In the thick heat of July, a crowd of protestors gathered outside Radio City Music Hall. Inside, the exiled leader of the Tibetan people, the Dalai Lama, was speaking to followers concerning the four noble truths of Buddhism. After the discussion, the followers were confronted by a small contingent of Western Buddhists outside the building, holding signs and chanting "the Dalai Lama is lying" and "we demand religious freedom." It was not long before the Dalai Lama's faithful clashed with the protestors, verbally and physically. The NYPD was needed to break up the confrontation.
Onlookers and pedestrians assumed the conflict had to do with the Chinese and the issue of Tibetan independence. In reality, the clash was the result of an internal theological conflict. Recently, a split has occurred within Tibetan Buddhism concerning a particular deity, Dorge Shugden.
The protestors were practitioners of Kadampa Buddhism, a particular tradition within Mahayana Buddhism that believes Dorge Shugden is a Buddha, or an enlightened being. Kadampa Buddhists, led by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, claim that the Dalai Lama is trying to end their particular religious tradition and has resorted to tyrannical tactics to do so. The Western Shugden Society has made the claim that "…monks and nuns are…expelled from their monasteries…people who refuse to renounce [Dorge Shugden] are losing their jobs and their children are being expelled from schools…"
The Dalai Lama rejects these claims. The exiled leader acknowledges he has denounced the veneration of this particular deity, who he regards as a harmful spirit and associates with sectarianism. He is attempting to unite the sects of Tibetan Buddhism to create a more effective singular entity, but claims that if one wishes to continue practicing this particular tradition, they can, but they should no longer associate with him
In regards to the particular practice, most individuals here in the West are probably indifferent. So why do I think you need to know about this issue? Although the situation at the moment is hardly what we can call a sectarian rift, it certainly has the potential of becoming one. Many individuals have begun making outrageous claims that have done nothing but added fuel to the fire. Robert Truman, an American Buddhist and scholar of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism at Columbia University, made a public statement referring to the followers of Shugden tradition as "the Buddhist Taliban." Likewise, the Western Shugden Society has made the claim that the Dalai Lama is not really a Buddhist at all. Sectarianism has plagued many of the world's religions. While Buddhism has its variations, for the most part, they have all accepted one another as legitimate paths to enlightenment. No one wants to see this debate escalate to the point where one side completely denounces the other as illegitimate Buddhism.
The political undertones that surround Tibet make this issue all the more sensitive. With political, as well as religious, unity at stake, both sides have begun to ponder what a rift might mean for the future of Tibet. This presents a particular point of interest to the West. For decades, the Dalai Lama has been revered as a champion of peace and, as a result, we have developed a particular soft spot in our heart for him. However, if the claims made by the Western Shugden Society are true, and there is actual religious persecution occurring in Tibet and in the exiled communities, will the West be willing to confront our champion of peace on this issue? I am not suggesting that the claims are definite; however, if the problem persists and persecution becomes an undeniable reality, we will have to decide what is more valuable to us, a united Tibetan community able to reach an agreement with the Chinese or our basic belief in religious freedom.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Friday, November 23, 2007
Americans! Who are We? By James Kim
It was a cool day. The mild mid-morning air lulled me as I trotted up the steps into that familiar diner where occasionally I like to wolf down a plate of pastrami, corned beef, topped with melted mozzarella, and a hunk of bread on the side to get my blood pressure palpitating to the max. Dan Lee and I ate – though this time I decided on a turkey burger deluxe with a side of steamed broccoli – and we exchanged glances, words of biting profundity, phrases of comic absurdity, ideas for spiritual edification.
He stirred his mid-morning tea when he started a new page in our dialogue, “I read this book, man. It’s called the Strengths Finder 2.0, and apparently, our parents were wrong.”
“Wrong?” I looked up quizzically, as if he had uttered a sacrilege. “How’s that?”
“Well, recall with me times when you’d bring a report card to you parents.”
“Okay – ”
“Isn’t it true that instead of them praising you for the areas you excelled in they focused on the areas of your weakness? They always say to bring those lower grades up. This book, however, teaches people to focus on their strengths and to develop those… You should try it out so we can compare notes later.”
It was true. That’s exactly how my parents reacted when I showed them my morbidly blemished report cards. Hence I became curious about what this book and its assessments had to say about my strengths so I bought one on Amazon. After taking a fairly long, timed test online I was given a list of my top five strengths. The first strength was “context.” Basically, what that means is that I’m the kind of person who likes to see life in its historical context; for me, all things can be figured out by knowing or understanding the history of something and knowing where that something stands. I was so sold on it that I nearly quit my studies in literature and philosophy to switch over to history and anthropology.
That long point brings us to the thesis of this commentary, where do we stand? Love in our historical context (for the most part) is regarded as transitory pleasure stemming from our significant other(s), excluding commitment and sacrifice. War for Americans is an abstraction so intangible it is reduced to a televised sport for adults. Prosperity and success is relative only to the achievements of our immediate neighbors and not to eighty percent of the world who have only twenty percent of the money outside of our own. Prophecy against such ideas is considered extremist, retrograde, or an act of self-righteous diatribe. If this is where we stand today, how do other people, who stand in other places, view us?
In China, where I served as an assistant to a missionary, I was both a farmer and an English teacher. One particular day on the field, the sun was burning hot. Brother Peng and I stopped plowing and rested to catch our breaths. Overhead, a plane flew by and he sighed deeply expressing his wish to be able to fly one day. He looked over at me, pointed to the plane, and said that after several more months I’d be on a plane like that back to America – he thought me lucky to leave that place of toil and blistering heat into a land flowing with milk, honey, and busty babes.
In response I tried to explain to him that it was really relative; that though I may be richer and more fortunate than he, he was relatively fair in his economic standing as a farmer in his own country. I said he needed to see the situation in light of where he stood contextually: “Don’t compare yourself with a relatively richer Westerner. It won’t get you anywhere to think that way.” But then he posited something which pushed my hairline back a few inches: “Then why don’t you stay here, take my life, and let me go to America in your stead!” I could only respond with a grimace.
The thought burrowed itself deep into my head and lit up every nerve available within it. Why was I born where I was born, and why was Brother Peng born where he was born? What makes my life so much more valuable than his? Further, what makes an American life so much more valuable than the life of someone who was born and raised in a third world nation? You might say that it isn’t true that some people are worth more than others. I believe that, too. But I’m not trying to prove what is true and what is not; I’m proposing that our lives are contrary to our convictions. We simply don’t live the way we feel because if we did, we’d give more.
Following the mental skirmish, I was able to come up with a system like that of a moral symbiosis. Of course, I thought, there is a reason, a clearly divine one, for why I was born a rich American and Brother Peng was born a poor farmer: the relationship between me and him gives opportunities to us both. I was given the opportunity to give aid, and he was given the opportunity to be blessed by the giving. The former gets to practice love through generosity, the latter gets to be the recipient of grace.
Aid takes many different forms. Education is a form of aid; money, too; and mere forgiveness instead of revenge is another. Whatever the aid might be, when we give each other grace, it doesn’t matter anymore on what historical/contextual ground we stand because the act of mercy is inherently divine.
He stirred his mid-morning tea when he started a new page in our dialogue, “I read this book, man. It’s called the Strengths Finder 2.0, and apparently, our parents were wrong.”
“Wrong?” I looked up quizzically, as if he had uttered a sacrilege. “How’s that?”
“Well, recall with me times when you’d bring a report card to you parents.”
“Okay – ”
“Isn’t it true that instead of them praising you for the areas you excelled in they focused on the areas of your weakness? They always say to bring those lower grades up. This book, however, teaches people to focus on their strengths and to develop those… You should try it out so we can compare notes later.”
It was true. That’s exactly how my parents reacted when I showed them my morbidly blemished report cards. Hence I became curious about what this book and its assessments had to say about my strengths so I bought one on Amazon. After taking a fairly long, timed test online I was given a list of my top five strengths. The first strength was “context.” Basically, what that means is that I’m the kind of person who likes to see life in its historical context; for me, all things can be figured out by knowing or understanding the history of something and knowing where that something stands. I was so sold on it that I nearly quit my studies in literature and philosophy to switch over to history and anthropology.
That long point brings us to the thesis of this commentary, where do we stand? Love in our historical context (for the most part) is regarded as transitory pleasure stemming from our significant other(s), excluding commitment and sacrifice. War for Americans is an abstraction so intangible it is reduced to a televised sport for adults. Prosperity and success is relative only to the achievements of our immediate neighbors and not to eighty percent of the world who have only twenty percent of the money outside of our own. Prophecy against such ideas is considered extremist, retrograde, or an act of self-righteous diatribe. If this is where we stand today, how do other people, who stand in other places, view us?
In China, where I served as an assistant to a missionary, I was both a farmer and an English teacher. One particular day on the field, the sun was burning hot. Brother Peng and I stopped plowing and rested to catch our breaths. Overhead, a plane flew by and he sighed deeply expressing his wish to be able to fly one day. He looked over at me, pointed to the plane, and said that after several more months I’d be on a plane like that back to America – he thought me lucky to leave that place of toil and blistering heat into a land flowing with milk, honey, and busty babes.
In response I tried to explain to him that it was really relative; that though I may be richer and more fortunate than he, he was relatively fair in his economic standing as a farmer in his own country. I said he needed to see the situation in light of where he stood contextually: “Don’t compare yourself with a relatively richer Westerner. It won’t get you anywhere to think that way.” But then he posited something which pushed my hairline back a few inches: “Then why don’t you stay here, take my life, and let me go to America in your stead!” I could only respond with a grimace.
The thought burrowed itself deep into my head and lit up every nerve available within it. Why was I born where I was born, and why was Brother Peng born where he was born? What makes my life so much more valuable than his? Further, what makes an American life so much more valuable than the life of someone who was born and raised in a third world nation? You might say that it isn’t true that some people are worth more than others. I believe that, too. But I’m not trying to prove what is true and what is not; I’m proposing that our lives are contrary to our convictions. We simply don’t live the way we feel because if we did, we’d give more.
Following the mental skirmish, I was able to come up with a system like that of a moral symbiosis. Of course, I thought, there is a reason, a clearly divine one, for why I was born a rich American and Brother Peng was born a poor farmer: the relationship between me and him gives opportunities to us both. I was given the opportunity to give aid, and he was given the opportunity to be blessed by the giving. The former gets to practice love through generosity, the latter gets to be the recipient of grace.
Aid takes many different forms. Education is a form of aid; money, too; and mere forgiveness instead of revenge is another. Whatever the aid might be, when we give each other grace, it doesn’t matter anymore on what historical/contextual ground we stand because the act of mercy is inherently divine.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Outreach for the Holidays: By James Kim
People forget why they do things. We get angry for something our parents said to us, but the next day we can't even remember what they exactly said - we're just angry. Some girl starts her freshman year at Queens College, and after a few years she can't quite remember why she picked the major she's in. So she decides to switch majors while adding on a couple extra semesters. When we can't remember why, we can't necessarily go on doing what we were doing. A change of course immediately follows a change of motive.
I think this rule applies to the positive parts of our lives, especially because I'm sure a thief doesn't ever need to be reminded of the reason for his passion - stealing. He just steals because he thinks it's great to have free things. Think, however, about why a scientist becomes a scientist. Casting all smaller reasons aside, a scientist becomes what he or she is because they love the work and they are making significant, tangible changes in the physical world. They, for the most part, want to serve humanity. This goes for most doctors, nurses, ministers and social workers. The nobler a person's work is, the more that person needs to be reminded why they do what they do. This is because it is too easy to forget and lose focus of what drove them there in the first place.
Singly, this is the problem that clings to many religious people worldwide. They simply don't know or can't remember why they do what they do. Religion is dangerously close to losing a key fundamental in the turbidity of war, work and play - the passion for community outreach.
The problem of losing the zeal for justice by community outreach is that once we go from being a warm, fervently dynamic organism to becoming a mere social institution that people gravitate to in order to hook up with people of the opposite sex, eat donuts and drink lattes, we lose everything. Justice for the poor and the forgotten in society is the fulfillment of the highest universal laws - love and community.
Take, for instance, the war on terrorism and the dissensions between Christians, Muslims and Jews. We are all quibbling about who did what to whom and when - there's no end to the argumentative strife. But with the sort of tension that's being erected around religion, it is difficult to forget the why, since new reasons for killing are conflagrating every hour. With every bigoted policy and every rocket that rips through a person's home, we each give each other more reason to keep killing. Morbidly, we haven't forgotten the why for the fighting, but we did forget the why for what every developed religion stands for - love.
I'm a Christian, and therefore, I can only speak from a Christian perspective. That standpoint is to love the Holy Trinity of God with all you are and to love each other without contracts or conditions. Those two focuses of love are correlated - if I love my neighbor, it shows that I love God. If I love God, I will love my neighbor, even if he attempts to take my life. Without these tenets (generally speaking), religion, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., becomes "moribund."
Justice for the poor, sick, orphaned and elderly during this holiday season is not a call just for those who profess faith in God, but a call for anyone who professes faith, period - and that's everyone. This holiday season, let's get back to basics and get out there! Link up with your local church, synagogue, mosque, temple, organization and practice justice, generosity and outreach.
People should not be defined by their profession or job. Isn't it best to say that we are defined by who we are? Well, who you are is shown in what you do. You may plan on becoming a doctor, nurse, writer, teacher or scientist. But what kind of doctor, nurse, writer, teacher or scientist do you plan on becoming? The late Mother Theresa of Calcutta, India, once said, "We can do no great things, only small things with great love. It is not how much you do but how much love you put into doing it."
I think this rule applies to the positive parts of our lives, especially because I'm sure a thief doesn't ever need to be reminded of the reason for his passion - stealing. He just steals because he thinks it's great to have free things. Think, however, about why a scientist becomes a scientist. Casting all smaller reasons aside, a scientist becomes what he or she is because they love the work and they are making significant, tangible changes in the physical world. They, for the most part, want to serve humanity. This goes for most doctors, nurses, ministers and social workers. The nobler a person's work is, the more that person needs to be reminded why they do what they do. This is because it is too easy to forget and lose focus of what drove them there in the first place.
Singly, this is the problem that clings to many religious people worldwide. They simply don't know or can't remember why they do what they do. Religion is dangerously close to losing a key fundamental in the turbidity of war, work and play - the passion for community outreach.
The problem of losing the zeal for justice by community outreach is that once we go from being a warm, fervently dynamic organism to becoming a mere social institution that people gravitate to in order to hook up with people of the opposite sex, eat donuts and drink lattes, we lose everything. Justice for the poor and the forgotten in society is the fulfillment of the highest universal laws - love and community.
Take, for instance, the war on terrorism and the dissensions between Christians, Muslims and Jews. We are all quibbling about who did what to whom and when - there's no end to the argumentative strife. But with the sort of tension that's being erected around religion, it is difficult to forget the why, since new reasons for killing are conflagrating every hour. With every bigoted policy and every rocket that rips through a person's home, we each give each other more reason to keep killing. Morbidly, we haven't forgotten the why for the fighting, but we did forget the why for what every developed religion stands for - love.
I'm a Christian, and therefore, I can only speak from a Christian perspective. That standpoint is to love the Holy Trinity of God with all you are and to love each other without contracts or conditions. Those two focuses of love are correlated - if I love my neighbor, it shows that I love God. If I love God, I will love my neighbor, even if he attempts to take my life. Without these tenets (generally speaking), religion, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., becomes "moribund."
Justice for the poor, sick, orphaned and elderly during this holiday season is not a call just for those who profess faith in God, but a call for anyone who professes faith, period - and that's everyone. This holiday season, let's get back to basics and get out there! Link up with your local church, synagogue, mosque, temple, organization and practice justice, generosity and outreach.
People should not be defined by their profession or job. Isn't it best to say that we are defined by who we are? Well, who you are is shown in what you do. You may plan on becoming a doctor, nurse, writer, teacher or scientist. But what kind of doctor, nurse, writer, teacher or scientist do you plan on becoming? The late Mother Theresa of Calcutta, India, once said, "We can do no great things, only small things with great love. It is not how much you do but how much love you put into doing it."
Saturday, November 10, 2007
In Response...
A comment made on James Kim's last blog, and featured in the Knight News, didn't settle right with me, so I feel there is something that needs to be discussed. Andrea, I believe it was, made a comment that "religion prevents us from thinking." This statement always sends chills down my spin and rubs me the wrong way. It was a similar idea about religion that inspired me to write my last article "Religion Stigma", and that is a poor generalized, and ill-informed view of what religion really is.
First of all, I would like to challenge the idea that religion is archaic and restricts an individuals ability to "think." I think the group of believers in history that best counters that argument would actually be medieval Muslims. Islam, today, has been portrayed as a backwards life-style immersed in radical rhetoric and illogical concepts of reality. However, as historians have been pointing out for the last few decades, the civilization under early Islam has contributed some of the most important scientific discoveries, which are still significant today.
Early Muslim Astronomers made great observations of celestrial movement, and expanded on the work done by Greek astronomer Ptolemy. Muslims also built the earliest known public hospitals and made great advancements in medicine. Interesting, Adrea cites the bubonic plague as an example of how religion restricts thought, however if we widen the scope of our discussion it is clear that religion has helped to make great advancements. Now you might be wondering, how do these advancements necessarily relate to the Islam, rather than the secular society? Well first of all, there was no distinction at that time period between religion on the rest of society, and most importantly, many of these advancements were made under the patronage of the caliphs and other deeply religious people. This civilization also greatly expanded on mathematical concepts, most of which was borrowed from India. You don't need to be a Math major to be familiar with many of these contributions, including algebra and the decimal system.
Early Islam also produced some of the best philosophers of the ancient or medieval world. As a matter of fact, if it were not for the Muslim philosophers, most of what we know about Greek philosophy would have been lost. If anyone is familiar with the work of Al-Ghazali or Ibn Sina, you would understand what I am talking about.
This brings me to my next point, euro centrism. We tend to think of religion from a European understanding, but if where "religion" and "philosophy" are two different subjects. However, in places like India, for nearly 7,000 years, the two have been inseparable. We tend not to pay much attention to Indian religious practices, or Hinduism, because it seems very foreign to us with their many gods and goddess. However, ancient texts such as the Bhagvad Gita and oral traditions connected to the Vedas have offered complex philosophical arguments and ways of understanding the world that have not been reproduced in quite the same way anywhere else. India even produced perhaps the best and most influential philosopher in history, Siddhartha, or better known as Buddha. In Buddha's teachings, he outlines the principles of psychology literally thousands of years before it is recognized as a field of study anywhere else in the world. Buddha's teachings have even been strengthened, according to modern followers, by recent discoveries in physics, theoretical and niro-psychology, and biology (If you are interested, read the book What the Bleep do we Know, and then read any book about Buddhism, and compare!).
By no means am I trying to discredit western religion either. Perhaps it is true that the Catholic Church in particular has been very unreceptive if not in direct opposition to scientific inquiry. However, it is very short sided of us to cite this as the general rule for all religions, even Christianity. To further this point all we need to do is look at perhaps the most significant theory of our time, which has revolutionized the way we look at our universe; the so called "Big Bang." Much of what we know about the universe can be traced back to one brilliant man, Albert Einstein. Although Einstein was brilliant, as I have said, he was not perfect. Perhaps his biggest mistake was that he believed in some Universal Constant. He lacked the information necessary to come to the conclusion, that most people would agree with today, that the universe is expanding, not lock in a constant size constriction. It was actually none other than a Catholic Priest named La Mantra who came up with the theory that, due to evidence that the universe was expanding, that the Universe at one point must have been an infinitesimal point. The origin of our origin, which we tend to agree with, was the product of a Priest. Now I am not trying to argue that it is a direct result of religion, but to say that religion prevents us from thinking seems like an absurd statement after considering this.
Also one must remember that many of the early science that was conducted in Europe was done by either Monks, or under religious patronage. Individuals like Franis Bacon never saw a conflict between faith and science. Many might recall that genetics was a theory produced by a Monk.
So from Math to Astronomy to genetics, and from Buddhism, to Islam, to Christianity I think I have covered all the grounds...oh wait, what about Judaism? Now I am not particularly familiar with Jewish contributions to science in modern context, however many might be familiar with such great Jewish philosophers and scientists such as Maimonides, who contributed greatly to the world of medicine that was practiced in the public hospitals established by Muslims. I would also like to mention what I see as hard evidence that religion does not prevent us from thinking, but rather encourages us to think, the Talmud. If one would read just a few selections from this book you will find the greatest example of the art of debate and rhetoric. You will find the intricate arguments displayed in point-counter point formations where contextual arguments are formed based on Torah, reason, and precedence. This, by no means, is your typical commandment "Do as I say" holy book, but rather a genius example of modern logical thought put forward by the best minds of the time.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not trying to say religion is responsible for all our progress in history. I am not trying to say that these points prove that any particular religion, or religion in general, is the right way to view the world. All I am trying to say is that religion does not prevent people from thinking. As a matter of fact, religion practiced well, will encourage thought. If we can break out of this very euro centric idea of what religion is, we can see that religion is not the antithesis of thought or reason. When the secular state permitted slavery to continue in this nation, the earliest abolitionists were Quakers and evangelicals in the back country who believed the Spirit could touch anyone, and disregarded cultural rules of race, gender, and class.
There are so many cases where religion and other forms of inquiry and social justice have worked well together. These examples listed here were done very quickly and superficially, and if you are interested I would recommend you look deeper into the issue. If I may, we can also be self-reflecting for a moment, and realize that perhaps the best evidence that religion supports thinking, debating, questioning, and challenging, is this blog and section of the paper that we have dedicate our time to. Its very existence speaks volumes that religion can be used as an inspiration for many fields of inquiry. So does religion really prevent us from thinking? I think not.
First of all, I would like to challenge the idea that religion is archaic and restricts an individuals ability to "think." I think the group of believers in history that best counters that argument would actually be medieval Muslims. Islam, today, has been portrayed as a backwards life-style immersed in radical rhetoric and illogical concepts of reality. However, as historians have been pointing out for the last few decades, the civilization under early Islam has contributed some of the most important scientific discoveries, which are still significant today.
Early Muslim Astronomers made great observations of celestrial movement, and expanded on the work done by Greek astronomer Ptolemy. Muslims also built the earliest known public hospitals and made great advancements in medicine. Interesting, Adrea cites the bubonic plague as an example of how religion restricts thought, however if we widen the scope of our discussion it is clear that religion has helped to make great advancements. Now you might be wondering, how do these advancements necessarily relate to the Islam, rather than the secular society? Well first of all, there was no distinction at that time period between religion on the rest of society, and most importantly, many of these advancements were made under the patronage of the caliphs and other deeply religious people. This civilization also greatly expanded on mathematical concepts, most of which was borrowed from India. You don't need to be a Math major to be familiar with many of these contributions, including algebra and the decimal system.
Early Islam also produced some of the best philosophers of the ancient or medieval world. As a matter of fact, if it were not for the Muslim philosophers, most of what we know about Greek philosophy would have been lost. If anyone is familiar with the work of Al-Ghazali or Ibn Sina, you would understand what I am talking about.
This brings me to my next point, euro centrism. We tend to think of religion from a European understanding, but if where "religion" and "philosophy" are two different subjects. However, in places like India, for nearly 7,000 years, the two have been inseparable. We tend not to pay much attention to Indian religious practices, or Hinduism, because it seems very foreign to us with their many gods and goddess. However, ancient texts such as the Bhagvad Gita and oral traditions connected to the Vedas have offered complex philosophical arguments and ways of understanding the world that have not been reproduced in quite the same way anywhere else. India even produced perhaps the best and most influential philosopher in history, Siddhartha, or better known as Buddha. In Buddha's teachings, he outlines the principles of psychology literally thousands of years before it is recognized as a field of study anywhere else in the world. Buddha's teachings have even been strengthened, according to modern followers, by recent discoveries in physics, theoretical and niro-psychology, and biology (If you are interested, read the book What the Bleep do we Know, and then read any book about Buddhism, and compare!).
By no means am I trying to discredit western religion either. Perhaps it is true that the Catholic Church in particular has been very unreceptive if not in direct opposition to scientific inquiry. However, it is very short sided of us to cite this as the general rule for all religions, even Christianity. To further this point all we need to do is look at perhaps the most significant theory of our time, which has revolutionized the way we look at our universe; the so called "Big Bang." Much of what we know about the universe can be traced back to one brilliant man, Albert Einstein. Although Einstein was brilliant, as I have said, he was not perfect. Perhaps his biggest mistake was that he believed in some Universal Constant. He lacked the information necessary to come to the conclusion, that most people would agree with today, that the universe is expanding, not lock in a constant size constriction. It was actually none other than a Catholic Priest named La Mantra who came up with the theory that, due to evidence that the universe was expanding, that the Universe at one point must have been an infinitesimal point. The origin of our origin, which we tend to agree with, was the product of a Priest. Now I am not trying to argue that it is a direct result of religion, but to say that religion prevents us from thinking seems like an absurd statement after considering this.
Also one must remember that many of the early science that was conducted in Europe was done by either Monks, or under religious patronage. Individuals like Franis Bacon never saw a conflict between faith and science. Many might recall that genetics was a theory produced by a Monk.
So from Math to Astronomy to genetics, and from Buddhism, to Islam, to Christianity I think I have covered all the grounds...oh wait, what about Judaism? Now I am not particularly familiar with Jewish contributions to science in modern context, however many might be familiar with such great Jewish philosophers and scientists such as Maimonides, who contributed greatly to the world of medicine that was practiced in the public hospitals established by Muslims. I would also like to mention what I see as hard evidence that religion does not prevent us from thinking, but rather encourages us to think, the Talmud. If one would read just a few selections from this book you will find the greatest example of the art of debate and rhetoric. You will find the intricate arguments displayed in point-counter point formations where contextual arguments are formed based on Torah, reason, and precedence. This, by no means, is your typical commandment "Do as I say" holy book, but rather a genius example of modern logical thought put forward by the best minds of the time.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not trying to say religion is responsible for all our progress in history. I am not trying to say that these points prove that any particular religion, or religion in general, is the right way to view the world. All I am trying to say is that religion does not prevent people from thinking. As a matter of fact, religion practiced well, will encourage thought. If we can break out of this very euro centric idea of what religion is, we can see that religion is not the antithesis of thought or reason. When the secular state permitted slavery to continue in this nation, the earliest abolitionists were Quakers and evangelicals in the back country who believed the Spirit could touch anyone, and disregarded cultural rules of race, gender, and class.
There are so many cases where religion and other forms of inquiry and social justice have worked well together. These examples listed here were done very quickly and superficially, and if you are interested I would recommend you look deeper into the issue. If I may, we can also be self-reflecting for a moment, and realize that perhaps the best evidence that religion supports thinking, debating, questioning, and challenging, is this blog and section of the paper that we have dedicate our time to. Its very existence speaks volumes that religion can be used as an inspiration for many fields of inquiry. So does religion really prevent us from thinking? I think not.
Faith and Human Inventions
A few years back, my buddy Mike was taking a plane to the Philippines, and as I was dropping him off at the airport he asked me to pray for his flight.
I told him, “Dude. You asked me like fifty-million times to do that. Take it easy. You’re going to be alright. Just trust.”
To which Mike replied, “No, no. I trust in God. I just don’t trust in that godforsaken plane! It’s that damn turbulence that makes me crazy. Just please pray for a smooth flight, please!”
He had a smooth flight to and fro. What I noticed was that most people tend to express their distrust in the existence of God but, almost comically, they trust human inventions much less.
No one needs to be taught about death or life. They are ends and beginnings we know very well of. We know that flowers end in withering, and flowers begin by blossoming. Death scares us, so we fight it. We defame it then combat it with medicine, surgery, stem cells, with rapacious disdain. But it overtakes us eventually because humanity is not strong enough to kill death. We aren’t strong enough because death is a firmly fixed law in our realm of existence.
We might, however, be able to defy it every so often as a pilot defies gravity for a time. As a matter of fact, in a matter of time we’ll probably be able to take people, preserve them in their live and pristine states ‘forever’ in machines that will cryogenically ‘freeze’ them. ‘Forever’, assuming there are still humans who will operate such machines for the rest of eternity; because if people are not around to run such machines, then the people inside the machines might as well be dead. If we programmed robots to do such work, we still might as well be dead for we live in dreams only to awaken again into death. And if we insist that all people should live all the time forever, beware that overpopulation, food shortage, lack of precious commodities and so on will undoubtedly lead to murder on a gruesome and prodigious scale. In short, such is the human dilemma. The law of death is such a law that if one was to defy it to give eternal life to all people at once, it would turn us on our heads and kill us all.
Humans possess this mysterious obsession with control. We strive to make our works perfect though we are fraught with imperfection; and deep within we know fully that humanity will never achieve it in our realm. As impossible as it is for every stone to turn itself into a perfect sphere forever, so it is impossible for us all to be perfect at once eternally (by our own power or science).
Therefore, science brings just as little closure for us as it claims religion does. Atheists claim that their empirical truths are light to the ‘superstitious’, but when we consider hypothetical situations such as the aforementioned defying of death, it is clear that atheism pulls itself into the same impasse it plans to decry religion with. After all, it is itself a religion.
If this is true – that traditional religion and atheism are both in direct conflict about truth – then we must ask a new question. The question I posit is what is the main difference that is also the main commonality between atheism and theism (particularly monotheism)? I believe knowing the answer to this question will bring our debates where they should be. But before we answer, let’s talk about the exponents of skepticism.
Christopher Hitchens, the author of the best-selling book, God is not Great, talks about faith with Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and states that it (faith) is the most overrated virtue, immediately expressing his desire for people to no longer respect imagination. His rationale, in the interview, for his stance on faith is basically that religious people live disgustingly staid and austere lives. He alludes to wine and food as would some gluttonous, wino sloth – vices which are not only frowned upon by all religions but also by all people groups in the traditional world. Hitchens also sees religion as an evil that is the cause of war and oppression in the world.
Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, in a debate with Alister McGrath (a Christian who was once an atheist), states that he isn’t concerned with how good real Christians are. He is concerned about truth. He says that it is ridiculous for people to trust in things they cannot prove empirically or test.
Soren Kierkegaard, the first existentialist, in his celebrated book, Fear and Trembling tackles the nature that is first, debated and second, shared between both theists and atheists: faith. To Kierkegaard, faith is “rationally unintelligible” – it is not something we can rationally understand. In regard to Abraham the ‘father of faith’ he writes, “Abraham was greater than all, great by reason of his power whose strength is impotence, great by reason of his wisdom whose secret is foolishness, great by reason of the love which is hatred of oneself.” He calls Abraham’s faith “divine madness” because it is a virtue nobody truly understands. It is something so contradictory to the rational being but so necessary in all we seek to be. This is what I mean when I suggested that even atheists need faith. In fact, they need a great amount of trust in the things they do because at the end of the day they’re still unsure.
In short, the mystery of faith is not exclusive to religions that believe in God but is ubiquitous, permeating every cranny of our imperfect world.
Jesus Christ reveals some things of the mystery of faith in the New Testament: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you" (Mt 17:20).
The good quality of faith has been tested and proven throughout Jewish history: “I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies” (Heb 11:32-34).
If Hitchens and Dawkins think that atheism and science will have better answers for the world’s troubles than will theistic religion, then they are speaking only on behalf of a small minority who have innovated new and unnatural ways in which to implement community, justice, and love.
My experience is that most innovators and proprietors of ‘truth’, in their pursuit of finding a counter-balance to faith, tend to take an issue to its opposite extreme. And at that end they then move to take a newly dogmatic stance to state their point to ‘educate’ kids, and definitely, whenever possible, to make a profit.
I told him, “Dude. You asked me like fifty-million times to do that. Take it easy. You’re going to be alright. Just trust.”
To which Mike replied, “No, no. I trust in God. I just don’t trust in that godforsaken plane! It’s that damn turbulence that makes me crazy. Just please pray for a smooth flight, please!”
He had a smooth flight to and fro. What I noticed was that most people tend to express their distrust in the existence of God but, almost comically, they trust human inventions much less.
No one needs to be taught about death or life. They are ends and beginnings we know very well of. We know that flowers end in withering, and flowers begin by blossoming. Death scares us, so we fight it. We defame it then combat it with medicine, surgery, stem cells, with rapacious disdain. But it overtakes us eventually because humanity is not strong enough to kill death. We aren’t strong enough because death is a firmly fixed law in our realm of existence.
We might, however, be able to defy it every so often as a pilot defies gravity for a time. As a matter of fact, in a matter of time we’ll probably be able to take people, preserve them in their live and pristine states ‘forever’ in machines that will cryogenically ‘freeze’ them. ‘Forever’, assuming there are still humans who will operate such machines for the rest of eternity; because if people are not around to run such machines, then the people inside the machines might as well be dead. If we programmed robots to do such work, we still might as well be dead for we live in dreams only to awaken again into death. And if we insist that all people should live all the time forever, beware that overpopulation, food shortage, lack of precious commodities and so on will undoubtedly lead to murder on a gruesome and prodigious scale. In short, such is the human dilemma. The law of death is such a law that if one was to defy it to give eternal life to all people at once, it would turn us on our heads and kill us all.
Humans possess this mysterious obsession with control. We strive to make our works perfect though we are fraught with imperfection; and deep within we know fully that humanity will never achieve it in our realm. As impossible as it is for every stone to turn itself into a perfect sphere forever, so it is impossible for us all to be perfect at once eternally (by our own power or science).
Therefore, science brings just as little closure for us as it claims religion does. Atheists claim that their empirical truths are light to the ‘superstitious’, but when we consider hypothetical situations such as the aforementioned defying of death, it is clear that atheism pulls itself into the same impasse it plans to decry religion with. After all, it is itself a religion.
If this is true – that traditional religion and atheism are both in direct conflict about truth – then we must ask a new question. The question I posit is what is the main difference that is also the main commonality between atheism and theism (particularly monotheism)? I believe knowing the answer to this question will bring our debates where they should be. But before we answer, let’s talk about the exponents of skepticism.
Christopher Hitchens, the author of the best-selling book, God is not Great, talks about faith with Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and states that it (faith) is the most overrated virtue, immediately expressing his desire for people to no longer respect imagination. His rationale, in the interview, for his stance on faith is basically that religious people live disgustingly staid and austere lives. He alludes to wine and food as would some gluttonous, wino sloth – vices which are not only frowned upon by all religions but also by all people groups in the traditional world. Hitchens also sees religion as an evil that is the cause of war and oppression in the world.
Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, in a debate with Alister McGrath (a Christian who was once an atheist), states that he isn’t concerned with how good real Christians are. He is concerned about truth. He says that it is ridiculous for people to trust in things they cannot prove empirically or test.
Soren Kierkegaard, the first existentialist, in his celebrated book, Fear and Trembling tackles the nature that is first, debated and second, shared between both theists and atheists: faith. To Kierkegaard, faith is “rationally unintelligible” – it is not something we can rationally understand. In regard to Abraham the ‘father of faith’ he writes, “Abraham was greater than all, great by reason of his power whose strength is impotence, great by reason of his wisdom whose secret is foolishness, great by reason of the love which is hatred of oneself.” He calls Abraham’s faith “divine madness” because it is a virtue nobody truly understands. It is something so contradictory to the rational being but so necessary in all we seek to be. This is what I mean when I suggested that even atheists need faith. In fact, they need a great amount of trust in the things they do because at the end of the day they’re still unsure.
In short, the mystery of faith is not exclusive to religions that believe in God but is ubiquitous, permeating every cranny of our imperfect world.
Jesus Christ reveals some things of the mystery of faith in the New Testament: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you" (Mt 17:20).
The good quality of faith has been tested and proven throughout Jewish history: “I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies” (Heb 11:32-34).
If Hitchens and Dawkins think that atheism and science will have better answers for the world’s troubles than will theistic religion, then they are speaking only on behalf of a small minority who have innovated new and unnatural ways in which to implement community, justice, and love.
My experience is that most innovators and proprietors of ‘truth’, in their pursuit of finding a counter-balance to faith, tend to take an issue to its opposite extreme. And at that end they then move to take a newly dogmatic stance to state their point to ‘educate’ kids, and definitely, whenever possible, to make a profit.
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Religion Stigma
Why are we always under attack? No, I’m not talking about terrorism; I’m talking about our culture’s religion stigma. It is often said that religion is the root cause of most of the problems in the world today. It is easy to understand why one would think that. If we examine all the world conflicts going on, many of them (or at least the ones that make the headlines) have something to do with religious conflict. Several secularists tell me that religious fundamentalism is to blame for the plight of our world today. I take great issue with this mentality and would like to explain why.
When we talk about fundamental religious groups we often discuss groups like Al-Qaida, or those kids from “Bible Camp”, but no one ever seems to mention my favorite group of religious fundamentalists; the Quakers. That’s right; Quakers, or rather the Society of Friends, by all means should be considered fundamentalists. These crazy extremists adhere to the fundamentals of their religion so strongly that they won’t even fight in wars! I know what some of you are thinking, ‘what’s the point of religion if not to start wars?’ and that is just my point.
It has become all too comfortable in our society to assume that religion is the primary cause of war and suffering. Religious fundamentalists are just that; people who practice the fundamentals of a religion, and as a professor of mine once said, “what’s the point of having a religion if you aren’t going to practice it?” It’s okay though; I don’t blame everyone for thinking like this. We are products of our time, and often lack the bigger picture that could help us shake off this stigma of religion, so prevalent in our culture.
First let me point out the fact that there are many ideologies that influence the behavior of societies that have nothing to do with religion. Just an examination of 20th century history would explain my point. Nationalism, for quite sometime, has been the key subject of confrontation in Europe, and recently the Middle East. World War one is a perfect example. Slavic nationalism led to the perpetual unfolding of events that caused the war, and Arab nationalism sprung up in the Ottoman Empire. During World War 2, Hitler’s idea of a supreme Arian race was not a religiously inspired idea, but a nationalist one that envisioned a greater Germany.
I would argue that even conflicts that seem religious on the service are really nationalist. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a perfect example. Israel is certainly a Jewish state, ethnically. Israel is not Jewish in the sense that national law is derived from religious law. There are many secular groups in Israel, and this does not make them less Israeli. Palestinians on the other hand are not monolithically Muslim. There were (although the numbers are rapidly decreasing) a significant number of Christian Palestinians. As a matter of fact there are Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel. This conflict, which many feel the need to describe in apocalyptic terms, is really one about the emergence of two national movements in the same territory that is if you acknowledge both sides as legitimate national movements, which I do.
Also, we cannot ignore the drive of economics. Economic factors always have a role in global affairs. Most often, nations are driven by their particular interest. Economics and economic philosophies have been they cause of many conflicts involving our own nation, more so than religion, even though the United States has the highest church attendance in the western world.
Hermeneutics has grown in popularity, and with it the idea that meaning is not inherent in a text, but is negotiated between the text’s author and the reader or observer. I bring this up because this is vital to breaking this religion-stigma. The religion itself, and by that I mean the text and fundamentals of the religion, are usually not the cause of conflict. However, it cannot be denied that religion plays a large role in many of the world conflicts today. This is where hermeneutics is important. The meaning of a text is negotiated. We bring something to the text, which influence how we interpret it. Therefore, before you blame the Bible or Qur’an think to yourself, can these words really be causing us all this pain? No, it’s the other half, the interpreter that derives a message from this text, that free will on the other side of the page.
This is the key. Faith is a powerful thing, but faith cannot be handed to you in a book, and neither can hate. Whether it is religion, nationalism, or economics, we ultimately decide how we will act. So do not be afraid of religion, after all other intangible ideas such as Freedom and Liberty can inspire conflict or reconciliation just as much as religion. We need to learn how to embrace religion and find ways to help it unite us in a humanizing manner, not divide us. After all, we don’t need religion to divide us; we can do that all on our own.
When we talk about fundamental religious groups we often discuss groups like Al-Qaida, or those kids from “Bible Camp”, but no one ever seems to mention my favorite group of religious fundamentalists; the Quakers. That’s right; Quakers, or rather the Society of Friends, by all means should be considered fundamentalists. These crazy extremists adhere to the fundamentals of their religion so strongly that they won’t even fight in wars! I know what some of you are thinking, ‘what’s the point of religion if not to start wars?’ and that is just my point.
It has become all too comfortable in our society to assume that religion is the primary cause of war and suffering. Religious fundamentalists are just that; people who practice the fundamentals of a religion, and as a professor of mine once said, “what’s the point of having a religion if you aren’t going to practice it?” It’s okay though; I don’t blame everyone for thinking like this. We are products of our time, and often lack the bigger picture that could help us shake off this stigma of religion, so prevalent in our culture.
First let me point out the fact that there are many ideologies that influence the behavior of societies that have nothing to do with religion. Just an examination of 20th century history would explain my point. Nationalism, for quite sometime, has been the key subject of confrontation in Europe, and recently the Middle East. World War one is a perfect example. Slavic nationalism led to the perpetual unfolding of events that caused the war, and Arab nationalism sprung up in the Ottoman Empire. During World War 2, Hitler’s idea of a supreme Arian race was not a religiously inspired idea, but a nationalist one that envisioned a greater Germany.
I would argue that even conflicts that seem religious on the service are really nationalist. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a perfect example. Israel is certainly a Jewish state, ethnically. Israel is not Jewish in the sense that national law is derived from religious law. There are many secular groups in Israel, and this does not make them less Israeli. Palestinians on the other hand are not monolithically Muslim. There were (although the numbers are rapidly decreasing) a significant number of Christian Palestinians. As a matter of fact there are Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel. This conflict, which many feel the need to describe in apocalyptic terms, is really one about the emergence of two national movements in the same territory that is if you acknowledge both sides as legitimate national movements, which I do.
Also, we cannot ignore the drive of economics. Economic factors always have a role in global affairs. Most often, nations are driven by their particular interest. Economics and economic philosophies have been they cause of many conflicts involving our own nation, more so than religion, even though the United States has the highest church attendance in the western world.
Hermeneutics has grown in popularity, and with it the idea that meaning is not inherent in a text, but is negotiated between the text’s author and the reader or observer. I bring this up because this is vital to breaking this religion-stigma. The religion itself, and by that I mean the text and fundamentals of the religion, are usually not the cause of conflict. However, it cannot be denied that religion plays a large role in many of the world conflicts today. This is where hermeneutics is important. The meaning of a text is negotiated. We bring something to the text, which influence how we interpret it. Therefore, before you blame the Bible or Qur’an think to yourself, can these words really be causing us all this pain? No, it’s the other half, the interpreter that derives a message from this text, that free will on the other side of the page.
This is the key. Faith is a powerful thing, but faith cannot be handed to you in a book, and neither can hate. Whether it is religion, nationalism, or economics, we ultimately decide how we will act. So do not be afraid of religion, after all other intangible ideas such as Freedom and Liberty can inspire conflict or reconciliation just as much as religion. We need to learn how to embrace religion and find ways to help it unite us in a humanizing manner, not divide us. After all, we don’t need religion to divide us; we can do that all on our own.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A Better Question for Fundamentalism: By James Kim, QC Student
What if the floorboard in my house spoke? Well, in the way actions speak, so does my floorboard. Surprisingly, this board remembers where it’s from, how it was shaped, where it is (sort of), and it has an idea where it’s going after its purpose under my feet is exhausted. It’s a chore now because I need to be extra careful about where I’m stepping and how I do so. Cleaning is worlds more unnerving – I mean, it speaks; it has a history of its own and may even outlive me. It’s practically human.
Floorboard refers to its own history simply as ‘reverse engineering.’ Through reverse engineering I get to learn how ‘he’ or ‘she’ came about. Before he came to Bayside, New York he lived an enclosed existence wedged between brother and sister boards for months.
Being a White Oak, he was born in a forest of Quebec, Canada before lumberjacks felled him. He was eminent, but his many limbs were cut nonetheless. As he explains how they cut him to pieces, I realize this one board is only a smaller part of him. He’s lucky he wasn’t chipped, though parts of his larger self may have been. Afterward, the jacks, as other trees called them, took Floorboard and others to the mill for more resizing.
Telling this story reminds Floorboard that he isn’t merely a floorboard, but essentially, a White Oak tree. It reminds me that even though the jacks cut down, resized, and reshaped him, he is still wood of the species quercus alba. It is natural for him to do this – to dwell on what he is fundamentally: Wood. Like I said, it’s a good thing he wasn’t chipped.
Not everyone interested in religion is ready to talk about ‘Fundamentalism.’ For one, it’s uncouth to discuss it openly in a pluralistic society like ours. And most Americans associate the word to images of smoke, fire, or just good old-fashioned fear. However, if we learned anything from my floorboard it’s that all or most of our values derive from fundamentals planted in us during our sponge-like period of childhood. Therefore, you and I are fundamentalists in varying degrees; maybe not ‘Fundamentalist’, but definitely ‘fundamentalist’ in the lower case. We all bring to the door what we think is right. The problem in society lies not in whether or not a group is termed fundamental, but in the fundamental itself.
In the essay, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis writes that it’s the fundamental that “will condition him [the student] to take one side of a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.” Have you ever just believed in something without knowing why or how you do?
I think it’s right to infer that what we believe at the core of us makes us. Moreover, it’s what we are that will have the greatest impact in our society. With that said, what are we? And what is it that’s making us what we are?
All ideologies produce something. If you think of people merely as a faceless mass, it’s probably because somewhere in your thinking you added that a communitarian life is the best kind of life, and that the individual is insignificant. This, in turn, may lead you to crassly treat or view people like cattle. In another instance, one might feel that the individual is quintessential while the community is a dilution of personality. If so, that person may have predilections to extremely selfish, self-destructive behavior, which tends to precipitate wars, social injustices, and deep bereavements.
Religion’s purpose is important, but more important than this for us is religion’s results. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial." The results of religion and philosophy depend on the core fundamental of that religion and philosophy.
Observing some case-studies we are reminded of Mr. Floorboard’s principle of real value in fundamentals. One case involves a desegregationist and the ideologies at work within him. Clearly it’s the ideological edifice built on the teachings of Jesus Christ (concurrent with the non-violent teachings of Mohandas Gandhi) that led Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to help integrate African Americans when racism in America was reaching fever-pitch. King chooses to use those fundamentals inside him to induce change, but he could have easily chosen the path of passive, moral stagnation. This attitude he possesses does not come from nowhere.
Taking a closer look, that which fueled King’s particular fundamentals was the fundamental of Jesus Christ. His being that he didn’t kowtow to the time’s fundamental of violence; but instead, he instituted real moral advancements – rather than hate, forgive; do more than forgive, love; don’t just love, sacrifice yourself so that person can live. This is far from violent, and far from moribund.
These fundamentals are different. One belief is found on the premise that the strong eat the weak; another one is built on the premise that, like the ancient Greeks, the many gods compete and are indifferent toward humans – violence is amoral. Others feel that their honor-based culture defines them – if you pain me, I am obligated to pain you. Still, others value the almighty dollar that buys power and comfort. For some, it entails an innocent man hanging on a cross forgiving the very people who hung him there. The crux of the matter is not that some fundamentals are viable and others are not. But it’s that there is a set of fundamentals that lead people into loving, forgiving, peace-seeking, self-sacrificing behavior.
Let’s take time and look introspectively into our own lives, see where all our ideas come from, and either do something about it or take a seat behind the monolithic wall of obscurity erected by the likes of hypocrites and critics. The world, humanity, and possibly even your soul depend on it. So what’s your fundamental and what is it making you, you fundamentalist?
Floorboard refers to its own history simply as ‘reverse engineering.’ Through reverse engineering I get to learn how ‘he’ or ‘she’ came about. Before he came to Bayside, New York he lived an enclosed existence wedged between brother and sister boards for months.
Being a White Oak, he was born in a forest of Quebec, Canada before lumberjacks felled him. He was eminent, but his many limbs were cut nonetheless. As he explains how they cut him to pieces, I realize this one board is only a smaller part of him. He’s lucky he wasn’t chipped, though parts of his larger self may have been. Afterward, the jacks, as other trees called them, took Floorboard and others to the mill for more resizing.
Telling this story reminds Floorboard that he isn’t merely a floorboard, but essentially, a White Oak tree. It reminds me that even though the jacks cut down, resized, and reshaped him, he is still wood of the species quercus alba. It is natural for him to do this – to dwell on what he is fundamentally: Wood. Like I said, it’s a good thing he wasn’t chipped.
Not everyone interested in religion is ready to talk about ‘Fundamentalism.’ For one, it’s uncouth to discuss it openly in a pluralistic society like ours. And most Americans associate the word to images of smoke, fire, or just good old-fashioned fear. However, if we learned anything from my floorboard it’s that all or most of our values derive from fundamentals planted in us during our sponge-like period of childhood. Therefore, you and I are fundamentalists in varying degrees; maybe not ‘Fundamentalist’, but definitely ‘fundamentalist’ in the lower case. We all bring to the door what we think is right. The problem in society lies not in whether or not a group is termed fundamental, but in the fundamental itself.
In the essay, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis writes that it’s the fundamental that “will condition him [the student] to take one side of a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.” Have you ever just believed in something without knowing why or how you do?
I think it’s right to infer that what we believe at the core of us makes us. Moreover, it’s what we are that will have the greatest impact in our society. With that said, what are we? And what is it that’s making us what we are?
All ideologies produce something. If you think of people merely as a faceless mass, it’s probably because somewhere in your thinking you added that a communitarian life is the best kind of life, and that the individual is insignificant. This, in turn, may lead you to crassly treat or view people like cattle. In another instance, one might feel that the individual is quintessential while the community is a dilution of personality. If so, that person may have predilections to extremely selfish, self-destructive behavior, which tends to precipitate wars, social injustices, and deep bereavements.
Religion’s purpose is important, but more important than this for us is religion’s results. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial." The results of religion and philosophy depend on the core fundamental of that religion and philosophy.
Observing some case-studies we are reminded of Mr. Floorboard’s principle of real value in fundamentals. One case involves a desegregationist and the ideologies at work within him. Clearly it’s the ideological edifice built on the teachings of Jesus Christ (concurrent with the non-violent teachings of Mohandas Gandhi) that led Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to help integrate African Americans when racism in America was reaching fever-pitch. King chooses to use those fundamentals inside him to induce change, but he could have easily chosen the path of passive, moral stagnation. This attitude he possesses does not come from nowhere.
Taking a closer look, that which fueled King’s particular fundamentals was the fundamental of Jesus Christ. His being that he didn’t kowtow to the time’s fundamental of violence; but instead, he instituted real moral advancements – rather than hate, forgive; do more than forgive, love; don’t just love, sacrifice yourself so that person can live. This is far from violent, and far from moribund.
These fundamentals are different. One belief is found on the premise that the strong eat the weak; another one is built on the premise that, like the ancient Greeks, the many gods compete and are indifferent toward humans – violence is amoral. Others feel that their honor-based culture defines them – if you pain me, I am obligated to pain you. Still, others value the almighty dollar that buys power and comfort. For some, it entails an innocent man hanging on a cross forgiving the very people who hung him there. The crux of the matter is not that some fundamentals are viable and others are not. But it’s that there is a set of fundamentals that lead people into loving, forgiving, peace-seeking, self-sacrificing behavior.
Let’s take time and look introspectively into our own lives, see where all our ideas come from, and either do something about it or take a seat behind the monolithic wall of obscurity erected by the likes of hypocrites and critics. The world, humanity, and possibly even your soul depend on it. So what’s your fundamental and what is it making you, you fundamentalist?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)