Musing's musings

What happened to the middle ground?

I was struck by something Richard Rohr said in his "This I Believe" essay this morning on NPR:

Whenever I think there's a perfect pattern, further reading and study reveal an exception. Whenever I want to say "only" or "always," someone or something proves me wrong. My scientist friends have come up with things like "principles of uncertainty" and dark holes. They're willing to live inside imagined hypotheses and theories. But many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of "faith"! How strange that the very word "faith" has come to mean its exact opposite.

It was that last sentence that got me to stop brushing my teeth and really listen. Rohr, a Franciscan priest, was speaking of religious faith--and his criticisms were, I believe, dead on target there. But I think they have a wider applicability as well. It is not only in our religion that we want certainty; it seems to have spread, cancer-like, into almost all areas of human life and endeavor in the course of my lifetime.

Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

Wingnuttistan is predictably up in arms after "Useless Scareways" (h/t NTodd) gave the boot to a group of six clerics trying to get home after a religious conference. The Tighty Righties aren't upset that the clerics were refused the seats they had bought and paid for on the airline--that, apparently, is right and just and something that no good Amurrikan could possibly have a problem with. No, they're peeved that the clerics decided to do what Americans do when they get the shaft: they protested.

In case you've been in a cave without any connection to the outside world for the last week or two, I'll hit the high points of the backstory. A group of six Muslim clerics were at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, waiting to board a flight to return home after a conference. As they are bound to do according to Islamic law five times each day at prescribed intervals, the clerics performed salat before boarding the plane. After the flight had begun boarding, a passenger gave a flight attendant a note, whereupon the clerics were bodily removed from the plane, handcuffed, detained by federal authorities, and questioned. Of course they missed their flight--and Useless Scareways refused to give them seats on another flight.

Salat is an Arabic word that means, basically, "prayer." And that's what's got me scratching the back of my head and asking what the denizens of Wingnuttistan have been smoking. Are not the Tighty Righties the ones who are all for more public prayer--anywhere, anywhen, for any reason or no reason at all? Are not these the same people who send up howls of outrage (and the Bat Signal for lawyers from the "American Center for Law and Justice"--the conservacons' answer to the ACLU) whenever some school district or "activist judge" (read "one that disagrees with the theocons") stops one of their number from praying before a football game or at a grade school graduation ceremony?

I love the smell of flop-sweat in the morning...

I can tell summer is at an end. Not by the fact that the corn and soybeans in the fields past which I drive to and from work each day are obviously coming to the end of their growing cycle. Nor by the fact that the air gets a bit nippy of an evening.

No, I can tell that the autumn is here because the campaign commercials and the hit pieces, and the opposition research is starting to fly in advance of the midterm elections, now just a couple of months away. And since the Republicans pretty much haven't got an arrow in their quiver this time out, it should come as no surprise to anyone that they're returning to their tried-and-true tactics of (a) making shit up and (b) trying to scare the shit out of voters with the shit they've just made up.

Let me point to one such example of what amounts to a Republican op-ed and that covers both (a) and (b) in the Republican Manual of Tactics. It was a piece written by someone I've never heard of, name of Ross Douthat, and it appeared in the August 31 edition of First Things, a well-known conservative rag calling itself the "Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life."

I'm not going to spend much time on Douthat's piece, because pastordan did a bang-up job of blowing it to smithereens last night on Big Orange and at Little Blue which, as Dan so eloquently pointed out, is the "...entire freaking blog on religion and politics" that über-Democrat, self-confessed atheist, and Republican boogeyman Markos Moulitsas Zuniga graciously sponsors, which sort of gives the lie to the entire premise of Douthat's screed, which is, of course, that--say it with me now, children--"Democrats. Hate. Religion."

But before I turn to the piece I really want to take apart, I'm going to spend a minute and reflect on the incredible ὕβρις of calling oneself "the journal of religion, culture, and public life." Can there be only one such? Are there not perhaps multiple perspectives on things such as religion, culture, and public life, to say nothing of a combination of all three of them, and ought not one to allow for the possibility that those perspectives are at least as worthy of being heard as the right-wing talking points that routinely spring from the pages of First Things? Because, if it isn't already apparent, I'm here to tell you that First Things doesn't come anywhere close to speaking for me on religion, culture, or public life.

σκάνδαλόν τι

Writing in the Los Angeles Times this past weekend, Charlotte Allen primly pontificated that "Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins." According to the slug above her column, Ms. Allen is "Catholicism editor for Beliefnet," which is scary in and of itself, given a few of her other credentials.

It would appear that Ms. Allen and the priest who presided at the Mass I attended this past Sunday subscribe to the same school of theological thought. The priest took as his theme that faith is not an abstraction, but a relationship. I can't argue with that metaphor, but I can and do dispute the spin which he (and Ms. Allen) want to put on what kind of a relationship faith is.

For them, it would seem, faith is a one-sided relationship with a static entity. God has spoken, end of story. (Or, in the old Latin epigram, Roma locuta, causa finita.) That doesn't look like any kind of a healthy relationship, and it is certainly not one I want to have any part of.

It is easy (as Ms. Allen's screed amply demonstrates) to pick a few egregious faux pas and ridicule them. There is a definite flavor of the bliss ninny about the Presbyterian Church's recent discussion about possible alternative designations for the persons of the Trinity, and it is hard not to laugh at some of the suggestions that emerged from that discussion. But where Ms. Allen and her ilk see only a cheap laugh line, others of us see past the snickers and applaud at least the effort to acknowledge the fact that the traditional, highly masculinized and very domineering imagery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit isn't working for some people.

"Where was God?" Right there all along

The Sala Stampa, the Vatican press office, has not yet posted the text of Pope Benedict XVI's remarks today at Auschwitz, so I may have to revise this mini-rant later. But given that Auntie Beeb, the New York Times, and Reuters all have substantively the same text for the kernel of his remarks, I think I'm on reasonably safe ground. From Reuters:

Benedict said it was almost impossible, particularly for a German Pope, to speak at "the place of the Shoah."

"In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?

"Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil?"

Humans could not "peer into God's mysterious plan" to understand evil, only "cry out humbly yet insistently to God -- Rouse yourself! Do not forget mankind, your creature!"

I will respectfully suggest to His Holiness that his questions are misplaced. A more cynical person than I might even see in them a little self-serving deflection of personal responsibility.

Persecution ninnies

About 10-15 years ago, I began to hear the term "bliss ninnies." It was used (in my experience, anyway; a quick Google on the phrase, with quotes, suggests it may have since acquired a wider connotation) primarily to describe the sort of theologian that Matthew Fox morphed himself into after having to leave the Catholic Church--a sort of "happy, happy, joy, joy"-all-the-time outlook wherein, in the words of the old standard "seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day."

I'm going to suggest that from here on out, we start calling people like David Horowitz, Bill O'Reilly, and Ruth Malhotra "persecution ninnies." Horowitz thinks the liberal academics are out to get him, O'Lielly and Malhotra both seem to think--and they're hardly the only ones, alas--that the 85% or so of this country's population that is Christian is being persecuted. Again:

ATLANTA — Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

And so the adventure begins

The most paradoxical season of the liturgical year begins today. It's Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent--a 40-day period of prayer and fasting and preparation for the Paschal Triduum (Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday, in case you were wondering--and there will be a quiz on that material later), the three holiest days in the Church year.

The salient feature of Ash Wednesday is the imposition of ashes. After the homily is preached, ashes made from the blessed palm fronds used the previous year on Palm Sunday are blessed. Members of the congregation come forward, and the priest or another minister smudges the blessed ashes on their foreheads in a cross, saying "Remember that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return," or something similar. After that, the Mass proceeds normally.

In and of itself, the use of ashes in this way isn't paradoxical or strange at all. As the Scriptures (and ancient literature at least as far back as Homer) make perfectly clear, putting ashes or dust on one's head has long been a symbol of deep sorrow or profound regret and repentance. Nor is it the prayer and fasting that makes today paradoxical. Insofar as I'm aware, every religious tradition known to humankind, for as long as there have been humans and religions, has used either prayer or fasting (or both) in preparation for significant religious or spiritual events or workings.

No, what's paradoxical about today is the juxtaposition of the imposition of ashes with the mandatory Gospel reading for today, which begins as follows:

προσέχετε δὲ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ ποιεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς...

Take care not to perform your righteous works in front of other people to be noticed by them...

--Matthew 6:1, my translation from the Greek

As-salaam aleikum

Yesterday, a batch of terrorists, apparently posing as Iraqi policemen, severely damaged the al-Askariya mosque ("Golden Mosque") in Samarra. The site is sacred to the Shi'a sect of Islam, because it contains the tombs of two of the twelve imams revered in that tradition, and is also reputed to be the place where the twelfth imam will reappear and lead them to salvation.

I am not a Muslim, and, obviously, not a Shi'a. But I am nonetheless distressed at the destruction of one of their holy places. I am equally distressed at the destruction or damage done by Shi'a to 27 Sunni mosques, apparently in retaliation for the damage done to their shrine. Such things should not be in a house of God--any house of any god.

Once upon a time, that was considered one of the rules of warfare: one did not harm places of worship, nor molest those who sought refuge within such places in time of war. Apparently that, like so many other things handed down from bygone days, has now gone by the board. I would argue that we are the lesser for its revocation.

I've signed the statement expressing sorrow at the destruction at Street Prophets, and I encourage my faithful readers to do likewise. We're also looking into the possibility of contributing toward the reconstruction of the mosque, if we can find a responsible agency collecting funds for that purpose, and if we can be certain that the funds donated will only be used for that purpose. I think it's a worthwhile endeavor, and if we can guarantee the money will go to that good purpose, I'm happy to kick in a few bucks if I have them to spare. I hope you will consider doing likewise.

Maybe such a gesture on the part of Americans--be they Muslims or not--will do something to offset the bad PR we've been getting in the region for the last six years and more. Apparently many in Iraq honestly believe that the only reason there are American troops in their country is to destroy it and to wipe out their religion. Small wonder they throw bombs and fire rockets at us and try to kill our men and women in uniform.

I'm under no illusions that donating a small sum toward the rebuilding of a Shi'a holy place will, in and of itself, bring about peace and cause the insurgency to die away. That would be ludicrous. But as the Tao te Ching reminds us, a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step. Miracles come in all sizes--and I would rather do my part to help out a small one than simply to curse the gigantic evil that is everyday life in Iraq right now.

Pat Robertson is an abomination

Paranoid Pat is at it again (link is in German; CNN has the story in English here). He's claiming, translating from the German news brief in the first link, that Ariel Sharon's stroke was "God's punishment for evacuating the Gaza Strip." The allegation was made on today's episode of the long-running (God alone knows why) dreck-fest "The 700 Club."

Now, I wouldn't say that Ariel Sharon ranked highly among my favorite people in the world. I still hold him responsible for starting the second intifada five and a half years ago with his ill-advised decision to visit the Dome of the Rock a couple of weeks before my mother and I were due to leave for a Jubilee-year pilgrimage to Israel--and the continuation of that violence is among the reasons that I haven't been back to Israel since then, despite loving the country and having friends there.

I will even confess to feeling a modicum of relief this morning when I heard the news that Sharon had just come out of seven hours of brain surgery to stop the bleeding--not that he had been stricken ill and was languishing in a hospital, but that this episode more or less spells the end of his political life in Israel, and could well kill off his new party before it ever really got launched. For my money, Sharon is one of the bigger obstacles in the way of anything remotely resembling a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Get me to church, stat!

So according to the Christofascists of "Worldview Weekend" I'm a "Socialist Worldview Thinker" having scored a lousy 3% on their test for, among other things:

• Tending to disagree that God approves of governments only so long as those governments "serve the purpose for which God created them" (I tend to think God is neutral on the question of governments.)
• Disagreeing that a "God-given responsibility of government is to protect the righteous and punish the wicked" (I think it's none of the government's damn business whether its citizens are righteous or wicked, and that the only criterion by which the government is supposed to judge its citizens is whether or not they are in compliance with the applicable laws.)
• Tending to disagree that the Bible says that God supports "an economic system that is based on private property, the work ethic, and personal responsibility" (I'm pretty sure I remember somebody pretty doggone important telling a whole bunch of people to go and sell all their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor...)
• Disagreeing that the more democratic a government is, the more disorder and confusion prevail (Properly managed, a democratic government is no more or less disorderly or confused than any other form of government known to me.)
• Failing to agree that the most biblically sanctioned tax system would be a flat tax where everybody pays a certain percentage of his/her income.
• Strongly agreeing that "science, history, literature and other advanced educational skills [sic] and facts can be taught without a religious or philosophical foundation." (Religion has no place in the science classroom, and while it is a subject for historical and literary inquiry and comment, I don't believe it should necessarily shape the way either subject is taught.)
• Strongly agreeing that the federal government should fund school-based health clinics that include safe-sex [sic] counseling. (Excuse me for thinking that people should have factual information made available to them so they can make informed choices about personal behaviors.)
• Tending to disagree that George W. Bush is president of the United States of America. (Unquestionably he has the office, though I tend to think he never should have been allowed to be inaugurated the first time: and I absolutely fail to see how that belief is in any way relevant to my religious beliefs.)
• Tending to agree that a woman has the right to make moral decisions for herself. (I may not agree with those decisions, but I absolutely can't stop her from making them.)
• Strongly agreeing that homosexual marriage should be legalized. (As long as the government is in the marrying business, it may not, as a matter of strict constitutional construction, discriminate among its citizens in the way it conducts that business: so either stop discriminating against gay and lesbian couples, or get out of the marriage business altogether. Either would suit me.)
• Tending to disagree that the Bible, taken as a whole, is supportive of capital punishment. (Technically it is, but Jesus made it very clear that those who take up the sword will die by it, and Pope John Paul II correctly argued, in Evangelium vitae, that there are almost no circumstances in the modern world in which the death penalty is morally acceptable.)
• Tending to agree that the Constitution mandates a strict separation of church and state. (It doesn't say there can't be any interaction, but does say that it must be rigorously and facially neutral.)
• Tending to agree that in our legal system, judges have the power to "guide and shape the foundational basis of law." (I believe it's called judicial precedent, and it's been one of the historic foundations of our legal system since before we were an independent nation. I see no reason to change it now.)
• Disagreeing that the Ten Commandments "originally provided a basis for our legal and political system." (It's quite clear from our foundational documents that the Framers (a) had a vastly different conception of God from the one held by the Christofascists, and (b) clearly intended to keep religion and politics from impacting each other.)
• Strongly disagreeing that everyone who has ever lived, except Jesus, has committed sins. (I've gotta give a nod to the Virgin Mary, sorry.)
• Tending to disagree that both secular humanism and Marxism are religious worldviews. (We hold these truths to be self-evident...)
• Strongly agreeing that there is more than one way to God. (Sorry, guys, gotta go with the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this one.)
• Tending to disagree that "family, church and state are institutions ordained by God."
• Strongly disagreeing that if scientific research contradicts the Bible, the error is with the scientists. (Duh.)
• Tending to agree that God used evolution to create the world as we know it today. (Ditto.)

(No, I'm not about to link to that hideous site, but if you're interested in taking the test, you can find a link to it here: and I would strongly recommend registering under a false name and giving an incorrect or a disposable e-mail address)