It's Only A Paper Rose

I am an agnostic, or whatever you would call someone close to an atheist but without an atheist's faith in the negative.

And yet one of the few places I've ever been able to find real peace is in an empty church.

Grandma,

This is an interesting email, and certainly one of the more reasonable-sounding ones I've seen on the subject. I wonder if you've thought its logic through, though.

But first, the Snopes links that I'm sure you expect from me by now:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/lincolncent.asp

Interestingly, they don't seem to have a page directly addressing the apparently-widespread belief that the government plans to take "In God We Trust" off of U.S. currency. I have yet to see a single substantiated news report saying that this is the case, and as you can see from the above links, every time the issue comes up in a specific instance, it ends up not being true.

But, factual inaccuracies aside, let's address the basic rationale of this email. I assume that its thesis rests in this statement towards the end:

If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.

While the opinion of the majority is certainly an important factor in governing a country, it can't be the only issue given consideration. A country governed entirely by majority opinion would be a pure democracy. Now, I realize that we're generally told through the media that "democracy" is a good thing, that America is a democracy, and that we should spread democracy to less enlightened countries. There are certainly elements of truth to each of those statements, but despite widespread belief in them, none are entirely factual.

Pure democracy is, in essence, mob mentality. In a "democracy", such as many folk would have you believe America should be, there is nothing standing between majority opinion and law. All well and good, until you think about some of the effects of deindividuation and groupthink that so often happen in large groups of people (lynch mobs and the Ku Klux Klan both come to mind). In a democracy, if the majority wants to infringe on the rights of the minority, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

Of equal concern in a democracy are issues where there are more choices than a simple yes/no dichotomy - in such situations, "majority rule" can actually end in a result that the majority of group members are unhappy with! I'm reminded especially of an incident that took place in my sixth grade class. We had recently acquired a class hamster, and the teachers decided that the best way to determine her name would be by majority vote. We were all given a day to write suggestions on the board, and we then got to vote for the name we wanted. It was truly democratic - one person got one vote. The problem arose because of the sheer number of choices available; most options got two or three votes, but six boys in the back of the class voted for "H. Girly Girl", which the rest of the class thought was, frankly, stupid. However, since the rest of the votes were so spread out, their name won, and our hamster was dubbed "H. Girly Girl".

This is why America is not a true democracy, but in fact a republic. We are allowed democratic participation by our ability to vote for those we wish to represent us, but it is those elected representatives who hold the power, and not the mob members. And as a secondary buffer against mob mentality among our elected representatives, no one group has total control. In theory, and often in practice, this protects minority groups from being excluded through majority rule. And while some might question the importance of said minority groups, America was founded as a nation of refuge for exactly those groups whose rights were oppressed and violated in their home countries.

Which brings us to the question of religion. Every schoolchild knows the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees separation of Church and State. This has little to do with "political correctness"; it does, however, have everything to do with the protection of those same minority groups, in this case those who are participants in minority religions, or who belong to no religion at all. (Admittedly, it doesn't always work - I'm sure you recall the persecution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the early days of their establishment as a religion! - but it's by far better than having no protections at all.) The majority of people living in the U.S.A. do belong to a form of Judeo-Christian religion, and the vast majority hold some sort of belief in God. However, events in our government that many interpret as a denial of God or an invasion of political correctness are often, in fact, simply recognizing that not everyone in this country holds those beliefs. And since the federal government is supposed to be there for and accessible by any American citizen, regardless of religious background, symbols of a single religion being prominently displayed on government property are often deemed inappropriate. This does not mean, as some folk seem to believe, that individual people are not allowed to express their beliefs or wear religious symbols on federal property; simply that the government as an entity should refrain from an appearance of favoritism.

I find myself wondering what those who decry the lack of religion in our government would say were a courthouse to publicly display the Five Pillars of Islam instead of the Ten Commandments...

I suppose I shouldn't find it all that surprising that Jerry Falwell is dead - after all, 73 is pretty old for a corpulent white man with a history of heart problems. It still seems awfully sudden, though.

I may be wrong about this, but it's often appeared to me that people that vitriolic and hate-filled tend to live well into their 90s, seemingly subsisting on pure bitterness and spite. But I can't say as I'm sorry in this case.

To Mr. Falwell himself, I can only say: I'm sure you believed you were doing the right thing, and for that reason I'm glad you're no longer with us. But take heart - I'm certain there are plenty of folks willing to take up the hate-and-intolerance banner in your absence.

I'm sure everyone has heard by now about the stir caused by Pope Benedict XVI's comments on abortion and religious assimilation. As is probably to be expected, this has sparked quite a bit of outrage among socialists and secular humanists, which in turn has drawn derision from those who know basic Catholic doctrine. After all, it hardly seems unusual for the Pope, who is the emblem of Catholicism, to be espousing Catholic views, right?

In the defense of we godless socialists and secular humanists, I think most of the outrage is stemming from the blatantly political nature of the statements. Given that one of the things we value fundamentally is the separation of church from state, having the leader of an extremely powerful religious organization tell politicians that they have excommunicated themselves by supporting a law that's entirely separate from anything they personally have chosen is anathema. Even the Vatican's doing a bit of backpedaling. As for his comments about indigenous peoples "silently longing" for Christianity, well...it appears he might've missed a few history classes regarding the enslavement and eventual near-genocide of these people. Hardly the sort of compassionate omniscience we would expect from the Pope, who is supposed to be the living embodiment of Jesus Christ on Earth.

I think what disappoints me personally the most is that Benedict XVI has yet to show any of the compassion for individual people that made his predecessor so universally beloved. John Paul II was pretty equally conservative in his statements regarding doctrine, but he had (or at least was able to project an image of) real compassion for his followers, trying as they were to live godly lives in a modern consumerism-oriented world. Everything Benedict XVI has said so far (at least that I've seen reported in the mainstream media) seems to imply that he's simply toeing the party line, so to speak - adhering to the doctrines of Catholicism without embodying any of the spirit of the words.

I could be wrong, of course. It might be true that he has plenty of compassion, but simply isn't as good at expressing it. But if he doesn't find a way to do so, I think he might find more and more people straying from his flock. After all, Jesus' teachings were all about compassion for others; he didn't go around condemning people for their lifestyles (with the notable exception of religious hypocrites). And I tend to think it's just that compassion that has made Catholicism the powerful force it is today - the idea of a forgiving and all-loving God certainly was a huge contrast to the tempestuous and fickle deities of most of Europe at the time, or the fire-and-brimstone vengeful god of the Jews. If the Catholic Church loses sight of that by getting mired in the minutiae, if they fail to continue inspiring their followers to be better people, then all that's going to be left are a bunch of apparently arbitrary rules, and the only people who will feel proud to be Catholic are those who get off on following each and every rule to the letter - the very sort of people whom Jesus condemned.

On a bit of a tangent, I really think it's going to be interesting to see if Catholicism can adapt to the Information Age, with the Internet and all that it entails. There are certainly some interesting parallels to the beginning of the Renaissance, when the Church's political and religious stranglehold over Europe was loosened (though by no means vanquished) by rising literacy rates and the accompanying increase in education. I wonder what the effect of even freer information (and misinformation) transmission will have on dictatorships and fundamentalist religions...

It is perhaps appropriate that Brian and I saw this on the rack at Fred Meyer on April Fools' Day; unfortunately, however, it is most definitely not a joke:

The Animated Passion of the Christ: For the Whole Family!

Featuring the crowd pleasing favorite, Blonde-Haired-Blue-Eyed-Long-Haired Jesus! And his ever-popular bouncing cheerful sidekicks, Beloved John and Betrayer Judas! Now with all-new songs: "The Kiss of Hate From One I Love", "A Heavy Cross (But I'm Shouldering On)", and, as we all watch Jesus' descent into bitterness and cynicism, "The King of Fools Wears a Crown of Thorns"! Don't miss this opportunity to show your children the "reality" of the crucifixion, without letting any of that pesky blood or gore or historical accuracy or "love thy neighbor" philosophy get in the way!

Okay, I'm done with the snark now. I suppose something like this was inevitable, given how many people were bringing their young children to see the uncut version of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, but still - aren't there better parts of Jesus' life to teach your kids about? His non-judgmental attitude, for instance? His denouncing of hypocrites and profiteers? His philosophy of nonviolence and love towards everyone? Why focus on the bloody end, especially with all the blood removed?

I dunno. I guess I can understand the idea of Jesus' crucifixion making his previous teachings all the more poignant - things that end, especially those that end violently, make a much deeper impression. Personally, though, I'd like to think of the whole thing as respecting someone who was willing to die (painfully) for their beliefs, rather than thinking of their death as an end unto itself that renders the rest of us unworthy.

I honestly don't think I've ever had a more appropriate post for this icon...

After seeing this take on the Jesus-fish car emblem, I'm giving serious thought to ordering one for Kitty along with a small Jolly Roger flag for her antenna and doing her up as a Flying Spaghetti Monster-mobile. There are lots of folks around town with Jesus-fish/bumperstickers/etc. in Juneau, but I have yet to see a Pastafarian...

Thoughts? Suggestions? Cautionary tales?

(Note: For those who are unfamiliar with the concept of Pastafarianism, here is a rundown of the whole thing. Mmm, satire. Tasty.)

There's an absolutely beautiful church here in town called Aldersgate United Methodist. I've never attended services there, but we used the space for rehearsals quite a few times for King Island Christmas, and more than once I admired the architecture - a high vaulted ceiling in the sanctuary with floor-to-ceiling windows behind the altar. I joked with Brian a few times that if we got married here in Juneau, it'd have to be there.

Anyway, I was going through the paper today and came across this beautiful piece on religious acceptance in the "Neighbors" section - which, after reading, I found out was written by the pastor of said church. I was impressed with the church to start with, but now I'm doubly so - after all, there are any number of churches out there that are beautifully constructed but whose pastors (while they may be charismatic) have absoultely horrible attitudes about tolerance and the like (the Anchorage Baptist Temple comes to mind - do a Google search for "Jerry Prevo" and you'll see what I mean). The piece seemed even more meaningful given the acceptance and even encouragement of religious/national/racial intolerance that is so utterly rampant these days.

In any case, I'm reprinting it here, since I seriously believe this is a message that more people need to hear. Standard disclaimer applies - the text is copyright Rev. Dan Wanders, I'm only passing it along. Here's a link to the online published version, if anyone else wants to link to it.

It was Christmas, and our United Methodist house in Helena, Montana was full. Some of our children and some of their children and spouses were there. Our Roman Catholic friend from Mexico City was there. Our Muslim friends from Pakistan and their children were there. From the apartment we owned were our Jewish friends.

All told we had substantial diversity among us. We were self-avowed, practicing United Methodists. Some of our children were United Methodist; some were Roman Catholic; and some were committed to preserving the carpeting in any church.

Our Mexican friend was very devout, clearly a post-Vatican II believer and admirer of Pope John XXIII.

Our Muslim friends were disciplined in their prayer practice and religious observances.

Our Jewish friends held classes for Jewish children, teaching them Hebrew, Jewish traditions and religion.

As I listened to the discussions over those heart-warming days, I heard our non-church-going children talk about caring for an old lady living alone next door, about providing haircuts for persons looking for work, about walking the neighborhood to try to reduce crime, about taking groceries to a single mother struggling to get along, about organizing a fund raiser for a child with a brain tumor.

I heard our Roman Catholic friend from Mexico talking about enfolding non-Roman-Catholics within the community of faith, about making her priest nervous by her associating with so many Protestants, about how best to help the poor.

I heard our Muslim friends telling stories from Muslim tradition about Mohammed, stories that sounded very Christ-like to my ears. I heard them talking about respecting persons of other religions. I heard them rejecting retaliation for wounds and advocating actively pursuing reconciliation. I heard them speaking about loving those who hurt us.

I heard our Jewish friends speaking of Jewish commitment to justice. They emphasized remembering the slavery in Egypt and affirmed that Passover is a call for humble commitment to justice for all peoples. They criticized Zionism and were vehemently opposed to Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, which they described as a violation of Judaism.

Since then I have remembered struggling with greater clarity regarding the Christian gospel under the tutelage of a Baptist mentor. I thought about coming into a clearer understanding of the writings of Paul studying with a Presbyterian. I recalled being challenged to social justice by an Episcopalian. I thought about trying to make sense of it all and applying my faith to everyday living while at the feet of a Lutheran. I appreciate an increased sense of the exuberance of worship gained with a Pentecostal associate. My spirituality was deepened through the close relationship with God that a Quaker acquaintance embodied. I have been so uplifted in Black churches when worshiping with spirit and dignity. In Serbian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches I have been stirred by a sense of the otherness of God and the love of God. I have been warmed by the deep sense of community I experienced in a Hutterite colony. I recalled the gentle vision of a barber who was Bahai, his vision of humanity joining hands rather than bearing arms and lifting one another up rather than tearing one another down. I have appropriated my own Methodist commitments to personal piety and trying to apply the teachings of Jesus to society.

I wonder what would happen if we listened to one another with more energy and more attentiveness than we give to labeling one another. I wonder what would happen if, rather than taking our stands and positions and aggressive stances, we shared what our deepest longings are. What if we talked about our aspirations, shared our fears and wounds, and listened to one another as persons beloved of God.

That would be hard to do in some cases. Surely it would. But what if we could? What if we would?

Have a happy Thanksgiving, everyone.