“The real mystery of things is not what they are, but that they are.”
I don’t want to scandalize anyone - but for some time now, I’d say almost two years, I’ve not felt something I’ve felt my entire life, ever since being a little boy who looked up into the night sky and saw the stars and thought and felt, “God exists.” I still have faith in God’s existence. I still know, in a sense, that God exists. But how do I feel? That intution, that feeling, and even my reasons, have somehow left me. It is very odd. Because I have memories of those feelings and reasons, but I no longer really have that feeling or think those reasons. I have memories of my logical reasons for believing - but these memories are old, dusty, and have little daily impact except that I know that I once proved God’s existence to myself as a settled matter. But this reasoning isn’t at the ‘tip of my mind’, so to speak. The settled matter remained settled, but somehow forgotten. It is just a memory of sorts. And so I find myself praying, asking God to guide me, and I find him saying - ‘return to the beginning, to the stars, to the reasons that you had in the first place, to seeking me with your whole heart and whole mind’.
And so I begin again, by asking myself, does God exist? I feel that I still have faith - I still choose to follow God, even as I grope numb and blind. I have not turned from him, though I no longer perceive him as I once did. So I turn my thoughts and my heart again to this vital question - does God exist? Not in the sense of questioning his existence, but in the sense of - where are you, why are you, how are you, who are you?
I think that this will become a series of posts about my renewed search for God. Does it seem absurd to search for something you already know exists? Well, think about losing your car keys. You know the keys exist. You know you need the car to get where you’re going. You even know what the keys look like. But for your life, you can’t remember where those keys are. You can’t find them. You’ve kind of stopped looking for them. You ponder the idea that they are lost forever. But no. They are here somewhere. They are simply misplaced. And so too is my conviction in God’s existence - my subjective feelings and reasons that believe in his existence. I know he exists. I still follow him. But I want to see him again like I used to - dare I say, almost face-to-face.
Follow me on this journey if you like! I’ll be examining every possible argument, and do my best to formulate my own reasons and ideas. I’m not out to convince anyone but myself. Please don’t hesitate to leave your best criticisms and insights - I want to leave no stone unturned. I hope we can all further our pursuit of truth together, even if we end up (mostly likely) disagreeing sharply.
As you all know, I was seriously considering leaving St. John’s for a more reasonable college education; an education where I would perhaps find happiness. I have decided since there is no need. Junior year is going spectacularly; the classes are amusing, the tutors are helpful, and I am overcoming my deep held insecurities. As a further bonus, I’m living in a suite with Kate (jf), Kyouhee (jf), Mallory (junior, ‘rents in State), and Kelsey (sweet sophomore). The boy and I are now “officially” together, which is weird, weird, weird (Mother, expect a call), but at least no longer confusing. So, yes, St. John’s is good.
Now for God. As you may or may not know, I have accepted that, despite my attempts at intellectual vigor, I believe/act as though God exists. Thus, I should embrace my religious belief and act on it. I’m going to a Presbyterian church with Kyouhee tomorrow…but I’m finding the idea difficult.
Praying in my room is one thing, admitting verbally that I believe in God is another, but it is quite a different thing for me to be in FRONT of people, PRAYING to this “God”. At the very front of my wee intelligent (agnostic!) mind is horror at the very idea of taking such a profound, large step in the real world of “religion” as Sunday service. I feel as if I’m betraying my reason, betraying my logic, betraying my self, even though it was this very reason that told me that I believe in God and should stop pretending otherwise!
I am a vain, prideful creature. What will people THINK?! Religious people are acknowledged as weak people lacking in intelligence by the vast majority of people I know and deal with, here as well as home.
With 10 comments to WEF5’s post, I’m following my policy of putting substantive responses in a separate post.
There are so many different ideas floating around there, it’s hard to keep them straight.
1. I completely agree with WEF5 about the problem with WEF4’s utopian theory of relationships. I think it’s interesting that in her original post (Heinlein, Religious Tolerance, and Polyamory) her justification for all this is the statement (from Men’s Fitness(???):
“Let’s face it. Monogamy - for the male of the species, anyway - is not a natural state of affairs.”
And by the time she’s done, in the comments here, she says:
“But ‘man’ doesn’t get to have it both ways. Woman gets equal rights in the relationship”
Hey, pick one, Princess. Either we base the Brave New World on the natural state of affairs, or bend human nature to the will of the Goddess, but the two don’t match up.
The inescapable fact is, a woman always knows that her children are her own, but a man can never be sure. Genetically speaking, to a woman the most important thing for her child’s survival is that the family is prosperous and safe. If that’s taken care of, she can tolerate the man having other women, as long as it doesn’t threaten the relationship and her husband’s support of the family.
The man has no such tolerance, since that means he has no idea who’s child he is supporting with his limited resources. His best genetic strategy, in fact, is to have several faithful wives whose children he actively supports, along with as many women as possible on the side. That strategy has been difficult to maintain in recent times because of expense, woman’s opposition, and fewer autocratic societies where men can get away with it. In many societies that strategy has resulted in increased risk of getting killed yourself.
So the most advantageous strategy possible for the man today is a faithful wife with the occasional woman on the side.
Remember this really has nothing to do with anybody’s conscious choice or active strategy, even though we usually express it that way. It simply came about that men who didn’t care if their wife messed around tended to have fewer offspring of their own that the men who were fanatical about keeping their wives to themselves. But women who didn’t mind that her husband messed around (as long as he continued to support her and her family) had just as many children of their own than those who did mind. On the other hand, a women who messed around herself often got killed or abandoned by the husband, which reduced the chances of her offspring’s survival.
So these particular traits got selected through the generations and we’re left with differing attitudes between men and women. True, it’s “not fair”, but fairness has nothing to do with it. WEF6 has pointed out some isolated communities that were so stressed in some way that men (often brothers) were able to share wives, but these are clearly rare exceptions.
Of course you can find individuals who don’t conform to these traits (WEF4’s commune friends, for example) but you can’t build a society on exceptions. To the extent we see any movement in this direction, we see a resistance to having children at all– the declining birth rates in Europe and in liberal sections of the US. WEF4 may “think we may all be happier like this”, but soon our places will be taken by those who believe in more traditional arrangements.
Upon re-reading WEF4’s comment, I feel obliged to point out several of her statements that are simply wrong:
“I am saying that human relationships are always evolving and changing”
Well, maybe among your friends, but human relationships through the ages have been pretty stable. there are only a few mainstream options: Monogamy or Polygamy, extended or nuclear families. There’s always been the various flavors of license, deviance, and perversion; your friends didn’t invent them, they’re just trying to make them socially acceptable.
“History has proved that there is room for exploration of different types of relationship structures”
Again, not really very many options. At least not many that won’t get you thrown in jail on morals charges.
“- and no one knew or cared who the biological father was.”
Right. I predict when they grow up and are done with their “polyamorous bliss”, the mother (and four lawyers) will be awfully interested in who the biological father is. Of course, I understand the child itself is of no importance in this “exploration of relationship structures”, but do you think he/she might be interested in who his/her dad is?
“It seems to me that men are probably better at sharing than being monogamous.”
This is my favorite. Methinks you are a bit confused about this whole situation. Just because the guys you know are perfectly happy jumping into the sack with innumerable not-too-bright …. young ladies doesn’t mean they have adopted your human relationship theories (no matter what they tell you). They are quite happy to share those kind of young ladies with their friends or anybody else as long as said young ladies allow themselves to be used in that way. Watch what happens in a few years when they grow up and someone puts a move on the wife.
Finally, I think it’s sad that this philosophy of relationships is one of total selfishness on everybody’s part. it’s all about preventing “people from staying in relationships that are detrimental to what they actually want.” Not detrimental to them or to the other person, or God-forbid, to the child. What’s important is that it’s not detrimental to what we actually want, when what we want changes on a day-to-day basis. Oh, as for kids, well, birth control should be sufficient most of the time, but of course it that doesn’t work, we can just kill it.
Our civilization literally will not survive these kind of “evolving and changing” human relationships.
2. For the record (and off-topic, to some extent), here’s what I think “traditional arrangements” are: A heterosexual two parent family with children is the norm. Childless marriages for fertility reasons and single-parent families due to death or divorce are unfortunate deviations that should be kept to a minimum, but are unavoidable. Polygamy (a man with more than one wife) has a long history and is traditional in some cultures, but I include it below because it is problematic in our society.
Here’s what’s is unacceptable: “open” marriage, marriages that are childless by choice, polygamy, polyamory, any other “polys” you can think of, having children while living together, a single woman having a child by “accident”, or worse yet, by choice, a single person adopting a child…. let’s see, what else? homosexual marriage? Please, you might as well marry your dog.
I know, I know, I’m just a new age kind of guy.
3. The relationship between reason, logic, philosophy, and religion: Reason is an inherent human trait that is not dependent on anything else. Logic is often used as a synonym for reason, but it is really the science of reason (sometimes called formal logic). Philosophy can address the source of human reason and how it should be used. Whether one has faith or not, religion is a subsection of philosophy. All these statements about how without religion philosophy has no logical basis, or vice versa, make no sense. Religion isn’t necessary for reason, which, as I said, in an inherent attribute of humans. And of course you can have logical philosophy without religion.
What you can’t have without religion, as WEF5 says, is objective good and evil, or morality. Where WEF5 goes wrong is when he says that “MOST human beings on the planet have the same subjective view on good and evil”, then a few words later that, “Until recently (relatively, at least), there were communities that gleefully endorsed human sacrifice, cannibalism, and a host of other acts most of modern society would consider ‘Evil’”. In fact, subjective good and evil is different in all sorts of places even today, such as Pakistani fathers who think is is a “good” thing to kill their daughters if they interact inappropriately with another man.
Without religion, i.e., if there’s no higher authority than an individual man, then each individual man gets to make his own morality, and he doesn’t have to follow that either. His actions represent a morality that is just as legitimate as the morality of any other man, or government, or church, or any other group of men that you can think of. We get confused on this point because we’re living to a large degree in a post-Christian society. Even non-believers are still influenced by the Christian values of the old society. As time goes on we’ll see more and more deviance from the Christian norm (see the discussion of WEF4’s ideas above). We can make all sorts of laws that will help society function the way we want, but, without religion or some belief in a higher authority than man, no individual is under any moral obligation to follow those laws. It may be in his interest to do so most of the time, but that’s a different thing.
4. I don’t think WEF3 denies reason. In fact he’s got a post up on that subject that I’ll comment on soon.
5. Finally, I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I’m getting the feeling that poor WEF6 is hanging out with the wrong crowd at school. Maybe some kind of Liberal/New Age/Feminist thing going on there. Frankly, I’m a bit worried. I expect some lively discussions in the near future as I lead her back to Truth and Goodness.
Well, it appears that once again I am forced to stand alone against both secular excess and religious ignorance, using nothing but the light of reason to illuminate the darkest corners of our minds. Don’t worry, I will handle your HERESIES in the order that they appear. And after looking over this post I realize I’m pretty much just rambling. Not so coherent. Meh, oh well.
We’ll start with WEF4 and her conversation in the bar. “Without religion, logic had no philosophical basis”. Now, I’m going to assume you said that backwards, but just in case you didn’t… Logic never has had and hopefully never will have any philosophical basis. Whereas logic is the practice of organizing facts into discernible knowledge in the effort to shed light on some other mystery, philosophy has more to do with assumptions and editorials on the human condition. While philosophy does use logic, to a certain extent, logic NEVER uses philosophy. Logic is pure reason, and there is absolutely no reason Logic should ever pander to anything as amorphous and open-ended as philosophy.
Now, if you meant “Without religion, philosophy has no logical basis”, THEN we can have a real discussion. This is actually something me and WEF3 have talked about on several occasions. Now, probably the most common question along this way of thinking we get is the classic “But, if there is no god, how are human beings supposed to know what’s right and what is wrong?” Well, allow me to enlighten you. The answer, dear WEFs, is artificial morality. I call it artificial not because it is fake, but because it is man-made. The theory behind it is that everything that mankind sees as “good” or “evil” is neither. There is no good or evil, objectively. But luckily for humanity, there is SUBJECTIVE good and evil. And even more fortuitously, MOST human beings on the planet have the same subjective view on good and evil. “But WEF5″ I hear you saying “If all the human beings on the planet have the same views on good and evil, wouldn’t that make those views OBJECTIVE?” Aha! But they don’t! Until recently (relatively, at least), there were communities that gleefully endorsed human sacrifice, cannibalism, and a host of other acts most of modern society would consider “Evil”. Do you think the Aztecs thought they were evil when they tore the still beating heart out of another human being in worship to some not-quite-so benevolent deity? I doubt it, but we certainly do. The morality of murder, made subjective. Easy as that. Now, artificial morality says that any sense of morality is based upon the needs of society, and anything that was detrimental to society was quickly considered evil. Thats why there are so many similarities in so many cultures. Murder is rarely beneficial to ANY society, so it is tolerated in none. Except in worship. But I’ll leave that one alone for now.
Now then. Polygamy. We’ve covered the religious ignorance part (except for WEF3’s rather… high-handed post), now its on to the secular excess bit. WEF4 seems to think it would be a rather good idea, and seems to believe that history backs her up on this. WRONG. Well, it does, but not the sort that would do her any favors. A query: of all the polygamous societies that have ever existed, in how many was the FEMALE allowed to have more than one partner? Now, I haven’t done any research, but I’m willing to guess that the answer is none. And since my dear sister decided to throw some evolutionary philosophy our way, allow me to riposte in the same manner. It is true that the very reproductive method of humanity causes males to want to “impregnate every cavewoman in sight”, as it was so elegantly put in Mens Fitness (which, I must say, is about the same as you quoting a Cosmo in order to prove a point about women). It fails to mention, however, that men are also genetically predisposed to MURDER any other male that tries to impregnate HIS cavewoman. There is a very simple reason why men are so less… lenient about cheating females than females are with men. Consider this: If a man cheats on a woman, whats the worst thing that could happen to the first woman, evolutionary speaking? Nothing, her kid still gets born, is protected, and grows up to continue the bloodline. Now, what the worst thing that could happen to a man if his woman cheats? He could end up living his life protecting and feeding some OTHER guys kid, while NOT continuing his bloodline.
Let’s recap:
Man Cheats, doesn’t affect the woman.
Woman cheats, man faces GENETIC EXTINCTION.
So yes, Evolution does provide ample reason for polygamy. Just not in any way that would do the females of the species any favors.
Now. WEF3. Acting as though humanity is nothing other than a bunch of Slaaneshi Cultists (look it up), saved only by the IGNORANCE propagated by religion. Now, the metaphor with the train is nice and all, but most other metaphors involving railroad tracks normally don’t speak too highly of them. They’re kind of limiting. Not really open to much at all. Sort of, oh I don’t know… closed. But, coming from a person denying REASON, I guess I shouldn’t have expected much else.
WEF3! Are you implying that I will go to hell for daring to think past a philosophy that unashamedly asks us for “faith” and hands us no reason for which to succumb?
Even for you that’s a little bit silly.
Was is not you who once told me that God is Logos in Greek, which may also mean reason? That god is reason? Why not try arguing reason with reason? Defend your traditional marriage with reason instead of damning me to hell.
“All forms of organized religion are alike in certain social respects.Each claims to be the sole custodian of the essential truth.Each claims to speak with final authority on all ethical questions.And every church has requested, demanded, or ordered the state to enforce its particular system of taboos.”
At this point our naïve, though not unintelligent, protagonist from 1939 questions the validity of this wise historian and mentor from the future.
“All this may have been true in 2020, but I saw no particular evidence of it in my day.”
Alas, my friend, the boast is poor.Those who have mingled in the fray of duty that the brave endure – well maybe the poem doesn’t work so well after that line but you know what I mean . . .
“Sunday closing practices; tax exemption for church property; practically all laws relating to marriage and the relations between the sexes – including laws forbidding divorce, country-wide rule permitting only monogamous marriages, laws against fornication and other taboo sexual relationships . . .”
Our mentor of the future goes on (page 106, Heinlein, For Us, The Living).
And of course the protagonist is all - but this is all common sense!
And then the mentor is all – but then why have different communities had exactly the opposite rules that appealed to their religious culture?
DUM DUM DUM!!!
Ironically I found myself talking to a friend at a bar just yesterday about this specific issue.He was trying to tell me that without religion, logic had no philosophical basis.I disagreed.
Anyway, the point of all this is that I think our country is moving towards polyamory as overtaking traditional marriage. I think that we have progessed, at least in America, to a point of economic success whereby the traditional family is no longer necessary.
During the olden days, and to some extent today, polygaomy was the norm. At a certain point women no longer needed to share one man in order to provide for the safety of their children. Then we each got our own. And the angels sang and it was a beautiful day.
We moved into stable, monogamous relations (the traditional family) because women still needed to stay home with the kids and thus needed a man to bring home the bacon.
Well, thanks to WW2, this era is over. The modern-day woman is out working anyway. The kids are in day care or with a sitter in many cases. Women don’t need to bind themselves forever to one caretaker in order to successfully pro-create.
The species is safe, so let’s take a look at what we really want. Long-term. I don’t think we really want to be stuck with the same one person throughout our entire lives. People change, they grow, and often people need different types of love/companionship/relations/whatever from different types of people in order to be truely satisfied. The answer may very well lie in polyamory.
This sexual revolution is amplified by the fact that men have never actually been monogamous.
Let me provide a quote from Men’s Fitness:
“Let’s face it. Monogamy - for the male of the species, anyway is not a natural state of affairs. Our genetic programming, encoded millions of years ago when man crawled out of the primordial ooze, ensured the survival of the human race by making each caveman want to impregnate every cavewoman in sight. Such profligate sexual behavior is now generally considered taboo, especially in the United States. Yet while mores have changed, our biological makeup remains stuck in its prehistoric groove. In other words, many men still want to sleep with every female in sight. For guys who are married or in a committed relationship, this can be a problem.”
A problem that all too often leads to infidelity, mistrust, divorce and unhappiness.
Why get married, get tired of each other, watch one another wander elsewhere and get divorced?
Why not just accept that it is in the nature of man (at least) to maintain extramarital relations? Once we have accepted this we can simply allot women the same freedom and exist in morphous inter-connected chains of interaction in which one’s different and varied needs can be maintained by different people at different times and for different reasons?
You know, in 1939 Heinlein wrote about a “United Europe” In For Us, The Living. Now this Europe was a monarchy as opposed to a dictatorship under the guise of democracy but it’s close enough so that I’m kinda, sorta waiting for the thirty years of war that will demolish the majority of the population . . .
That said, my SuperHuman ability to be amused by the parallels between real life and Sci-Fi have led me to want to write a piece about the ways in which the EU resembles dystopian fictional societies. I don’t really want to use obvious ones like 1984 - you know with the blocs that will be perpetually be at war with each other once formed - ominous, huh?
While I am sure that my Sci-Fi expertise will allow me to write said piece, I am more sure that it will be super awesome with WilderSciFi knowledge backing it up. Any books that remind you of the EU?
It appears the real issue is not blacks having their own community, culture, and church, but “Black Liberation Theology” itself, which many claim is racist. I’ll have to do more research - the quotes certainly seem damning, but quotes always are.
An hour later . . .
I’ve been watching James Cone, who WEF1 quoted. He wrote Black Power, Black Theology in the late 60’s, which sort of sparked Black Liberation Theology. It appears that he uses “white” to mean those in power, while “black” sybolizes those oppressed by that power. While these words almost always correlate with skin color, one’s skin color does not cause you to be “white” or “black”. Your identification, or rather, your belonging, to the dominant or oppressed groups is what causes you to be “white” or “black”. As such, most white colored people belong to the white culture, and most black colored people belong to the black culture.
More research to be done, not only on black liberation theology, but on liberation theology itself.
Did I just accidentally log into the “Rev Wright Apologist Blog”? Gee WEF3, I didn’t know you felt so strongly about it!
Well, I guess I’ll start from the top:
No, it’s really more like, Why is a “white church” racist just because it’s located within the United States and a black church can’t be racist even though it espouses, well, racist theology? It’s not who’s in the pews, it’s what they believe. (Wait a minute. There’s a “White Entertainment Television”? Who Knew? And is anybody out there accusing the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches of racism?)
I guess it’s true that Greek and Russian Orthodox congregations are generally white, but they aren’t “white churches”. They’re Greek and Russian churches, identifying with and worshipping in a specific ethnic tradition. they certainly don’t consider other ethnic groups the enemy, and in fact theologically they’re very close to each other and the RC Church.
A pet peeve, by the way: Even if every member of the Greek Orthodox Church on principle hated everyone who wasn’t Greek, they still wouldn’t be “racist”. Greekness (”Greekosity”?) isn’t a race. If you’re Greek and hate Albanians, that’s not racism. Same for Spanish-speaking Catholics and tightly-knit ethnic communities.
The next couple paragraphs of WEF3’s post continue to beat up on the same straw man– that people are calling Obama’s church racist just because it’s a “black church”. Of course that’s Wright’s story– “Its not about me; it’s an attack on all black churches.” Sorry Rev, it’s all about you and the racist tripe you’re selling. And that’s Obama’s story too– He says all black preachers say stuff like that. Way to bring us together, Barry. Of course that was from the “historic” speech on race he gave a little while back that is apparently no longer operative.
Black Liberation Theology’s main theorist is a guy by the name of James Cone. Wright said recently that he does “not in any way disagree with Dr Cone,” who he tells us is his personal friend. Here’s Cone’s explanation of his theology:
“Black theology refuses to accept a god who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community… Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
My contention is that anyone who subscribes to that theology is a racist (duh). Anyone who chooses to voluntarily go to a church for over 20 years that openly subscribes to those views is a racist (duh again). Would anyone like to explain to me how I’m wrong?
As for Obama himself, it gets even better. He went out as an ADULT and found that church and specifically joined it, gave it a bunch of money, praised the crazy pastor to anyone who would listen and identified him as his mentor/spiritual advisor, used said crazy pastor’s words as the title of his book, married there, had his children baptized there, and brought them there to listen to Wright’s “theology” all their lives. I know I always mention the daughters- It’s what I find most disturbing. He raises them in that church –I suppose he loves them and wants them to know the truth as he sees it– and then tells us that he transcends race and that he’s going to bring us all together– Oh yeah, he’s a fraud. And oh yeah, he’s racist.
WEF3’s last paragraph gets a bit weird with a mini-lecture on race backed up with an actual appeal to authority. As you all know, I certainly don’t have anything against lectures, mini- or otherwise. But the point he wants to make is that “We are not as different as people think.” Hey, go talk to Rev Wright; I’m not the one who’s insisting on all the differences!
Then he gets into the”culture of death” thing,” which I’m not prepared to deal with, except that, from looking around, I’m more concerned about the “culture of stupidity”.
Tomorrow I’ll talk about Wright’s speech to the NAACP (Can we still call it that? I guess as long as we don’t mention what the letters mean.)
I guess the general complaint is, “why is a ‘white church’ racist, but not a ‘black church’, why is ‘white entertainment television’ racist, but not ‘black entertainment television’?”
But why don’t we consider “greek orthodox” churches to be racist, why don’t we find “russian television” racist, why don’t we find spanish speaking Catholic parishes racist, why don’t we find most tightly-knit ethnic communites as racist, but as normal? We might express a desire for them to “join the melting pot”, but we don’t call them racist. They just aren’t very “American”, even if they are citizens!
It is clear that there are people living in the united states from different ethnic, national, or language groups, and they come together to form their own communities - not only for worship, but for just about everything involving community. We see this as normal. They coome from a different culture, they have their own language, they have their own forms of worship, they have their own history, and it is natural for them to stick together and form community, to pass on their heritage, to pass on their identity. This is not considered racist, even when it involves different races. Africans from Ethopia, for example, who congregate together in their ethnic communites, aren’t considered racists.
When it comes to the descendants of African slaves (black, african-america, or whatever word we want to use), however, society seem to react differently. To the extent that one sees African-Americans as a distinct culture, with their own history, their own religion, even their own language, one will probably be more accepting of things like BET, of things like black history month.
Obama is black. That doesn’t mean he has black skin - he doesn’t. That doens’t mean that he grew up in the ghetto, he didn’t. It means that he belongs to a culture of Americans who have a distinct culture shaped by a history of slavery, jim crow, and modern prejudice. Every person wants to know their heritage, wants to know: “who am I?”
What does it mean to be White? What does it mean to be Black? It means far more than skin color. It relates to culture. Racism occurs when one race claims superiority. But what happens when one culture claims superiority, or both? Behind the idea of the idea of the “melting pot” seems to be a fear that cultures cannot live together in peace. Perhaps history favors fear, but we are not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Our future will be whatever we make it. I have seen Black culture up front and personal, and I know this - we are not as different as people think. Whether White or Black, both belong to a culture of death - a culture that rejects freedom, justice, truth, and love. That’s the battle we need to fight - a battle for a true culture, that is neither black nor white, a culture of life.
(This may seem a little impersonal for wexforce, but I wrote it for a larger audience, as part of my reflections on life. I hope all is well, family, and can’t wait to see you again. Life is very good to me here.)
Over the past three days, I’ve had my 1000% daily recommended dose of ‘Pope’: waving “hi” and “bye” at the National Shrine, attending the mass at Nationals Stadium, reading his flurry of speeches/addresses/homilies over and over again, and most importantly - praying that the Holy Spirit will open my heart to learning from our Church and its leader. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the opening salvo of our Holy Spirit, coming in the Pope’s words at the White House:
“Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad.”
These words crushed me.
How could the Pope repeat United States propaganda, and express admiration for US bloodshed? I racked my mind for ways to interpret his words in another way, but I couldn’t. Not in that context. Not at the White House with the President standing next to him. Not as the Iraq war rages on. The Pope meant what he said, but not as propaganda. He spoke sincerely. He marvels at American monuments and sees those who “sacrificed their lives defense of freedom”. Pope Benedict looks at our country and sees . . . goodness. When I look at our country, I see . . . evil. I want the Pope to condemn war and abortion, not to call our country ‘great’ and ‘religious’. I want brimstone and fire and words of fury! But from the mouth and heart of our Pope come nothing but goodness.
I have so much to learn.
After a great deal of reflection and prayer, my heart has moved, my neck has bent. I have seen something startling: we live in a society where “defense of life” and “nonviolence” are mostly mutually exclusive, and because the defense of life must take priority over a commitment to nonviolence, most Christians are duty-bound to defend life with the least amount of violence possible.
Did I just write that? I did. But only after three days of gut-wrenching prayer!
I am not suggesting that violence is good, or even Christian. I am suggesting, however, that the circumstances of our society require us to choose defense of life over nonviolence. In other words - if the only way I can defend life is to use a gun, then I must use a gun.
Those familiar with nonviolence and theology will hear echos of the “fallen world” defense of violence in my thoughts. But here’s where I depart from such thinking: Jesus Christ has redeemed the world, and has sent us into the world with his Holy Spirit. This fallen world can be transformed. And we are the ones called to transform it.
But at present, our fallen society has few practical, concrete, and readily available means of nonviolently defending life. Boycotts will not save us from a bullet to the head. Strikes will not stop robbers from breaking into our homes. Nonviolent communication will not stop those who do not wish to communicate. We have no nonviolent alternatives to police forces or militaries. We have no nonviolent alternatives to courts and prisons. Nonviolent means of defending life are mostly confined to idealistic exhortations to “love your enemy and trust in God’s grace to work miracles.”
Nonviolent means of defending life must be reasonable, passing the common sense rule, being as readily available as the gun in Target, or a call to 911. To criticize those who use violence to defend life when there are no other ways to defend life is . . . well . . . possibly scandalous.
To summarize, Gandhi said:
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
Instead of offering concrete ways of defending home and family without violence, I have condemned all violence in every situation. I forced people into a corner - demanding they renounce violence while giving them nothing in its place - asking them to be “like a worm at the bidding of a bully.” I have fought to show violence as wrong in every situation, but never considered that violence could be wrong yet relatively legitimate. In a not-yet-redeemed society, the evil of violence may be the least wrong choice, and our duty.
My advocacy of nonviolence has consisted in saying, “no, no, no!” to America. But our Pope tells us that Christianity is not “no, no, no,” but is “yes, yes, yes!” All his words and actions reverberate within the great “yes” that is Christ our hope. Not one word of “no” passed through his lips over the past three days, even as he spoke of evil. Instead, he proposed solutions aimed at transforming our society into one of peace and justice - a world where men and women can finally embrace nonviolence, “a world where it is easier to be good.”
It is time for me to do the same.
It’s amazing what a Pope can do. I feel like I’ve been through a war, and that this little reflection is but a brief respite. But thank God, and praise Him. He is GOOD.
Updated clarification: I don’t feel like I’ve turned 180, even if it might seem that way from what I’ve written. The development of my thought isn’t a 180 turn. It’s more like a 360. I am not saying that bloodshed will always be necessary. Just the opposite.
I believe in nonviolence. I hate violence. I think it is evil. But I understand now why it is legitimate for many (if not most) in our not-yet-redeemed society, where violence is the only option (or so it seems). It puts the burden on me, and others who have taken to heart “love of enemy” as the nucleus of the Christian revolution, to help build a society where nonviolence is available as a concrete solution to the fight against evil. More than anything, I feel free to pursue and promote nonviolence in ways I never could before.
As a Catholic, many people ask me what I think of this pope. What do I think of Pope Benedict? Reflecting today helped me realize that I honestly could care less about Pope Benedict personally - what his personality is like (I assume he’s a very kind man) what he says, what he looks like, where he’s from. What I think about him is that he’s Pope. It’s what he stands for universally. To me he is the successor of the apostle Peter- a proof that Jesus lived, walked (even died and rose) on this Earth, as a human being. This is the most important thing I think about him (not to mention he’s also the successor of John Paul II who to me was the greatest man that ever lived during my lifetime)
I have come to the conclusion that I need to embrace some sort of “God” in my life. The fact that I revert to my childhood faith when…displeased, shall we say, and that my prayers, without fail, are always answered…well, it leads me to believe that either there is a God creature out there (a personal one at that) or that, at the very least, on some level I am convinced that a God creature exists.
It is unreasonable for me to continue to profess a lack of belief in God merely because my intellectual reasoning has deep issues with the concept, when on a deeper level I clearly have some sort of faith “thing” going on. If God exists clearly I should embrace him and if God doesn’t exist then the point of life is happiness–and evidently, since I turn to prayer in times of unhappiness, this God concept makes me happy. So, no matter the truth of the matter, it is best to just assume this faith has some legitimacy beyond a not-so-subtle childhood brainwashing ploy by my parents.
So, since the Old Testament alone Deeply Disturbs me and becoming Muslim seems rather unwise, not to mention their violent history and current violence is Displeasing to the Morgan, I decided some sort of Jesus sect was best. I now search.
There is of course the problem that I have a deep intellectual issue with the idea that a little man, born just like me, made the decision to become a priest and through Church politics managed to reach Popehood….and suddenly his word on right or wrong is more valid than my interpretation of the Bible. I’m also disturbed that women can’t be priests, but that at least has much more Biblical support than this pope creature.
I clearly need to read a history of the Church. This is necessary. I see that.
Just to pre-empt my dear Brother, WEF3, and his wife, WEF3.5, I have no intention of going to Church with anyone, anywhere until my sect contemplation has reached some sort of conclusion. And I’d rather not debate it. But I still love you both.
So I went to a peace protest too. It sort of made me a little sick, angry, and frustrated. Am I really the only normal (okay, semi-normal) person who is against the war? Then I realized - well, these are the people against the war who refuse to operate in the normal political realm (for whatever reason). Most people who are against the war will simply vote Democrat in the election, or if they are really fiesty, they might even work on a political campaign, put up some posters, go door-to-door, or whatever people do to get their candidates elected.
The crazies that showed up at the protests yesterday are the people who have no intention of working through the political process. They would rather block street intersections and stop traffic. Does stopping traffic actually affect the political situation (which in turn might stop the war)? Well, they don’t care. They just want to be against the war. Whether their actions have any affect on stopping the war is irrelevent. They are having too much fun to care, too much self-righteous anger to care. They got what they wanted - getting arrested, making some noise, feeling like they did ’something’, even if it was admittedly counter-productive.
I’m in the strange position of being a Catholic who wants to vote according to Catholic Social Teaching. I don’t think that Catholics ought to be voting for either a pro-choice or pro-war candidate -i.e., for any of the presidential candidates. And so I find myself walking along with anarchists and the like, and hating it.
For a Catholic perspective on Dogma, Sex, Poverty, Violence, and Beauty, check out a new online “magazine” I’ve founded: The Catholic Blues. It will be a monthly sort of thing. I started it because I feel that blogging makes for poor writing and poor thinking. Blogging is good for the kind of things we do, but not so good for doing a full treatment of a subject. There’s nothing more horrifying than seeing your awesome post go down into oblivion because people keep posting things. Anyway. Check out CatholicBlues.com. Tell all your friends! Here’s a video I put together for the first issue: