My Computer Was Stolen

My computer was stolen from my car a few days ago. Boo. Guess what that means? Everything I've pre-wrote is gone. Boo.

Absolute Truth Claims

Humankind has endlessly been struggling to understand God, so I think it quite offensive and arrogant to shove one’s personal religion in the face of someone who is quite happy with their own. Really, if a Muslim came up to you and read you some stuff from the Quran and told you that you were stupid for being a Christian and that your morals were bankrupt and would land you in Hell unless you were willing to claim Mohammad as the paramount prophet, how responsive would you be?

It’s ridiculously naive to think that any of us, especially those of us who are not fluent in the original languages of the Bible, can truly understand its message, especially now that we are some 3500 years after much of it was written and completely absent of the Bible’s original context. We have endeavored to find the historical context of these writings, but so little is available to us. Even for those scholars who can read Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, it’s incredibly difficult to discern what kinds of intricacies and poetic structure were used in scripture, what kinds of allegory, puns, metaphors, etc. that simply don’t translate into English or the year 2012.

One of my goals as a Christian is to faithfully embrace the mystery that is God. While I seek to understand scripture as fully as I can (I majored in Comparative Religious Studies and intend to enter seminary), I will never be able to define God or God’s will in any kind of certainty… I can only have faith. Therefore, I should be respectful of whatever faith claims other people have, so long as they are not damaging anyone, imposing themselves on others, or interfering with my faith practice.

Should Evolution Be Taught in Public Schools?

I personally think I would want my kids to learn about evolution... from someone who understands it and isn't using their classroom as a soapbox from which to apologize.

1. Evolution is a theory and should be taught alongside other theories. Yes, evolution is a theory, but it's a Scientific Theory which means something different than when you or I say "I have a theory." A Scientific Theory is a hair away from being a "Fact," but since Scientists are quite precise in their language, a fact is something (in science) which must be mathematically verifiable. Evolution cannot be proved with math, but it has a huge wealth of support and is verified by the scientific process. If I said I had a theory that (for instance) the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world, it couldn't be called a Scientific Theory because I am fairly certain it wouldn't stand up to scientific inquiry. In order for something to maintain its status as a Scientific Theory, it cannot be at odds with any other Scientific Theory or conclusive scientific evidence. Scientific Theory is not a "theory" in the way that most of us use the term in our day-to-day lives.

2. Evolution should be taught alongside other theories. Now that we have established that Evolution is a Scientific Theory (which is why it is taught in science classes), I think it's a fair argument that Creation should not be taught alongside Evolution. Evolution is science and Creation is religion. Religious views don't belong in a science class any more than floral arrangements do. Nor does evolution belong in your church. If one has staunch religious views and feels like evolution is at odds with them, then one should be able to opt out of the unit like one can opt out of Sex Ed. The only theories that should be taught alongside Evolution are other Scientific Theories.

Creationism is not science, nor is Intelligent Design. Believe whatever you want, but neither theory (with a small t) stands up to the Scientific Method.

3. Evolution should not be taught in schools because it is at odds with the many different beliefs and values which people in this country have. Don't we learn about Hitler? In any case, the only reason I can see that evolution should not be taught in schools is that it's not strictly practical. If one wanted to smush Evolution out of the curriculum, I would argue that it should be to make room for Nutrition or something else which is clearly needed in our schools.

4. People should be able to make their own choices about what to believe. Yes, they should. But understanding something and believing something are very different. Our educational system clearly has decided that English, Math, Science, and History are necessary parts of a good education. Whether or not I believe that Trickle-Down Economics works is very different from my ability to understand what Trickle-Down Economics is. That said, if you want a class that discusses different belief sets about how our world came to be, you'd better be willing to devote your whole year to just that topic. In this country, we can't place favoritism on Christianity's creation story. Guys, there are a lot of religions in the world. A lot.

Evolution should be taught in schools if we want American children to have an advantage in an increasingly global world. If you want your kids to get religious values in school, send them to a religious school.

image from Married to the Sea

Guns

I don’t like guns. I’ve never had much exposure to them, so they just scare me. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean I am “anti-gun.” I do think our country should be approaching them a little differently.

I keep hearing “right to bear arms” stuff come up in the debate. Certainly. By all means, but yourself a gun, but for the love of God, learn how to use it.

Certainly most adults don't go around shooting people, nor do they have any desire to. No healthy, sane person goes on a shooting rampage. Ideally, guns increase our safety. Hunting is a large part of some people's culture and helps keep animal populations in some areas under control. Some people feel like having a gun in their home is making their home safer. I think our country needs higher standards for gun purchases. I think anyone who wants to buy a gun should meet certain qualifications:

1. If the individual has a history of mental instability, they should be certified by a psychologist as fit to operate a weapon

2. Mentally unstable people should not be allowed to purchase a firearm

3. The individual purchasing the gun should not have a history of violent crime

4. The individual should have completed a course on firearm operation (no one who has no idea how to operate a gun should be able to own one)

I think those are completely reasonable expectations. Guns in and of themselves are not a problem. It's a problem that so many people who own guns don't know how to use them properly. Guns are every bit as dangerous as vehicles; why don't we have similar testing strategies?

image from Indexed

Jainism

In the Jain lifestyle, ahimsa and samyama are very important. Ahimsa, the concept of non-injury, and samyama, the idea of restraint, seem to go hand in hand and require a lot of self control from any Jain. Although expectations are different for "clergy" and lay people, the Jain lifestyle is very demanding.

Because Jains are not supposed to injure living things and practice restraint, they are vegetarians. They also don't wear leather or other animal products. Jains must make it a point in their lives not to support businesses that do these things either. This can, understandably, become problematic. It is a difficult path that requires determination and an enormous amount of self control.

For Jain clergy, samyama seems to mean much more. As part of ahimsa, they are not allowed to drive, as it injures bugs and things in the air. They have a specific wardrobe, diet, and lifestyle in general. They dress in white robes to represent their purity. They are to walk everywhere they go. The monks and nuns do not work and rely on the lay people to stay alive. They do not engage in sexual activity or any other "tempting" activities. Their asceticism and devotion is truly admirable. Of course, this level is beyond that of an average Jain, who owns possessions, may drive a car, and presumably has a family.

Compromises are made. Obviously, some injury to life has to be made in order for us to stay alive. Jains are allowed to eat plants. They are allowed to drive and use forms of transportation other than walking. But they hold strongly to ahimsa and samyama and lead lives with high levels of self control.

Social Welfare

Polls always show people are for helping people that need help. It's not that conservatives don’t like the idea of lending a hand to those who need it, they don’t like government mandating it.

Social programs (like Welfare), in the eyes of many, are forced charity. No one wants government to tell them where they can go to church and no one wants government telling them where their charity should go.

We hear all the time about how much people on the right don't like taxes, even the ones for millionaires. They don't want to support things (like Welfare) that they feel give free money to people who like to take advantage such programs and sit at home without working. I can understand the values behind that (work hard, take care of yourself, don't take advantage of anything). I’m reminded of a bumper sticker I see every so often: “Work Hard. Millions on Welfare Depend on You.”

So: if we did away with Welfare, would everyone go get a job and everything would be happy and fine again? I think not. As anyone out of work in this economy knows, there aren’t always jobs available.

So what? If we do away with social programs, what happens? Apocalyptic crime and death? I don’t know, that’s obviously a problem we don’t want to see unfold, so: we need to find our values or at least our logic, because no one wants a bunch of homeless people flooding onto the streets, either.

How do we get rid of programs like Welfare? We need to give our money to what we do believe in. If people actually gave to the charities which we believed in, there wouldn't be a need for so many government programs. Churches need to step up and help people instead of giving ministers crazy salaries. People need to step up and tithe. How much do people really give to Non-Profits? Think of it as a percentage of your salary and ask yourself if you’re proud of that number.

What about your church? Where is its money going? Do you know (because shouldn’t you?)? How many churches have a pastor who’s driving a Benz, then comes into church and asks his congregants for more money. I’m sorry, but why is a person making $20,000.00 a year tithing so that rich ministers can buy sports cars? There is something wrong with that.

If it's not entirely blasphemous for a liberal like me to say, I would like to see a lot of social programs disappear, too, but if we want our taxes to go down, we need to examine our values. None of us want to give up our paychecks to the government, but we also want roads and libraries; we don't want homelessness or hunger in our cities. We want to work hard and experience the social mobility that the American dream promises. No one likes feeling like their paycheck is going to help some lazy poo sit at home and watch CSI re-runs.

If we want to eliminate programs like Welfare, we need to create a country where people don't need it. Someone needs to take care of people in hard times, though. That should be taken care of by churches and charities, but the problem is that right now, churches and charities obviously aren't taking care of all of it. Why not? Because people like you and I don't give as much money to churches and charities as we should, people don’t pay attention to what their churches do with money, and too many churches sit on their money instead of doing what Jesus would have done. Despite what people think about God's interventionary powers, God isn't going to drop dollars in the collection basket. WE do that. God isn’t going to rain mana down for the homeless people. Do we let them starve?

We need to examine our values. We need to give money to the causes that we believe in and eliminate the need for government programs which waste taxpayer dollars with inefficient programs. We need to be good, generous, kind people if we want a society that doesn't need to tax people in order to make sure that all families are fed.

So: put your money where your mouth is, no matter which end of the political spectrum you fall on.

Also: I am a Christian. This is wrong.

image from Toothpaste for Dinner

harper's magazine

I read Harper’s. I’ve been reading Harper’s for maybe 10 years? I love it.

One of my favorite parts is “Notebook,” once typically written by Lewis Lapham. I absolutely love him, despite his distaste for religion. I think he’s hilarious. His use of language is amazing and his criticisms of politics are fantabulous.

Notebook is now shared by a number of writers, including Mr. Garret Keizer.

In June 2008, Mr. Keizer won my heart. Although Notebook will always belong to Lapham in my eyes, Keizer won me over with a beautiful article.

I don’t know if you’ll be able to find the article, but if you can, you should. It’s called Turning Away From Jesus: Gay Rights and the War for the Episcopal Church. It’s amazing.

“…what might strike you as an irrelevant story about a religious dispute is in some ways your story, whether you are religious or not, and whether you like it or not. The story invites us to ask if what we see happening to the institutions we love is not at least partly the result of our having loved them less attentively than we supposed.”

What is the big deal about making the decision to become Open and Affirming? Some people think it’s irrelevant, some seem to think it’s an unnecessary step and a divisive statement (strangely). Why is it important to show up to church? Why is it important to stay in an organization you’re struggling with? Because if you don’t, it wins. Because if you don’t, that’s one less ONA church. If you leave, don’t stay in your living room on Sundays. Find a different church. Show your parish what you wanted by increasing the membership of a church that practices what you believe in. The Catholic Church would never have made the changes it did without the Protestant Revolution and the Great Awakening. It will never make any more changes without other such movements.

Can we say, “Progressive Christianity?”

I’m an idealist. I know. It’s okay.

Bright Eyes

"But beauty comes to those who have been waiting
For something that is bigger than themselves."
--Bright Eyes, from "I Watched You Taking Off" off of "A Collection of Songs Written and Recorded 1995 - 1997"

The Language of God

Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most influential figures in modern Hindu thought and perhaps has had more global impact than any other modern Hindu. More Americans probably know about Gandhi than about India's history or religious traditions, because his philosophies and determination transcend the ethics of his own tradition to be universally respectable and profound. Gandhi was born into, in many ways a turbulent time in India, but in others, very normal. Gandhi had a normal, if not privileged upbringing in India and received a Western education. His ideas about nonviolent protests and his avid demands for independence, compassion, and equality go to the core of the religious tradition and revive and rejuvenate it in ways that perhaps no other philosopher or activist has been able to do. His ideas changed the perception of Hinduism around the world and opened people's minds to a new way of protest by actually being completely non-violent to an extent that no other rebellion has ever managed to do.

Gandhi was born into an India that was under the control of Great Britain. Western ideas leaked into schools and workplaces, perhaps at times undermining the rule that the British imposed. Some Indians, under the influence of these Western ideas, began to see some traditional Hindu values as ones that held them as "political slaves" (Datta, p. 9). The British assumed control of India from the East India Company in 1858, 11 years before Gandhi was born. In 1885, the Indian National Congress was formed, perhaps being the first formal group fighting for independence against the British. Gandhi would serve as its president later in his life. More groups would continue to form in India in the early 20th century, while Gandhi would spend time in Europe and Africa. India's movement for independence would strengthen under the ideals leaking in from the Empire that controlled them. Both World Wars would also weaken the British, weakening their forces and resources. India's people, especially those of lower classes, were treated as inferiors by the British. Although the British rule was one the Indians sought to escape from, India has constantly been conquered by empires throughout its history, enhancing its diversity. This diversity, under strict outside rule, was suppressed and categorized. Gandhi sought to help liberate India not only from British control, but from discrimination from within the class systems as well.

Gandhi was born in 1869 at Portbunder, Kathiawar, India to a Vaishnava minister and his wife, part of the Vaishya class. He was raised in a family that emphasized ahimsa, and much of Gandhi's strict moral code was adopted from his father and his ministry. Gandhi, like many other boys, was betrothed and married as a young boy. Betrothed at seven, he married Katsura when he was thirteen years old. In 1888, after the death of his father, his older brother sent him to London, where he would study Law. Early in his life, Gandhi had an utter fear of public speaking, which "plagued him after he went back to India" (Gruzalski, p. 2). This perhaps caused the dwindling of his law career in India and motivated him to take on legal work in Africa. He faced the discrimination of Indians in Africa, and perhaps because of this, gave his first successful speech at a meeting about the conditions of Indians. After roughly twenty years, Gandhi returned to India, having developed a wealth of knowledge in foreign literature, philosophy, and politics. He learned from and incorporated some ideals into his own thought and used these experiences in his movement for Indian independence.

Gandhi returned to India in 1914 to found a farm and training center that he would call Satyagraha Ashrama. The word "Satyagraha" was one that Gandhi developed to go beyond the phrase "passive resistance" and what he thought that implied. This new term meant "truth and firmness of force" and is the title for his active non-violent resistance that "also excludes hatred and ill-will" (Gruzalski, p. 6). Gandhi's work was initially social. His intentions were to remove superstitions about untouchability, unite Muslims and Hindus, and create forms of spinning employment for Indians. However, in time his work turned more political. He founded a community of like-minded individuals (from a diversity of nationalities) that were willing to live simply in a commune-like setting of "plain living and high thinking" (Datta, p. 16). Gandhi's inner need to help end discrimination quickly took priority as he began to give his life to his cause.

Gandhi organized many forms of resistance throughout his career, some more notable than others. He first gained attention by organizing fasts of political protest. He went go on to lead many campaigns of civil disobedience. In 1930, he led a 165-mile march to the Arabian Sea, where he produced salt (against the law) by evaporating water. He began a "Fast unto Death" campaign with the intent to change the way the untouchable class is treated. He found himself in jail, but within 6 days was able to improve the status of the untouchables when the British made a pact committing to do so. After decades of commitment to the causes of the Indian people, much of Gandhi's goal was realized when India gained its independence in 1947. Gandhi would be assassinated approximately 1 year later by a young Hindu man.

It was Gandhi's will to adhere to his strict aspirations that made him such an incredible figure. Gandhi's beliefs and philosophies were well-developed and can be found and paralleled in most other, if not all other traditions. His understanding of ahimsa is deep and took on new meaning as he developed the term Satyagraha and applied it to political issues and methods of rebellion. In this way, he was able to be powerful without mustering any physical force to speak of. His fasts became powerful forms of resistance, as masses of people would cause themselves pain and suffering to make their point to the world and to the British Empire. Gandhi created new understandings of the message in the Bhagavad-Gita. He was able to explain much of the text as metaphorical while still extracting a deeply religious meaning and purpose from the text. Though Gandhi quite obviously saw the need for duty and dharma in the Hindu tradition, he firmly believed that the treatment of untouchables in society was intolerable and had to be changed. Gandhi was able to make steps like no one before him toward achieving respect for the group that he fondly called Harijans (God's children). Most of his philosophies were developed to an extent, but no one before him embodied their purpose so beautifully.

I believe that Gandhi's teachings and movement are modern in the sense that they incorporate universal ideals and morals, yet are rooted in cultural tradition while they rebel against it. Gandhi's ideas are quite clearly based on the traditional values he was brought up to hold close to heart. His father, being a Vaishnavite minister, instilled high moral standards in his son. However, Gandhi grows up in a different world than his father did and is subject to the persuasive liberalism of Western thought. Instead of choosing between one view and another, he is able to reconcile them, creating an understanding of Hinduism's values that incorporates the independence, equality, and compassion that he finds in the culture, literature, and religion he encounters. He makes parallels between Hinduism and other world religions and is able to use these similarities to be persuasive in his message. He appeals to people in all areas by extracting the universal ideals from the traditions he has studied. He uses these messages, found within his tradition, to rebel against what it has become. He is able to speak out for a class that is treated inhumanely, making passionate statements by never becoming aggressive in his method. His message is more powerful because of the incredible will and commitment he demonstrates by lowering his personal defenses for the good of the people. His motivated sacrifice, I would argue, is paralleled in Western tradition with the strength of Jesus in the Christian tradition. It can open the minds and hearts of many to become more compassionate and yet more brave in their actions and pursuits. His open incorporation of Western and Eastern ideals, inspiration from literature and other religions, and revolutionary forms of protest make him fundamentally different from those that preceded him and make him a modern, innovative thinker and activist.

Mahatma Gandhi is, if not the most important figure in Indian history, the most publicized. Although his beginnings were perhaps the most ordinary, he was able to achieve great things by his pure will to liberate his people. His selflessness can be paralleled by few, if any, in his political career. Being educated in England and spending time in Africa, Gandhi nourished his faith by finding similarities in others and developing a view that would unify not only Indians, but people around the world in pursuit of equality. He was able to demonstrate the effectiveness of passive resistance and expand and revive its meaning. Gandhi appealed to the humanity within the world and was able to make change from the inside out in this way.

Works Consulted:

Gruzalski, Bart. On Gandhi. California: 2001.

Datta, Dhirendra Mohan. Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. Washington: 1953.