Michael Chenoweth

RELIGION

When I was born, my parents were members of All Souls Unitarian Church in Indianapolis. Although I didn't attend church very frequently, the principles I learned in that church were important in the development of my attitudes toward religion. 

At the front of that church, where Christian churches might have a cross, or where a Jewish temple would have a torah, are these words: 

Love is the spirit of this church

and service is its law;

to dwell together in peace,

to seek the truth in love,

and help one another.

This is our covenant. 

That covenant has shaped my view of the world and my role in it. 

***************************************

Table of Contents

1.            Re: the mosque in New York

2.            About burning Korans

3.        Is Religion "Religulous?"

******************************

1.            A good column on the planned mosque in New York.

“It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.” — Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia”

Strip clubs, peep shows OK; but no mosque near ‘hallowed’ Ground Zero?

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/aug/29/founders-wisdom-constitution-allows-mosques/

*****************************

2.            About burning Korans

September 8, 2010

As I write this, there is a wacko minister named Terry Jones, pastor of the “Dove World Outreach Center” in Gainesville, Florida, who is proposing a day for “burning Korans.” He claims that he is serving some higher purpose, but what he is actually doing is demonstrating the stupidity of most religion, his own included.

The fundamental characteristic of religion is that by virtue of being “believers,” people think their particular religion is “the one” true and correct religion. Most religions are founded on this or a similar principle. And most of them think their religious freedom gives them the right to impose their belief on others who don't share it.

There are six or seven billion people in the world, and many of them are followers of one religion or another out of the thousands of religions that exist. They all can’t be the “only” religion for all people. Yet their advocates continue to maintain that to be the case.

I believe that humans need religion, and invent it, to address their fear of the unknown.

“What will happen to me today or tomorrow? What happens to me after I die? Why are there unexplainable events that interrupt my life or take loved ones away from me?”

These questions, and others, drive humans to find a higher power, on whom they can place the blame for events they can’t control, and to whom they can turn for comfort or reassurance when life is bad or death approaches. Humans needed a God, so they invented one, and in the case of some religions, dozens. “Man created God in His own image.” 

I asked a friend recently how she defined “God.”  Her answer was quite straightforward, and is one I can agree with. “God” is “Love.” Plug that into many religious teachings and it fits quite well.

Jesus said, “None will find God but through me.” And then he set out a series of rules for behavior. 

"But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.  Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

In other words, "Love your neighbor. Love your enemy. Have love in your heart. You will be rewarded."

The founding fathers of America understood that many of the people who colonized America had come seeking religious freedom. Those immigrants couldn’t practice their own particular religion in their homelands so they came here to be able to force it down the throats of their congregations without interference from the King or Pope.

The small problem facing the architects of this new nation in 1789 was that the various religions of the day did not agree on fundamental teachings. There are popular e-mails circulating these days that make bold claims that the United States is a “Christian” nation, and was established as such by the founding fathers. The people sending these e-mails are showing their ignorance. The founding fathers were predominantly “Deists”, as opposed to Christians in the present model. They certainly weren’t Baptists or any other fundamentalist sect of today. In fact, when one considers that most slaves were imported from Muslim countries in Africa, it is likely that Muslims constituted about twenty percent of the population of the United States when it was formed.

When the new Constitution was finally adopted, many of the leaders of the day almost immediately realized that the document had some weaknesses. Their goal was to establish “freedom” from the tyranny of King George, but they hadn’t spelled out what areas that “freedom” covered. The result was the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. I believe the Bill of Rights was intended not only to define the "freedoms" that citizens of the new nation would have, but also to define and limit the authority of government to act. 

At the time, some of the new nation’s leaders didn’t think the Bill of Rights was necessary. They believed that the principles enunciated in the Bill of Rights were so obvious that they didn’t need to be spelled out. The nation couldn’t exist, they claimed, without those rights as fundamental foundations of the relationship between citizens and government. Ultimately, the ones who felt the rights needed to be spelled out prevailed, and we got the part of the Constitution that turns out to be much more important to our daily life than the nuts and bolts structure of the government set out in the Constitution itself.

We hear lots of talk from the far right about the sanctity of the Second Amendment, which spells out our right to bear arms, but those same gun-toting patriots, of which I am one, often dismiss or question the other nine amendments, particularly the First Amendment, which is protected as zealously by the ACLU, who they love to demonize, as the Second Amendment is protected by the NRA. 

The ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are masterful in their simplicity.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Where it says, "Congress," what it really means is "The Government." That means it applies to the President, to public agencies, to states and to local governments. It also applies to us.

Ask a Second Amendment supporter whether “The Government” should be able to regulate his gun ownership, and you will get a resounding “NO.” But ask the same person if the Ten Commandments should be displayed in a position of prominence on the local courthouse lawn, and you get a very different answer.

By comparison, the American Civil Liberties Union, or “ACLU,” which is a terrific organization dedicated to protecting First Amendment rights, has no problem ignoring the provisions of the Second Amendment.

Rev. Jones, who we started this discussion describing, is one of those gun-toting First Amendment deniers. Or maybe he just doesn’t understand religious freedom.

“Religious freedom,” as a Constitutional principle, doesn’t mean simply that each person has a right to practice his own religion. It also means, that as patriotic citizens, each of us has a duty to respect the beliefs of others. Failure to do that, in my eyes, constitutes a form of “treason,” which is as close as I can come to a word that is the opposite of “patriotism.”

Whoa, there! Did I just say that the opposite of patriotism is “treason?”  Yes, I did, and I’ll accept suggestions if you can think of a more appropriate term. 

The reason this word is so applicable is that in this country, WE are the government. Most Americans want to blame Congress, or the President, or some government agency when "the government" doesn’t do things the way they think it should. But the reality is that we, the People, are the government. We are responsible for electing the representatives we send to Washington, DC, to run things. That is how our government works. But we are also responsible for carrying out the provisions of our laws, including our Constitution, as we live our daily lives.

If we, the government, try to impose our own religious beliefs on others, as in Rev. Jones’s Koran burning to express his hatred of Muslims and Islam, we are violating that same First Amendment that gives us the right of free speech, which guarantees Rev. Jone’s ability to burn those Korans to demonstrate his beliefs. It is, at least, an interesting contrast in rights and responsibilities.

Most Americans, and for that matter, most people around the world, denounce the acts of terrorists, particularly the nut-cases who flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field on 9/11/2001. Their acts were demonstrations of their hatred for our freedom. They were NOT expressing the will of Allah, but their own misplaced hatred for people who get to decide for themselves whether to believe this way or that, and the government we represent. Their act of destruction was a gesture intended to gain themselves global attention by attacking the symbols of our freedom.

I suggest to you that Rev. Jones’s proposed Koran burning is an equal act of hatred, of a religious philosophy that he doesn’t understand and doesn’t agree with, no different from the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. When the terrorists flew the planes into the World Trade Center, it can reasonably be presumed that one of their goals was to destroy the principles of freedom, including respect for different religions, that make this nation great. 

If Rev. Jones carries out his planned Koran burning on 9/11/2010, the 9/11 terrorists will have, at least partially, succeeded in their aims. Rev. Jones thereby will become a Christian terrorist, destroying the symbols of a religion he disagrees with, in a mistaken belief that his actions will further his goals, by trampling on the fundamental principle of religious freedom in this country, respect for the beliefs of others.

*************************

3.  Is Religion "Religulous?"  (by Kabir Helminski, from Huffpost Religion)

"I was having a conversation with Bill Maher the other day -- in my own mind, that is. I was admitting that I agree with a lot of what he criticizes about religion, or more precisely the ludicrous nature of some religious "beliefs."

Since I consider Bill, at least, a fairly honest man who speaks truth to power and helps us to laugh at the hypocrisies and absurdities of what passes for normal in the United States today, I was reflecting on what is salvageable from his criticisms of religion, or "religulousness," as he calls it. And, beyond that, whether there's something at the heart of religion that humanity cannot afford to lose.

What is religion, essentially? Is it immature wish-fulfillment, a denial of our mortality, an abrogation of our human responsibilities, a sentimental lullaby for those unwilling to face harsh realities? Is religion a collection of imaginary and absurd beliefs that contribute to prejudice, intolerance and violence?

Of the great religions of mankind -- Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaeo-Christianity and Islam -- each has a core message, typically sourced in the original message of its founder(s), or, in the case of Hinduism, in its ancient texts. That original message then gets interpreted, commented upon, theologized, possibly dogmatized, until it becomes a secondary body of teachings, beliefs, rites and, very likely, a power structure, as well. Much of this secondary accumulation is teachings about that message or originating texts, i.e. less about how to live and more about what to believe.

To completely dismiss religion as corrupt nonsense presumes that one is in possession of a truth and practical wisdom that is uncorrupted by the human tendencies that express themselves in religion. Is there such an uncorrupted truth or perspective underlying Richard Dawkins', Christopher Hitchens' or Bill Maher's critiques of religion? Is there a contemporary secular rationalism that we can trust to save us from what is ridiculous in some religious beliefs?

Unfortunately, wherever we look in the contemporary world, we will see examples of toxic opinions, absurd beliefs, self-serving rationalizations and malicious mind-control -- in other words, what sometimes corrupts religion also corrupts so many human activities. In one form or another, we see these tendencies in politics, science, finance and even the arts.

It makes as much or as little sense to completely dismiss religion because of its excesses as to dismiss banking because of the breathtaking corruption at the top and the debacle it has brought upon us. Banking may need to be reformed or reinvented, but very few people would suggest that it should be altogether eliminated. It may be that there are "high priests" of banking that do not want the masses to question the fundamentals of today's banking orthodoxy, but that illustrates the problem we face in so many areas of human life: self-serving power elites who rely on the credulity of the majority to continue to control and exploit a situation for their own gain and self-importance.

Now we arrive at the heart of the matter: what can free us from those corrupting, exploitive and dishonest tendencies that seem to pervade so much of human activity? What if the essence of religion was the uncovering of egoism in ourselves, of all the ways we distort reality and justify our own arrogance, selfishness or privilege? What if religion were the key to cleansing ourselves of neurotic fear, accepting things as they are and having the courage to work to make them better?

Well, every so often a human being comes along who has attained a degree of freedom from the many negative, selfish pathologies of the human will. Whether these people are called avatars, saints, prophets, they are people who have attained a quality of humanness that removes the distorting lens of human egoism, charges them with a moral magnetism, and illuminates them with a humane wisdom that ripples through the centuries, or may even create a new civilization.

These liberated and relatively complete human beings seem to have arrived at certain convictions:

Reason alone is inadequate. The rational faculty is not the supreme human faculty and can be misleading. Reason, which has been exalted in the secular Western world, is, in fact, a very limited tool. Even if it has produced the accomplishments of science and technology, it does little to satisfy the needs of human beings.

Higher faculties. We have other faculties of perception. The human being exists on a threshold between two realms: one physical and the other a realm of value and inner experience.

Transformation through inner experience. The material, space-time universe is not the whole of reality. Our most valued experiences involve the perception of a realm of value. Material existence alone cannot satisfy us; we long for and require friendship, shared experience, emotional intimacy, personal integrity, love and an experience of the transcendent unity of existence. This last element, which may seem the most questionable to some, is, in fact, the most significant of all, because when it is experienced it has the power to transform a person's sense of self.

The most highly developed human beings are not politicians, businessmen, scientists, religious clerics or artists, but those who have penetrated reality with their consciousness and have come back as transformed human beings. Their insights, which were meant to guide us toward the realization of our full humanness, have too often been turned into belief systems, dogmatic thinking or worse.

Man-invented beliefs have been imposed upon these original insights. Religion degenerates as it move from the insights of the original exemplars to beliefs about the original messenger or revelation, leading to subservience to human institutions and man-made dogmas. What causes us to cling to "correct" beliefs, exclusive "truths" and "infallible" authority?

Nevertheless, the original insights into the nature of human possibilities are not completely obscured, nor are they inaccessible. In some cases, there may even be living traditions of human transformation that remain true to the original wisdom. And these "Ways" of spiritual development are based not on beliefs, but on an empirical process of verification and experience guided by the original insights of those human beings who have penetrated to the heart of reality. And this is where the interesting and essential question lies. What do these insights tell us about the nature of reality and the vital needs of the human heart? How can we be true to these insights and, possibly, restore them to their proper role in the guidance of our religious communities, our politics, our educational structures and human life in general."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-helminski/is-religion-religulous_b_890264.html