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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)