Category Archives: religion

A Better way: Expansive religion

Fellow Feeing, reason, religion,

I have been critical of evangelical religion. That is what I am surrounded by here in Steinbach. Some of my friends have suggested that I have criticized a straw man—i.e. a religion that is easy to attack and no one subscribes to any longer.  I disagree.

In North America it a very large religious sector. That is particularly true in the United States, but in other pockets, like Steinbach, as well. It is also rapidly growing. A lot faster than the many more liberal Christian sects. It is also very influential.  Evangelicals were a major source of support for Donald Trump in the 2016 American presidential elections, as odd as that sounds. Evangelicals are by no means a “straw man”.

Because I have been critical I don’t want people to think that I believe everything is bad about religion. Far from it. I don’t want to be a nattering nabob of negativity to quote Spiro Agnew. In fact, I think there is a better way. I refer to it as expansive religion, rather than exclusive religion. It is religion that has jettisoned the old beliefs in invincible superiority of our religion over all others. Instead it sees what is held in common by religions.

Religions are so many and so varied it is very difficult (but not impossible) to find what they have in common. Some religions have dogma; others have none. Some religions believe in an afterlife; others don’t. Some religions have a God; others subsist without one. Some religions have beliefs and those that do have beliefs, they  vary widely, if not extravagantly. What then do religions have in common? I think you have to go back to the original meaning of the word “religious” for an answer.

Religion is based on an Indio-Asian word  “religio” which basically meant connection or linkage.  In other words, religion is what connects us or links us.  To what you might ask?  I think that what religion tries to link us to is first of all other people, but also other creatures, and even, ultimately, all life itself.  What connects us is religious; what severs that connection is blasphemy. That is my fundamental religious belief.

My wife once had a pendant  which she wore that said something to the effect that “if religion leads to hate it’s not religion.”  I have likely mangled the exact wording.  Yet the thought I think is clear and very important.  It goes back to that original concept of the word “religion.”

So religion is closely allied to the concept of fellow feeling or empathy.  If we have fellow feeling for others, or other creatures, or other life forms, we are acting religiously.  If we don’t, we are acting irreligiously. That is because without fellow feeling or empathy we are no longer connecting we are dividing  from each other. That is the opposite of religion.

Thus religion is based on fellow feeling.  The most important part of religion is the golden rule.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  In fact, it’s interesting that almost all religions endorse that principle as a fundamental principle.  I think it is the fundamental principle of religion.  All religions!  It is what connects us to others.  Do unto them, as you would have them do unto you. If you do you are acting religiously; if you don’t you are acting irreligiously.

I am not a religious person in any traditional sense of the word “religious.” However, I feel that the so-called “religious people” have hijacked this word for their own purposes.  I want to reclaim the word.  I feel that many people have tarnished the word “religion.” They use it to divide people rather than connect people. In  my opinion, they are sacrilegious no matter how many pious words they use.  In fact, I think it is them that are not religious, not I.

I think these things are important.  I resent those who in the name of religion try to disconnect us from others.  I resent those who try to claim that religion is a matter of us against them.  I particularly resent those that think that religion is a means of saying we’re better than them because our religion is better than their religion. That is the original sin. Worst of all are those who say those who believe like me are going to heaven forever, and those who don’t, are going to hell where they will suffer torment forever. That’s not religion at all. That’s the opposite of religion.

I intend to expand on these thoughts.

Programmed to Believe

Evangelical Christianity, Philosophy/Ideas, religion

 

I read a fascinating story in The New Yorker magazine. It was the story of a young 23-year old legal assistant named Megan Phelps-Roper from Topeka Kansas in the heart of the United States Bible Belt. She became well known as a result of her tweets on Twitter and picketing on behalf of her church Westboro Baptist Church. She would tweet things like this, “Thank God for AIDS! You won’t repent of your rebellion that brought his wrath on you in this incurable scourge, so expect more & worse.”  As Adrian Chen reported in the New Yorker,

 

She believed that “all manner of other tragedies–war, natural disaster, mass shootings–were warnings from God to a doomed nation, and that it was her duty to spread the news of His righteous judgments. To protest the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in America the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funerals of gay men who died of AIDS and of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Members held signs slogans like ‘GOD HATES FAGS’ and “THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS,” and the outrage that their efforts attracted had turned the small church, which had fewer than a hundred members, into a global symbol of hate.

 

What really interested me about this story in The New Yorkerwas the fact that this young woman was attractive, fully devoted to a cause that attracted a lot of hatred against her and her family, and, most importantly, very intelligent. That seems hard to believe since her beliefs were so wildly unreasonable, but she was. She was often the spokesperson for the church and had been interviewed by media around the world.

How could such a person with all her advantages have such pitiful beliefs? I think the answer is obvious.  She had those beliefs because that is what her parents taught her. From birth she had been indoctrinated by her parents. From them she “learned” that gays were an abomination and it was her duty to attack them whenever she could, in whatever manner was available to her.

Eventually she did manage to wean herself from her parents’ rigid positions. In time she rebelled, but it is never easy to dissent, especially from our fundamental beliefs that we have held since we were extremely young and which were inculcated in us by our well meaning parents who wanted to help us and guide us and protect us from all harm. Yet, in the language of social media, eventually after profound doubts and deep unease Megan was able to “Unfollow” her parents and their church.

We all believe what our parents teach us. Our parents are our guides and mentors in our life’s journey. Humans, unlike most animals, have a long period of time in which they are nurtured by their parents. This process takes years. Longer in fact than with any other species. During this time we soak up what our parents teach us. Evolutionarily this is what we had to do to survive. Millennia ago, when life was nasty brutish and short, and dangers lurked everywhere, young children that did not listen to their parents’ warnings tended to perish. The risk takers were often taken by predators. Children that stayed close to their parents and abided by their dire warnings tended to survive and later passed on their genes to their offspring. Obedience to parents is wired deep in the human DNA. We are programmed to believe.

When we get older, some of us learn that our parents were not always right. When I was young I thought my mother was the finest cook in the world. I was so lucky to have such a wonderful mom. That is true by the way. Later in life–much later and very subtly–I began to realize she was not a perfect cook. She tended to burn her meats and badly over cook her vegetables. That was the way she had been taught to cook by her mother. That was the standard of good cooking. She was not perfect in other ways either. Pretty close, but not quite perfect.

Parents are important. We love them. They guide us through the informative times of our lives when as young children we are totally helpless and entirely at their mercy. We appreciate what they do for us and for what they have taught us, but we should never remain obedient children. We have to grow up.

I remember a conversation with a young lawyer a few years ago. We were arguing about some ethical issue.  He and I disagreed about whether something was ethically right or wrong. Such arguments are not easy to resolve. His ultimate answer–and it really was an ultimate answer–was that, ‘well that is what I was taught by my parents to believe.’ How could he not believe what he had been taught to believe?

He was an intelligent young man.  Yet he admitted he believed something solely because that was what he had been taught to believe by his parents. It seemed absurd to me, but I had managed, with great difficulty many years earlier, to dissent from some of the things that I had been taught by my parents.

Yet that is what we have an obligation to do. When we mature, I would suggest, we must challenge what we have been taught. Not everything our parents taught us was absolutely true (or wrong). Our parents thought it was true. Why else would they teach it to us?  But our parents, just like anyone else, can make mistakes, even fundamental mistakes and we should make sure we have not been led astray by well-meaning parents.

But such a challenge is extremely difficult. The fact is that it is very difficult to reject fundamental things that our parents teach us. We believe those things. It takes a great deal of courage and determination to challenge  that.

Megan was extremely intelligent and she certainly did not lack courage. To stand up in public on a public sidewalk in front of a funeral for soldiers carrying placards that mock everything about those soldiers, takes a lot of guts. To hold up placards at a funeral of gay people denouncing gays in the most crude and brutal manner certainly takes courage. It is misguided courage, but no less courage for that.

Eventually, she came to realize her parents had taught her badly. They had not just taught her they had indoctrinated her.  Later it took courage to Unfollow her parents.

Our parents are our first and usually most important teachers. Yet, as Friedrich Nietzsche said, “a pupil repays a teacher badly if he remains forever a pupil.” A good teacher wants to be challenged. A good parent wants to be challenged.

Keeping silent is not the answer

religion, ,

A good friend sent me a private thoughtful critique after a recent post. He said, he found “finding fault” alone at best amusing but mostly annoying. He suggested I make some positive suggestions.

First of all I think if we find fault we should criticize. I don’t think silence in the face of injustice is ever wise.  Sometimes it is important for us to make clear that we dissent from the conventional wisdom. This is particularly important, I believe, where the powerful majority is sometimes misusing its power or authority. Someone should stick up for the weak. I am trying to do that in my puny way, even if that means that I annoy some of the powerful.  So be it. I have been too quiet for too long. I am choosing now to speak up. I think I should have spoken up sooner. Sometimes the time has come to denounce actions of a large group. Sometimes it is important to let others know on which side you are on. Others can choose to disagree.

I live in a small town where sometimes, in my opinion,  the majority has gone too far in their dominance of the vulnerable. I am not saying they were always wrong or that they were bad people. Many of them are good people who meant well. And that is important. Others abused their power.

I have  been asked to make some “constructive propositions.” I intended to do that later, and will do so. However, let me make one at this time.  I was very fortunate to have been raised by loving Christian parents who did their best to lead me to salvation. They were not mean or abusive. They did it with love. They taught me; they did not indoctrinate me. For example, they never forced me to attend revival meetings.I was free to go if I wanted to, but was also free to avoid them.   I was expected to attend Sunday School every Sunday. It did not damage me, though I was not keen on it.  What they gave me was spiritual freedom. I will always be grateful for that freedom. Some of my friends were not so fortunate. I intend to blog about the positive as well.  Specifically, I think there is a better way than evangelical religion. I intend to share that.

With such wonderful freedom comes responsibility. So I have chosen to speak up. Martin Luther King also spoke for those who had been taken advantage of. I am not comparing myself to him. He did that in much more serious circumstances than I have been doing. He was a brave man. I know I am a moral pipsqueak in comparison. This is what he said, “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” I don’t think we should keep quiet just for fear of being annoying.

Abuse

religion,

 

I have used the word “abuse” deliberately. I know it is an inflammatory word. It comes with many connotations. That is why I chose it.    There are degrees of abuse. “Abuse” describes a spectrum of behaviors from the mild to the severe.

I also recognize that standards change. When I was a young lawyer there was no such thing as sexual harassment. Well actually there was lots of it. We just never talked about it. There was no such legal concept, but there was actually lots of sexual harassment. People did things they would not be proud of today. I include myself in that sorry category. I am not talking about sexual assault here. Standards have changed and men should be criticized for what they did. That does not make them evil. It means what they did was wrong and should never be repeated.

When I was young we were allowed to smoke in university classrooms. I pity the poor non-smokers in the classes. We were bad. Now we are repelled at the thought

It is the same with abuse. When I was young, teachers were allowed (expected?) to beat their students. Some of them did that severely. I was spanked by a teacher. I was given  no reason why. She never even told me what I had been done. I know I probably earned it.  As a result I learned nothing from the punishment. (That may explain a lot about me.) But I would not call that abuse. Or if it was abuse, it was very mild. I could take it. It was on the mild end of the spectrum.

I define the term “abuse” as behavior whereby a strong person takes unreasonable advantage of a weaker person for his or her own advantage.  The word “unreasonable” is intended to suggest that a reasonable person would not do it. That is an objective standard. Some people would do it.

As an example, if young and vigorous Johnny persuades his Mother to transfer her bank account to him to “protect it” from her other children while he uses that money for his own advantage, I would call that abuse. This is a case of serious abuse.

Another example of abuse, I submit, is when a parent uses his or her authority and power over children to turn them over to a professional manipulator of children, such as an itinerant preacher, in order to “persuade” the children to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  That is a violation of the child’s autonomy. That does not mean parents who did this are wicked. That does not mean parents cannot educate their children or guide their children. They must do that. Children need that. Parents however must be careful to respect the children. We always say children must respect their elders. That is true, but the elders must also respect the children. Revivalism in my opinion goes too far. It was well beyond respect. It was unreasonable. It was abuse.

Revivalism: an Amendment

religion

I listened to my thoughtful critics. As a result I now believe I went too far with my post yesterday about revivalism. I do not want to suggest that the abuse was in any way similar to the horrific abuse suffered by indigenous people in Canada at the hands of the residential school system. They are too different to compare and I do not want to trivialize the suffering of indigenous people. As a result I unequivocally withdraw that part of my remarks. I will amend my post on my blog accordingly.

However I do not retract my comments about Mennonite parents and other elders who hired professional America preachers to manipulate their youth often with gross appeals to emotions like fear. I  believe this was an example, among many, of powerful people, (in this case Mennonite parents, elders, and preachers) who exploited the weakness and vulnerability of young children and adults in order to impose a set of values on the young people. I consider what they did abuse. Not on the level of residential schools, but still significant abuse.

I know that most Mennonite parents thought they were doing the right thing. To that extent they meant well in what I believe was a seriously misguided way. They were not trying to harm their children. However I believe that they did.

I want to explore this subject further on this blog and would invite comments from my readers who disagree with me. Please give me the benefit of your comments.

800 pound Jesus

2018 Trip to Ottawa, Music, religion

 

Driving through Northern Ontario I love to listen to music. One of my favourite artists is Paul Thorn.  He wrote and recorded a song a few years that amazingly won an award for best gospel song of the year while, in the same year, was banned as being sacrilegious.  Which do you think is applicable? Here are the words though I would recommend you listen to it performed by him.

800 pound Jesus

 

I saw a garage sale, pulled in the yard,

Found a statute of Jesus that was 8 feet tall.

He held out his arms and he seemed all alone,

So I loaded him up and I drove him home.

Out by my driveway he looks down the street.

Long hair and sandals made of rebar & concrete.

I painted him white with a long purple Robe.

He’s the Rock of Ages on a gravel road.

 

Chorus:

 

He’s an 800 pound Jesus

Standing taller than a tree.

He’s an 800 pound Jesus

A bigger man than you and me.

I thought losing my job was the end of the world,

Till my best friend ran off with my best girl.

I felt suicidal with no real friends,

So I walked outside with a rope in my hands.

Out by that statue there’s an old oak tree,

So I stood on his shoulders & I counted to 3

I had every intention of buying the farm,

but when I jumped off he caught me in his arms.

 

Chorus

 

I wanted to return the favor to him,

Cause I’ve never had more solid friend.

So I planted some flowers all around his feet,

& I bought him a flock of ceramic sheep.

 

Chorus

Establishment of Religion

Human rights, Law, Philosophy/Ideas, religion

Recently I posted about the establishment of religion clause in the US. We don’t have such a clause in our constitution but we do have a clause guaranteeing religious freedom, which has been interpreted to include freedom from religion.

I like the English philosophers who often went by the name of liberals.  Today, liberalism is a bad word in many circles—particularly in the United States. I find it very congenial. I am not talking about the Liberal party in Canada or the Democratic Party in the US. I will leave that for another day. I am talking about small “l” liberalism.

I think the philosophy of liberalism was started in England by John Locke, who lived mainly in the second half of the 17thcentury. That’s a long time ago, but I think its important. Locke’s ideas were borne in the crucible of English politics during this time. That history had important effects on liberalism. And it is important today, though too often forgotten.

The Reformation and the problem of religious minorities was central to Locke’s political philosophy because those were the burning issues (literally burning issues) of his times. By the 1680s there was clear political unrest in England. Until then this was not an issue all values were shared because everyone in Europe was a Roman Catholic. Until then the issue of minority rights did not arise for there were no minorities. After that political theorists had to figure out how can we live in a society together when we don’t all share the same values? We are still trying to solve that problem.

The religious wars of the 17thcentury were incredibly bloody and Locke and the liberals did not want to see them repeated. In the 21stcentury we should be no less vigilant.

2 years ago, Chris and I attended a lecture at the University of Manitoba by Professor Steve Lecce. I have often thought of what he said. He said, that the key question of modern and contemporary political theory is, according to Lecce, “How should we live together in society when we don’t all share the same values?”

According to traditional liberals, the state is not an instrument for pursuing common goals, but rather an institution that allows each of us to pursue our own personal goals while living in society with those who have different objectives. Where values diverge, as they now inevitably do in any post Reformation society and in particular in modern societies that include immigrants from around the world, how can we live together in peace and harmony without resorting to might is right or without resorting to the ability of the majority to dominate? Liberals say that there are some things the majority or the powerful should not be able to do. Instead we will have a method of settling disputes fairly. The state in such circumstances has to be like a referee or umpire. That is why the state must remain neutral between religions for example. It should not assist one religious group to establish its religion over others.

This was very important in the Reformation when religious freedom was the critical issue of the time. It is still important. It is particularly important in places like Steinbach where religion is very important. The Reformation splintered the dominant religion and cleared the way for new problems that were irrelevant before then when everyone agreed.

Until the Reformation a common religion bound us all so that this was not an important issue. Religion until then was the social glue that kept us together. After the Reformation, religion became an explosive issue that could blast society apart. And it often did. It still often does that. Before the Reformation religion was the basis of societal trust.  After the Reformation religion became an instrument of distrust. We still live in this post-Reformation world.

There were 2 possible solutions to this problem of religion after the Reformation:

 

  • A religion can be imposed by force or power to achieve religious unity. This was tried with great vigor in the religious wars of the 17th The result was great misery and abject failure. John Locke developed his philosophy just after those wars which were burned into his memory. Unfortunately, now many of those memories are vague or forgotten.
  • The second possible solution is the radical idea proposed by liberals like John Locke–toleration. That had never been tried before. It was truly deeply revolutionary. It is important to remember this when modern liberals are often seen as dull and boring theoreticians. In the 18thcentury this idea was profoundly revolutionary. Many hated the idea of tolerance because they saw it as capitulation to evil.  Liberals said we had to accept differences.

 

Nowadays toleration, a value that was revolutionary in its day, and I would submit, is revolutionary today, can seem like very thin gruel compared to the spicy virtues reflected by much more aggressive and powerful advocates like ISIS, Boko Haram, Donald Trump, and their ilk. It can seem wishy-washy just like–well—liberals. The liberals stand for permitting others to have their say. This is much less sexy than threatening to ban them, or build a wall to keep them out, or kill them. However, in a world charged with the most vicious of religious hatreds like that of Europe in the 17thcentury or our current world in the 21stcentury, tolerance is not wishy-washy at all. After all the 17thand 20thcenturies were the two most violent centuries in the past 500 years according to Steven Pinker. [2]Tolerance is the most vital of all the virtues! Liberals should step to the plate with vigor and confidence. Liberals actually represent our best chance for civilization to endure.  At least so liberals believe.  At least so I believe.

In the 17thcentury there were those who feared the worst from this revolutionary new idea of tolerance.  Would this not lead to the destruction of public morality?  Personal morality should never be permitted to undermine public morality, it was widely believed. This in fact is the essence of Conservatism! It is stillthe essence of conservatism.

It is still vitally important in a community like Steinbach today as I write.         Recently, our little community has been challenged by a young Lesbian couple who wanted the schools in our area to teach about all families and not ignore the diverse kinds of families like theirs. They want respect. They do not demand acceptance, but they want to be recognized. Many in my community–the modern conservatives–believe sincerely that this can lead to the disintegration of the modern family and with it our cherished western society. The conservatives don’t want to tolerate the lesbians. They feel that this will lead inevitably to the disintegration of all that they hold dear. This is classic conservatism.

Liberals challenge this view. Liberals hold that we can each freely have our own personal opinions and morality without challenging the social order or value of society. Let people disagree. We can all get along provided each of us accepts limits. We must tolerate each other even when we believe others are wrong. This will not destroy society. In fact modern liberals, like Justin Trudeau, believe that the diversity of modern society will strengthennot weaken society.

That means that we must put reasonable limits on our religious values too. We can hold them personally as much as we want, as vigorously as we want, but we cannot impose those values on others. The social value of imposing religious values was rightly discredited after the religious wars of the 17th century. We don’t want to go back there. That is why we in Steinbach must accept same sex marriage as a permitted alternative life style that must be respected, even it is not accepted. This respect will not destroy society it will strengthen it. To live in society we must respect others even when we disagree with them. That is why traditional liberals say that no religion should be established by the state. Everyone should be absolutely free to choose whatever religion they want, including no religion at all. Then we might be able to live together even when we have fundamental disagreements. If we learn tolerance we have a chance of living together. If we don’t we stand no chance.

Many people on the religious right today seem quite willing to permit a religion to become established by the state, provided of course it is their religion. Mennonites at one made a similar principle at the heart of their own position about religion and politics. They knew from profound personal experience how an established religion, such as the Catholic religion in their case, could be used against them to try to beat down their rights to practice their own religion. Nowadays, too many of Mennonites have forgotten this important lesson as they try to impose their own religious views on others. This is what they have done in Steinbach.

A good friend of mine said I must be “even-handed”. I agree. He suggested I had not considered those who advocate imposing Sharia law on us here in the west. Actually I have never encountered that, but if it happened here I would denounce it just as strongly. Muslims too must learn the benefits of tolerance. All of us must.

The U.S. Supreme Court and Trump’s Muslim Ban

politics, religion, ,

 

On January 27, 2017, within a week of his inauguration, the American President Donald Trump tried to fulfill a very popular election promise to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”  That was one of his famous promises that he made during his campaign. This was all part of his design to “Make America Great Again.” He tried to fulfill this promise by issuing Proclamation 13769 that was swiftly turfed out by lower courts. Instead of appealing those decisions Trump came back with a new Proclamation 9645 in September 2017  that he himself called a “watered-down version” of his original proclamation that he actually preferred.

To those of us who always believed the United States was the epitome of religious freedom this was shocking. A number of Human Rights groups immediately launched legal action to stop the second Presidential directive as well and the case ultimately arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court. There were 9 judges who heard the appeal and 7 of them upheld the President’s proclamation.   While this surprised many, the opinions of the court are lengthy and complicated, and many judges weighed in, but I want to comment on the decision of the American Chief Justice Roberts speaking for a large majority of the court and an interesting dissent delivered by Justice Sotomayor. I will comment first on the decision of the majority and then the dissent.

Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that the proclamation claims to be seeking to improve vetting procedures for foreign nationals travelling to the U.S. by identifying ongoing deficiencies in the information needed to assess whether nationals of particular countries present a security threat. The American agencies developed a “baseline” for the information they required in order to confirm the identity of individuals seeking entry into the US and to determine whether those individuals posed a security threat.

The American agencies determined that 16 countries had deficient information sharing practices and presented security concerns as a result. During a 50-day period in which Homeland Security made diplomatic efforts to encourage foreign governments to improve their practices it determined that 8 countries remained deficient. Eventually Trump determined that 1 country had improved enough to be taken off the list.

The Proclamation placed varying entry restrictions on the nationals of 8 foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information Trump deemed inadequate. Most of these countries were countries in which a majority of people were members of the Islamic faith.

The President’s directive caused all kinds of chaos and harm to people around the world since it was implemented without warning, catching travelers and their families unawares and stranded.

The State of Hawaii and 3 individual Americans with foreign relatives who were prohibited from entering the US, argued that the Proclamation violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Establishment Clause of the Constitution which prohibits the government from establishing or favoring any religion.

The majority decision was actually fairly straightforward. It held that the President is given broad discretionary authority to suspend the entry of “aliens” into the US. Courts should defer to the President who is given the power to suspend entry and for how long and under what conditions. The word “aliens” may seem harsh, but that it the wording in INA. It vests the President with “ample power” to do what he did.

The Supreme court noted that President Trump had first ordered Homeland Security and other governmental agencies to conduct comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline and then based on that review he found that restricting aliens who could not be vetted adequately by American officials on account of failures of their own government, was in the national interest. The Proclamation made it clear that the conditional restrictions would remain in force onlyso long as necessary to address the identified inadequacies. Finally, the class of aliens identified were a group of people linked by nationalityand not religion.

The majority of the Supreme Court rejected the claim that the President’s statements showed that the President’s stated concerns about vetting protocols and national security were only pretexts for discriminating against Muslims. The Proclamation was expressly based on legitimate purposes so the court should not interfere with the President’s legitimate exercise of his powers under INA. It really was that simple in the view of the majority of the court.

All of that seems simple and almost unassailable. One might wonder what all the fuss was about. But wait until you hear about the opinion of the dissent. I will cover that in my next post.