I was greatly affected by last week's column on finding our common ground, written by Paul Clark, aka motomynd. In a reply to his comment under that column that he was struck by the earnestness of those who took our recent survey on prayer, I commented: "I need to watch my own earnestness from time to time." And, in another comment I said, "I probably owe some people an apology for being overly earnest in trashing their beliefs and practices."
I feel that those statements are so true.
I've begun writing a sestina about my own attempt to find common ground, but it's proving harder to write than sestinas usually do for me. I want to get it right.
So, for today, I'm just going to keep it simple—which I think is one thing that I need to do to move toward that common ground....
By keeping it simple, I mean not only our religion or religious outlook, but also today's column, which I'll keep simple by simply quoting the Dalai Lama:
This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness._______________
Copyright © 2013 by Morris Dean
| Please comment |
The Dalai Lama at least speaks words that most of us can find agreement with. If he and his followers would actually practice that philosophy, it would be a step toward finding the common ground and simplicity about which you write, and that many of us have long sought. Unfortunately, hypocrisy and the lust for power and riches are as much a part of religion in the East as in the West.
ReplyDeleteI had an interesting conversation yesterday afternoon with Adam, the man who was installing a new spring for our garage door opener. He had recently completed a master's degree program in international conflict resolution, and we talked a lot about that and what he wanted to do with the degree. (He has applications out for jobs, and he's thinking about taking an exam for the Foreign Service.)
DeleteAnyway, he summed things up with a parting comment about what he called classical realism: "Man is inherently self-serving. Once he gets power, he'll go to any lengths to preserve and extend it."
In other words, "lust for power and riches" is not simply "a part of religion," but is more fundamental than that. The inherent self-servingness of individuals corrupts everything—government, business, sports, academics, science—not just religion. Let's be thankful for the exceptional men and women who are able to serve all and not just themselves.
If someone is self-serving in any of the examples you mention, that comes as no surprise and everyone knows it is part of the deal when they do business with them. People professing to be serving others while using religion, fraudulent charities, or any other insidious pursuit that makes money under false pretenses, sinks to an entirely different level of underhandedness. If an athlete is great at a sport, or a commission sales person makes a fortune because they are good at their craft, that is one thing. If a leader of a religion espouses piety mainly to pad the bottom line, but does not follow his own words, that is another matter entirely.
DeleteNow if churches want to give up their non-profit status and finally admit they are profit mongers just like most other capitalist pursuits, then they should be able to attempt whatever scam they wish. Organized religion is no more essential to life than is bottled water, so why should the seller of one questionable product receive a tax break when the other does not? If everyone involved clearly understands a church is just another business trying to make a profit, then it it becomes a level "buyer beware" playing field and people are responsible for making their own informed choices. Unfortunately, with religion and with bottled water, those who use neither still get stuck with a big part of the bill for cleaning up the mess.
The fact that religion is subject to the same human nature as the other areas of endeavor may come as a surprise to you and others, but not to me. It has been clear for a very long time—if not widely accepted—that religion should have no special exception when it comes to fair criticism.
DeleteThanks for adding to the growing body of such criticism, which has been spearheaded of late by clear-eyed people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and (until he died) Christopher Hitchens.
The good that organized religion may or may not do, versus the damage done by that "same human nature" you mention, always has been and probably always will be debatable. But the damage done by lost tax revenues, especially in communities where a church is often the largest local employer and owner of real estate, is not. That is why I think we should waste less time on "fair criticism" of the theory of organized religion, and invest more effort in making it pay its fair share of reality.
DeleteFor a business the size of organized religion to receive a non-profit tax break is as absurd as the non-profit status granted to the $6-billion per year National Football League.
Paul, can you suggest particular efforts in which time and energy might be invested to "make religion pay its fair share of reality"—rather than continue to waste our time criticizing organized religion on these pages?
DeleteMorris, sure, I can suggest some, but I freely admit that right now they stand about as much chance of being enacted as you or I have of convincing a creationist that humans and dinosaurs weren't created on the same day, by the same god, 6,000 years ago. Or to use a non-religious example, the same chance we have of getting states to either quit running their lotteries, or legalize gambling for all.
DeleteForcing a change on the favored tax status enjoyed by organized religion, the NFL, and political organizations, to name a few, would require going back to democracy by majority rule, rather than the current system controlled by special interests. Which means community organizers would not only have to tackle the issue, but ALL the eligible voters would have to put time and effort into educating themselves and actually casting their ballots. Right now that isn't going to happen because people are happier shirking their responsibility and wasting their time surfing the web, watching mindless TV, or going to equally mindless movies.
As politicians tighten budgets and cut more essential services for the poor and elderly, and as more bridges fall into rivers and take cars and drivers with them, people will get focused on who is paying their share, and who isn't. That day is probably still a decade or two away, but it is swooping ever closer. Winston Churchill described Americans as ultimately doing the right thing, after they exhaust all other possible options, and when enough people see fair taxation as the right thing, and unfair tax breaks as the wrong thing, change will come. Until then, most Americans will go on investing more time and money in their cable and satellite TV entertainment than in their real-world awareness, and they will continue to be surprised when problems arise. Potholes in worn out streets is one thing, bridges collapsing into rivers is another. When the stakes rise high enough, Churchill's opinion will again be proven correct.
Hmm, Paul, are you saying that the "particular efforts" I asked about would be about as much a waste of our time as criticizing organized religion on these pages?
DeleteIt would appear that our only recourse might be to reconsider what we mean by "waste of time." I mean, if we are ENJOYING ourselves criticizing religion here, then maybe we shouldn't beat on ourselves for continuing to do it?...Unless we could enjoy ourselves equally or more doing something else, I suppose.
Hmmm....perhaps "waste" was not the best word to describe a process that requires pushing one's brain to think objectively, and hopefully inspiring others to do the same. By "waste" I meant it is not time well spent if we expect any immediate action. Or action in our lifetime, very possibly.
DeleteAs for ENJOYING ourselves, I enjoy the thought that our efforts may someday result in action, but I would be enjoying myself much more if I believed that action would come sooner rather than later. Until then it is not unlike considering how much William Wallace, of "Braveheart" fame, and the lesser known but more accomplished Robert the Bruce, enjoyed the 30 years it took to secure Scottish independence from the Brits. Since the elder leader of that revolution wound up drawn and quartered, and you are the elder leader of this attempt at a revolution, I will hope for your sake that our efforts do not lead to military confrontation with the powers that be.
Paul, I am confident that the current level of our activity can't concern those powers appreciably, so we're probably quite safe from the modern equivalent of drawing and quartering. (What is the modern equivalent, do you think?)
DeleteI take it that you surmise that William Wallace and Robert the Bruce "enjoyed the 30 years it took to secure Scottish independence from the Brits"—surmised based on the assumption, which I share, that passionate endeavor in something one cares deeply about can't help but be enjoyable at a profound spiritual level. Is that sort of where you're coming from?
Morris, not sure I even want to ponder the modern equivalent of drawing and quartering, and can't say much for the original version either. Being of Scottish/Norman/Viking ancestry, I'm sure there is plenty of brutality in my lineage, but even hundreds of years later I still find it easy to despise the level to which the English took it. Considering what they did to Wallace and many other Scots in the late 1200s, their tactics in India, and the atrocities they committed during the Mau Mau uprising and the Kenyans' fight for freedom in the 1950s, one has to wonder if the English have some sort of genetic predisposition to wanton, creative violence. A 650-year record is difficult to ignore.
DeleteConsidering Wallace ended up in five pieces, and Robert the Bruce had several family members killed, I doubt they enjoyed those aspects of their fight for freedom. But yes, I surmise that overall they were so passionate about striving for the goal of freedom, that they enjoyed the quest. As to whether that or any other quest rises to a "profound spiritual level" is I guess in the mind of the person involved. Sometimes it is more than enough just to experience great satisfaction in challenging the odds to do what is right.
Paul, I suspected I might be going out on a limb to introduce "spirit," for what does it MEAN? And is "spirituality" a common human dimension whether or not you believe in a "soul" that survives physical death? That is, is spirituality in the province of Common Ground? This topic should probably be explored in this column.
DeleteKindness does really sum it up. If everyone could just be kind ...
ReplyDeleteThe "Ask Wednesday" interviewee I've been working with (and hoping to publish his interview on July 3, but I'm not going to have it done) made a striking remark during the recording of our conversation: "The reason I'm kind to everybody is that you can see somebody in public, they smile at you, but they might be going home to take their life...."
Delete