resources to protect Afghans from religious and human rights violations suffered at the hands of the Taliban, we are morally bound to prevent the Taliban from regaining power. There also is a quid pro quo here: the U.S. occupied Afghanistan for our own gain, and it would be opportunistic to take what we need and leave the Afghan people at the mercy of a corrupt regime.
But the question is more complicated than simply safeguarding human rights. At the heart of this conflict is the deeper question of authority. The civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias, in fact, began with a disagreement over the question of the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad. Leaders in both sects believed they had the power to decide, and centuries of fighting have ensued.
So, too, Taliban leaders today believe they alone have the authority to interpret al-Sharī‘ah, the body of law guiding the Muslim community. Driven by a strict interpretation of the law, the Taliban has become an oppressive and extremist theocracy, imposing violent and brutal punishment on those not bowing to their way of faith and life.
It is ironic that at the very heart of Islam is the idea of submission to the authority of the one God. For Muslim believers, total and unconditional surrender of one’s desires to God’s authority is thought to bring personal peace. But for Afghans, “surrendering” to the authority of the Taliban has not brought peace; instead it has led to terror and violence at the hands of fundamentalist mullahs.
Does a political entity like the U.S., then, have the authority to intervene in a religious conflict? When religion is at the heart of the problem in an oppressive regime, what can be done politically and militarily to restore religious freedom?
By continuing to fight on behalf of the Afghan people, the U.S. can protect the ideal of religious freedom, standing firm in the belief that religious authority does not lie with political leaders, with ruling parties or with competing sects. We can stand against those who claim to have the “correct” interpretation of the written texts or a direct line to the prophets and teachers who bring the word of God, those who believe they are the designated interpreters of those messages—by not allowing them the forum to hijack an authority that is not rightly theirs.
As peacekeepers in Afghanistan, the U.S. can prevent the Taliban from appropriating religious authority and help restore freedom to Afghans, lifting the political to the spiritual and perhaps finding a path to lasting peace. Our actions can support the principle that religious authority—the divine guidance for how to live our lives according to God’s plan—lies nowhere but in the voice and power of the supreme, holy One we call Allah, God and Yahweh.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Dr. Strangelove: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Start Praying
Reacting in part to recent missile tests by Iran and North Korea, President Obama and a unanimous UN Security Council last week endorsed a sweeping strategy to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminate them. Is nuclear disarmament a religious issue? Is it a pro-life issue? Is support for nuclear disarmament a moral imperative? Should we pray for nuclear disarmament?
I watched last week, for the umpteenth time, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, a movie made nearly 50 years ago. In the movie, a paranoid U.S. general diverts his B-52 bombers from airborne alert to an attack on the Soviet Union, using nuclear weapons. But the Soviets have—and plan to use if attacked—a secret doomsday weapon designed to destroy all life on the planet. After the attack by the U.S., instead of responding in kind, the Soviets decide to use the doomsday machine. Their rationale is that it makes no sense to save the lives of only a few—especially when they are part of a species capable of annihilating the world. If a few survived, wouldn’t they inevitably recreate the same mistrust and struggle for domination that caused the devastation?
Today, between the U.S. and Russia, there exists a “mutual deterrence” strategy—the idea that each will refrain from attacking the other because to do so would surely cause complete destruction of the planet. In theory, total and mutual nuclear armament is a kind of safeguard against annihilation; in reality, however, each nation has developed its own doomsday weapon.
Is nuclear disarmament a religious issue, a moral imperative, or a pro-life issue? The question touches on all three. Religion may tell us what our lives mean, and whether there is something greater than us in the universe. Moral imperatives and ethics guide us in deciding what is fair, just, and right. But both religion and ethics are just the tip of the iceberg, hinting at a much greater and deeper issue—the sanctity and preservation of human life.
In fact, three of the world’s major faith traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—embrace a belief in the sanctity of human life. In the Qur’an, each individual human life is equivalent to that of the entire community—and should be treated with care and reverence. Judaism details this belief most clearly: one human is worth an entire world. If you kill just one person, you are destroying all of his or her potential offspring and descendants. But, by the same token, saving one person saves an entire world. For Christians, when Jesus heals one blind man, one leper, one lame person—he heals all of humankind in that act.
Yes, we should pray for nuclear disarmament. We should pray that people of all faiths, people of no faith, people who care about morality and ethics and people who embrace anarchy. We should pray that each and every one of us recognize and remember the sanctity of human life, that by saving one life, we save an entire world.
Reacting in part to recent missile tests by Iran and North Korea, President Obama and a unanimous UN Security Council last week endorsed a sweeping strategy to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminate them. Is nuclear disarmament a religious issue? Is it a pro-life issue? Is support for nuclear disarmament a moral imperative? Should we pray for nuclear disarmament?
I watched last week, for the umpteenth time, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, a movie made nearly 50 years ago. In the movie, a paranoid U.S. general diverts his B-52 bombers from airborne alert to an attack on the Soviet Union, using nuclear weapons. But the Soviets have—and plan to use if attacked—a secret doomsday weapon designed to destroy all life on the planet. After the attack by the U.S., instead of responding in kind, the Soviets decide to use the doomsday machine. Their rationale is that it makes no sense to save the lives of only a few—especially when they are part of a species capable of annihilating the world. If a few survived, wouldn’t they inevitably recreate the same mistrust and struggle for domination that caused the devastation?
Today, between the U.S. and Russia, there exists a “mutual deterrence” strategy—the idea that each will refrain from attacking the other because to do so would surely cause complete destruction of the planet. In theory, total and mutual nuclear armament is a kind of safeguard against annihilation; in reality, however, each nation has developed its own doomsday weapon.
Is nuclear disarmament a religious issue, a moral imperative, or a pro-life issue? The question touches on all three. Religion may tell us what our lives mean, and whether there is something greater than us in the universe. Moral imperatives and ethics guide us in deciding what is fair, just, and right. But both religion and ethics are just the tip of the iceberg, hinting at a much greater and deeper issue—the sanctity and preservation of human life.
In fact, three of the world’s major faith traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—embrace a belief in the sanctity of human life. In the Qur’an, each individual human life is equivalent to that of the entire community—and should be treated with care and reverence. Judaism details this belief most clearly: one human is worth an entire world. If you kill just one person, you are destroying all of his or her potential offspring and descendants. But, by the same token, saving one person saves an entire world. For Christians, when Jesus heals one blind man, one leper, one lame person—he heals all of humankind in that act.
Yes, we should pray for nuclear disarmament. We should pray that people of all faiths, people of no faith, people who care about morality and ethics and people who embrace anarchy. We should pray that each and every one of us recognize and remember the sanctity of human life, that by saving one life, we save an entire world.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Faith on the Hill
Dozens of major religious groups and denominations are urging Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. to renounce a Bush-era memo that allows faith-based charities that receive federal funding to discriminate in hiring. Should religious charities that receive federal grant money be allowed to discriminate in hiring?
If history has taught us anything, it’s that blurring the lines between church and state always limits freedom. In the Middle Ages, every individual was expected to be part of the Christian community; the party line was that this body was especially ordained and sanctioned by God. Mission movements to lands all over the world were financed by their sponsoring states, and the real benefit was not in converting believers, but in colonizing new lands and getting valuable resources from these lands. Even in the early years of this country’s founding, there was a nationally-supported state religion in which all were expected to participate. Fortunately, by the time the 13 colonies appeared, volunteerism became the accepted practice, and freedom of religion became one of the pillars on which this country was founded.
If the U.S. government is allowed to dictate the hiring practices of faith-based organizations—as the Bush-era memo suggests—the direct and immediate harm is apparent. When job opportunities are restricted to those of a particular faith, equal opportunity is no longer equal. Civil rights become conditional. Religious freedom is limited. If this is allowed to happen, faith-based organizations could become de facto agencies of the government.
But the real danger, we all know, is that this kind of intervention with faith-based groups allows for government sanctioning of a particular religion, and in this case, that religion is Christianity. This practice is contrary to the very tenets this country was founded on. It’s allowing the government to promote a specific religious agenda in this country—the equivalent of what my younger colleagues call “sneaky Jesus.”
A few years ago, I attended a Shabbat dinner, and the conversation turned to the question of church and state. One comment by the rabbi summed up this issue: “Whenever I hear the president say this is a Christian country, I wonder—if I’d been living in Germany in 1938, how long I would have waited to leave?” I have never forgotten the quiet fear in his voice.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that blurring the lines between church and state always limits freedom. In the Middle Ages, every individual was expected to be part of the Christian community; the party line was that this body was especially ordained and sanctioned by God. Mission movements to lands all over the world were financed by their sponsoring states, and the real benefit was not in converting believers, but in colonizing new lands and getting valuable resources from these lands. Even in the early years of this country’s founding, there was a nationally-supported state religion in which all were expected to participate. Fortunately, by the time the 13 colonies appeared, volunteerism became the accepted practice, and freedom of religion became one of the pillars on which this country was founded.
If the U.S. government is allowed to dictate the hiring practices of faith-based organizations—as the Bush-era memo suggests—the direct and immediate harm is apparent. When job opportunities are restricted to those of a particular faith, equal opportunity is no longer equal. Civil rights become conditional. Religious freedom is limited. If this is allowed to happen, faith-based organizations could become de facto agencies of the government.
But the real danger, we all know, is that this kind of intervention with faith-based groups allows for government sanctioning of a particular religion, and in this case, that religion is Christianity. This practice is contrary to the very tenets this country was founded on. It’s allowing the government to promote a specific religious agenda in this country—the equivalent of what my younger colleagues call “sneaky Jesus.”
A few years ago, I attended a Shabbat dinner, and the conversation turned to the question of church and state. One comment by the rabbi summed up this issue: “Whenever I hear the president say this is a Christian country, I wonder—if I’d been living in Germany in 1938, how long I would have waited to leave?” I have never forgotten the quiet fear in his voice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)