It Is Not My Privilege

By the unfortunate accident of birth and genetics, I am ensconced atop the human social pyramid. As a white male, I am leavened with privilege to a degree I find uncomfortable and embarrassing. It puts me at odds with the world I want to see surrounding me, a world where the color of your skin is just that and nothing more, where the god or gods you worship, or those you don't, do not mark you as different, where your gender, from birth or through change, does not categorize you, where age is worshiped, and not resisted.

In short, I want a world where you are defined by who you are and not what you are.

It's hard to see the inequities of the world from my perch and realize that I cannot simply right them. Harder still, to know that I can never truly understand the unremitting stream of persecution, bigotry, and hatred so many are subject to day after day. Worse even than that, the knowledge that I cannot offer true solace to those who suffer, so detached am I from their plight.

I may not understand their pain, but I do know pain and suffering in my own degree, and I do know that a human life is reduced and degraded by the suffering of pain. If the pains of my life are relatively mild by comparison to those who suffer for their race or religion or sexual orientation or gender, I know intrinsically that if I cannot endure so easily the slights of my life, how can these people be so forced to endure what must be excruciating suffering? To know that there are people around them, who look at them with fear, loathing, and violence in their hearts... to fear that one day, they will be the victim of hideous and horrible crime, simply because of who they are. Who should have to carry that burden in this day-and-age?

To my fellow white brethren, I say this: you may feel no direct connections to the events that have transpired over human history to force these people into their daily bondage, but you and I bear the guilt nonetheless. Somewhere in our deeper past, our line intersects the lines of those who perpetrated the crimes that may not bear our name, but definitely bear the stain of our history as white people. Your hand may not have held the lash. Your hand may not have turned the knob on the gas chamber. Your hand may not have set the fire at the stake. But you and I descend from those hands that did those deeds in the name of sanctity and piety and superiority of race and religion and gender. Go back far enough, and we are connected to them, as surely as the furthest leaf from the ground on a thousand-year-old  redwood tree is connected to the deepest root beneath the earth.

If you cannot empathize, cannot sympathize, cannot see the plight of those groups who have spent the better part of thousands of generations under the heel of their tormentors, then it is time to remove the blinders privilege has placed over your eyes. For while that oppression may not be as overt as it was in darker times, it is still extant, especially where we dismiss or downplay the anger and frustration of those who have been oppressed. We cannot expect them to simply "play by the rules" when we continue to keep them at arms length, even though there is no reason to. To react in horror when they dare to contradict us or denigrate us is the acme of our privilege; we have no business denying their pain and anger simply because it offends us. If anything, that should be the signal that we need to stop dictating conditions and start listening to their stories.

A world based on true equality starts, not simply with raising up those who have been relegated for so long to the gutters, but in stepping down ourselves from the pedestals we have lived on for so long. True equality starts when we eschew the security our white race and our male gender hand us, and allow ourselves to be cast into the milieu that we held ourselves above for so long. It needs to start now, because to maintain the convenient fiction that it has always been thus, so it shall always be so, is the last conceit of the privileged before the gates are flung open, the walls are knocked down, and all is wreathed in flames. Let us not allow human society to burn, such that all that remains are charred ashes to be buried under the sediments of time.

My Daughters, My Wives, My Mothers, My Sisters, My Lovers, My Friends

I grew up in a house of women; my grandmother, my mother, my sister, and I lived together for over a decade, and whether that sensitized me to the plight of women, I do not know nor cannot say with any surety. I remember tears, hugs, fights, laundry, long hours, and plenty of time in the solitude of my room, absorbing the happenings of the world, trying to he the "man" of the house. I saw the pain, I knew the travails, unspoken though they were most of the time, and it could not help make an impact on me.

Now I sit here, decades later, steeped in the tenets of humanity and feminism, father to a daughter, husband to a wife, brother-in-law to a sister-in-law, watching as self-righteous, self-satisfied, self-proclaimed "arbiters of morality" tear at the fabric of our society by demeaning, degrading, and deploring women and women's rights. My mortal soul writhes in agony within, knowing that these men -- and they are men across the board -- would suffer women horrors that womankind has not had to know in decades, all in a bid to reassert their "rightful" place as dominators of the social contract.

Nowhere is this most cowardly, most reprehensible, most misogynistic bent seen than in Virginia, where Governor Bob McDonnell, a man of undoubtedly low and amoral character, is ready to sign a bill that would give State sanction to the forcible penetration of a woman's vagina by a doctor for an unnecessary ultrasound prior to an abortion. Yes, that is correct: forcible penetration. As if that were not enough, he is also aligning behind a "personhood" amendment, declaring fertilized eggs people. But back to the first indignity -- in order to pander to Christian anti-choice fanatics and make himself a choice candidate to become a Vice Presidential candidate, this man is will to place his name on a bill that will require the forcible penetration of women.

The amount of bile that rises in my throat, the disgust that wracks my innards, the Vesuvius-like rage that boils behind my eyes for this man and all those who supported this bill, cannot be truly placed in words. It tempts my vow of anti-violence to a degree that nothing has in some time. The people behind this violation of human decency and the civil rights of women must be excoriated in their ignorance and religious fervor, for no person of right mind would consider this a reasonable thing to do. This is akin to the Salem Witch trials, where innocent women were killed for the merest suspicion of witchcraft. It is as if the State government of Virginia is wont to re-write, annotate, and expand on The Malleus Maleficarum, "The Hammer of Witches," as if the modern woman's desire to have control of her own body bears the taint of dark magics. Virginia is busy plunging itself into the 15th Century.

I am torn up inside, knowing that people such as these exist, people who would hide behind religious zeal and the march of "morality," people who would proclaim themselves "decent" and "Christian" people, even as they seek to torture and defile those who do not willingly follow their command. It stinks of the thumbscrews, of the stake, of the manacled form wreathed in flames for the "mercy" of her soul. This is the 21st Century, and ideas such as these have no place in a society predicated on freedom and individual liberty.

I ask these people these simple questions: Could you do this to your mother? Could you do this to your sister? Could you do this to your wife? Could you do this to your lover? Could you look a woman for whom you have the greatest love and admiration, and take a cold steel tube, and jam it up inside her, with a clear conscience? Could you see her lying there, in suffering and torment, and proceed to torment her further? Is it far easier to detach yourself from the heinous nature of the crime against a woman's body, to know it will not be you who has to do it? Would you so easily bestow on others the garish and lurid mantel of purveyor of pain, forcing them to deal with the consequences to their soul, while you sit in the comforting walls of your home, oblivious?

These women, these women I do not know, have not met, may never know, are my wives. They are my daughters. They are my mothers. They are my sisters. They are my lovers. I would not stand idly by and watch them suffer under such ignominious conditions for your "morality." I will not allow my daughter to be raised in a world that values her only as a brood mare, that sees her body as a plaything of the State. I will not allow you to strip these women of their dignity, where there is the least little thing I can do about it. I will write words, shout them from rooftops, I will organize, I will agitate, and I will not stop until I see every one of you who put your festering and fetid stamp on this, brought down and boiled in a stew of your own iniquity. This is not America. This is not justice. This is not liberty. This is the heavy hand of the State, and this is what was fought against to raise up a nation conceived in liberty and justice for all. These women will have their justice and their liberty, and you will not be able to stop it.

Believe It Or Not

It becomes clear that a great schism wracks human society with spasms of outlandish idiocy, foments titanic battles between groups of otherwise normal people, and leaves the foul stench of hypocrisy lingering on the breeze, like the wisps of Winter wood smoke. On one side, the fervent religious believers, who take their scripture to heart, using the very words to conjure up visions of how secular society will doom humanity to an ignominious fate. On the other, the rationalists, believers in unbelief, clad in the armor of science and pointedly against anything that even hints of human invention, determined to expose the machinations of religious zealotry in committing us all to a hideous fate.

I tire of them both. As usual, the answer to it all lies in between.

Losing Your Religion

Her name is Jessica Ahlquist, she is 16-year-old, lives and goes to school in Cranston, Rhode Island, and is one of the braver people you will meet. Why? Because she dared to stand up and demand that the First Amendment be respected in her school.

The problem: a banner, hanging in Cranston High School West since 1963, which starts with the words  “Our Heavenly Father” and concludes with the word, “Amen,” and is headed with the phrase “School Prayer.”

Ms. Ahlquist took exception to such a blatant Christian display in her school. She sued the school. And on January 11th, 2012, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Ronald R. Lagueux ruled in her favor, in a detailed ruling which outlined the genesis and the course of the banner and the subsequent public squabble over it. In the end, Justice Lagueux made it clear that the whole history of events pointed to a clear and distinct attempt to use Christian religion in a public school in a manner inconsistent with the First Amendment prohibition against government establish or endorsing a religion.

Perhaps it goes without saying, those of Christian faith have been less than charitable in their disagreement.

God Go With You

I saw a T-shirt the other night, which lead me to deeper thought:

Dear God,

How can you allow all the violence currently in our schools?

Signed,

A Concerned Citizen

---

Dear Concerned Citizen,

I am not allowed into you schools.

Signed,

God

I admit to paraphrasing, but my reproduction is fairly accurate. The gist of the shirt was simple: violence inherent in today's schools is a direct result of not allowing prayer within them. A most fallacious premise if there ever was one.

The Islamic Witch Trials

His name is Representative Peter King of New York, and while “representative” might be his title, it is certainly not a functional attribute of his, for he does not represent anything a law-abiding, Constitution-loving American would espouse. What he does represent is that underbelly of America that has become so prominent right now: the retooled and reinvigorated “My America, Love It or Leave It” crowd. He has taken the phobia of many toward Islam since September 11th, and turned it to his political advantage, preparing to hold hearing on the “radicalization” of Muslims in America. That anyone would pander to a constituency by invoking the horror of that day nearly ten years ago is reprehensible enough, but Representative King brings a special spin to this tale, given his support for the Irish Republican Army during its heyday decades ago. In that, at least it can be said that he personally knows some terrorists.

Bad Apples

It is far easier to condemn a group for the faults of a few, than to take a long, cold, hard look at the larger picture. Stereotypes are often born of those who make themselves prominent from a group, even though they are not representative of the whole. This leads to the whole body of individuals being dragged down into the mire of iniquity, where they do not belong. It is better to single out those bad apples for the treatment they deserve, rather than extend our disgust and displeasure to everyone.

Islamic radicals have done an excellent job poisoning American opinion against Muslims. Far from pointing out America's "war on Muslims," they have been able to create it from whole cloth, by showing the rest of the world how we react to their religion, with threats of burning the Qur'an, or marches opposing the building of mosques (or community centers), or even abandoning one of the fundamental precepts of our founding, the freedom to worship, by claiming Islam is "not a real religion."

Of course, what can be said for Islam can be said for Christianity. The tiny church group that created the furor over the potential burning of the Islamic holy book is a tiny fraction of all Christianity. It is certainly -- we would hope -- not a representative cross-section of the many and varied Christian sects, or even the Roman Catholic religion.

And of the Roman Catholic religion, we could say the same, that though the idea of priests preying on innocent children is repugnant and reprehensible, those priests certainly do not represent a sizable fraction of all the priesthood. The Roman Catholic Church, for its many faults, still tries to do good in the world, though its messages has become less secular and more deterministic of late. The church's refusal to allow women into the higher echelons of the faith has certainly led to these issues being more pervasive than they should be.

When it comes to women, we must also learn to not look at the likes of Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann as the new wave of women in politics. They are but a small slice of the much larger pie of women making strides in the political arena. While they may seem to be weakening women's positions in the world, I think they are in fact creating dialog that was for too long missing in America. It almost seems as if the feminist movement has lost steam, with younger women coming to the conclusion that with so many freedoms, there was not much left to fight for, even though equality on paper does not translate into equality in society.

When we speak of equality in society, we must touch on that portion of Americans who are virulently homophobic, working diligently to ensure that gay people do not end up being regarded as equal to themselves, borrowing from the era of Jon Crow segregation in all but the signs on water fountains. The majority of those who may not appreciate homosexuality as a fact of life are probably not of the type to look at them as sub-human or less than normal; they merely are scared that somehow giving gays the same rights as everyone else will dilute their way of life, when nothing could be further from the truth, given how watered down the "sacrament" of marriage is in our modern age.

The list goes on. In every category, in every group or organization or society, there are those who stretch the limits, who go beyond what is normal, what is fair, and what is decent, to proselytize and pound their fists, enraged by the rest of us who choose not to buy into their paranoia, fear, and ignorance. We can never truly be rid of them, for they are a natural product of our development. Just as there are those who will find it possible to transcend the moment, to become much more than simply a product of their gender, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation, there will be those who retain a death grip on the walls they have created, and the boxes they have labeled, trying to create order in their rapidly deteriorating universe. They will wail and rail against change, commit themselves to do battle with it at every turn, to keep their "precious" world alive, no matter the cost to others. Because it is never truly for the greater good that they do this; it is merely to fill the empty void that would otherwise be their life, to give them some purpose and meaning, even as they see humanity passing them by.

The High Cost Of 'Free' Speech

As is often noted, the right to free speech comes at a terrible cost -- to enable us to have our right to say what we will, in a reasonable and measured fashion, we must tolerate those who will have their right to say what they will, even in the most lurid and unseemly fashion. So it is, that we endure the mounting dissension and rising tide of intolerance toward the Islamic religion as we approach the anniversary of September 11th.

This wave of intolerance is not, however, some new strain developed over the issue of Al Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers, but a mutation of a very old strain, that humanity carries with it everywhere it goes. In America, it can be traced back to a fear of a Catholic President taking orders from the Pope instead of the people. It can be traced further still, to immigrant groups coming to our shores, who would steal jobs from "real" Americans. Back even further, we see it in the fear of the slave being freed, sowing the destruction of the American way of life. We can trace it all the way to the mistrust of the native "savages," original inhabitants of North America, and their weird ways, contrary to the laws of God. And those seeds were brought by the original colonists, fleeing societies that did not want them around, for fear of contamination of their countries. Go back as far as you like in human history, and you can see the seeds planted and the crop of intolerance harvested in full measure in each succeeding generation.

For all the advance of humankind from primitive existence to technological domination of the globe, we continue to carry the seeds and sow them at every turn. It as if we feel we cannot be who we are without them. It is as if the dogma and destruction of the past is part of our DNA, not, as it truly is, a product of fevered imagination, over-hyped fear, and rampant bigotry. To some, there is no point in hoping for a change, because it has always been so. For others, they thrive only in the presence of this bitter crop, and would fight to keep it, to justify their view of the world.

Those who would picket the burials of the honored dead, claiming that we are paying the price for our wickedness, are harvesters of the crop. Those who would burn the Quran to send an incoherent message, are harvesters of the crop. Those who would deny their fellow Americans the right to have affordable health care, are harvesters of the crop. Those who would claim that the free practice of religion is valid only for their 'Christian' religion, are harvesters of the crop. Those who would deny a woman the right to determine what she will do with her body, are harvesters of the crop. Those who would deny same-sex couples the right to enjoy the fruits of lasting love and marriage, are harvesters of the crop.

America has spent decades now, planting a bumper crop of anti-intellectualism, ignorance, bigotry, and hatred. This goes far beyond the crops previously sown and reaped, for in an age when information is king and knowledge is everywhere, the stubborn denial of truth for the blinding light of belief shows no more sophisticated than our brethren two thousand years ago. For all our advances in technology, there have been few advances in community. Even the founding of the American nation did not bring about the salient changes in human behavior that could reasonably be said to have altered us and made us a singular nation. For while our Founding Fathers did their best to construct a foundation upon which to lay a new society, which allowed the individual to be as they are while being part of a larger community, the subsequent building upon that foundation has been haphazard, slapdash, and at time, has required things to be torn down and rebuilt.

Given the freedom to speak, that does not mean what you have to say automatically has value, especially where what you say is grounded in ignorance, and fear, and hatred. What Americans must do, now, is to speak up. The dialog is being monopolized by the narrow-minded and short-sighted; the great bulk of America is not so myopic or xenophobic. Decent people, strong-hearted people, we must rise up to challenge those who would pervert freedom and democracy to further their own self-serving ends, who would shape American traditions and values to prevent all Americans from sharing in the liberty they are guaranteed. Let our voices ring out, and let the true heart of America proclaim that we shall not tolerate intolerance and will not defend ignorance. It is time for the better angels of our nature to take the day.

Mosque-erade Bawl

To say we would not be here without Islam is a bit of an understatement. While Europe suffered through the Dark Ages, Islamic scholars were continuing the work of ancient Greek, Indian, and Egyptian scientists and philosophers, working on elements of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geometry, and mathematics. They were responsible for bringing the concept of 'zero' as a number into the numeric systems of the time, from India. The English language is filled reminders of this time: alchemy, algebra, cipher, mecca, and the like. The knowledge harbored and expounded upon made its way into Europe, and thus planted the seeds of enlightenment that led to the Renaissance.

Islam is a distinct offshoot of Christianity, wherein the prophet Muhammad was considered to have taken God's word from the archangel Gabriel. It makes reference to Abraham, Moses, even Jesus, sharing lineage with both the Talmud and the Bible. It, too, demands a strong obedience to God, and lays down the ways to commune better with him. Everything a Muslim does is to be for Allah, nothing less. Their ways may be different than the path taken in Judeo-Christian theology, but all three religions strive for the same thing: to do good works on Earth to please God.

That there are those in the Islamic faith who would pick and choose from the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, and use it toward their own ends, is no different than those who do so in any religion. There are those who pervert the Torah or the Bible, all in the name of "proving" their faith is the "true" faith, their belief the one-and-only to be followed. Sometimes it comes to nothing harmful; many times -- as in the case Jim Jones' Guyana Cult or the Branch Davidians or al Qaeda -- the fervency of belief leads to death and destruction, the taking of lives, and incomprehensible horror.

That Muslims should be tarred with a brush dipped in the blood spilled by Osama bin Laden is a travesty. His zealotry and self-aggrandizement are affronts to the religion he supposedly holds dear, and that he would make war on innocents, condemns him for the coward he is. He will not reap the golden dreams of his beliefs, instead tasting the bitter fruit of condemnation, when his God will show him the error of his ways. We, however, cannot concern ourselves with this, for his actions have brought forth another travesty, against the United States, and not just in the senseless loss of life on 9/11, but how eagerly Americans have been willing to sell out their principles due to fear and obfuscation and outright lies.

The Founding Fathers made it clear, through the auspices of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, that they believed religious freedom and tolerance were paramount for a nation to be successful. Enjoining the Federal government against establishing any religion as the state religion assured all Americans that their beliefs would be protected, if not always respected. It was important for the country to have people of faith, they thought, because they were more likely to act morally, and protectively, toward their fellow countrymen. This would be needed, if the fledgling country were to survive past its inception, as revolution and constitution did not guarantee that another nation would not seek to enslave the young country.

So it has been for over two hundred years, that individuals have had the right to worship as they chose, and establish houses of worship. There has always been a sense that rather than dividing us along the lines of belief, this would make us strong through our diversity. Now, that strength is being threatened, by fear-mongers, ideologues, and sycophants, who seek to confuse, alarm, and terrify the citizenry with Muslim cabals and the threat of terrorist training centers in their midst. They have latched onto a project a few blocks from Ground Zero, wherein a 13-story Muslim cultural center will be built, as their proof that Muslims are going to begin their takeover of our nation, tearing down the Constitution, and implementing their law, subjugating us all.

It would be laughable, if their cries were not in earnest. Some of the biggest names in politics have spoken out against it: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, etc. Families of 9/11 victims have called it a "slap in the face." The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has been supportive, as has President Obama, citing the principle of religious freedom in the Constitution. The whole issue has taken on a dynamic that is akin to a tornado of conflicting emotions and religious prejudice. Battle lines are being drawn. Chaos is sweeping over downtown Manhattan.

As someone who was in New York City on September 11th, I have to say that I have a certain amount of sympathy for those who view the area as hallowed ground. Every visit there evokes strong emotions in me, and I am often brought to tears, recalling the events of the day which I watched from a distance, though was close enough to see with my own eyes. It speaks to me of innocence, misery, suffering, bravery, and hope. I am more appalled by the thought of a new tower being built there, instead of a park with two black marble walls outlining the spaces where the Towers stood, inscribed with the names of the fallen. Commerce has its way; hallowed ground is about to become an office building. Why that is not more of an affront to the families, I cannot say, but it is definitely an affront to me, almost like putting a riverboat casino on the site of the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor.

I do not wish to insult those who suffered the greatest losses that day, the loss of a loved one, but to claim this cultural center somehow denigrates the memory of 9/11 is rank hypocrisy. A mosque already exists near the site, which was operating before the Twin Towers were even open; no one has complained about it. This is only a cultural center, a couple of blocks from Ground Zero, that will not even been seen from it, blocked as it will be by two city blocks full of taller buildings. It may, in fact, revitalize a dying part of town, as the area around there still suffers the scars, with abandoned buildings and empty shop fronts, a job that was supposed to be done by business interests and/or the government.

This cultural center is only an issue because powerful forces, aligned against Islam since that day (and even before), have determined to make it their mission to bring the religion down in America, violating the principles of freedom we hold dear. In raising this fuss over an innocuous and potentially useful building, they play right into the hands of the extremists they so want to keep out, who can use this news as a recruiting tool in their war against America. Rather than dealing terrorism a blow, they are instead handing them ammunition, as Muslims who see this will gladly donate to, or join, the cause. We have shouted for years about our democratic principles and their superiority, and now we show how hollow those words are, for we are ready to toss them aside, to the delight of our foes, who can then point to our hypocrisy.

If anything, we need this cultural center. We need it to create greater understanding of Islam and what it stands for. We need it to be a place of peace, in a community that is still reeling from a vicious and unprovoked attacked. We need it to show that we, as Americans, will not be cowed by our adversaries into abandoning that which makes us fundamentally Americans. We need it, to build a bridge toward greater harmony. We need it, to prove once and for all, that we are worthy of the sacrifice made by so many to forge this nation. We need this cultural center, because until we can see past our hate, until we can let go of our desire for revenge, until we can stand up and prove that we are better than our enemies, who are so completely intolerant of those things that do not conform to their zealotry, we stand to be dragged down into an infernal abyss. America must show our enemies, as we have so many times in the past, that they are wrong about us, and that their error in judgment will cost them everything, in the end.

The Hypocritic Oaf

The last thing you need to hear, when your country has been shaken by an earthquake, flattening buildings, destroying infrastructure, and killing tens of thousands, is that it is somehow your fault. Or more precisely, the fault of your ancestors. Yet that is precisely what a "renowned" Christian pastor would have you believe, based on a apocryphal story and his own brand of bigotry.

According to Pat Robertson, host of The 700 Club, the people of Haiti made a "deal with the Devil" in order to throw off the shackles of oppression of their French masters. Apparently, only by employing the forces of darkness, were Haitians able to overthrow the French and declare independence from "Napoleon the Third." Or someone like that; Rev. Robertson was more than a bit hazy on the history.

Actually, the freeing of Haiti from oppression was due, in part, to the French Revolution, which inspired the Haitians to clamor for freedom from slavery and French rule. in 1793, when France and Great Britain went to war, the British invaded and the French commissioners there, to secure the help of the locals, abolished slavery in the territory. It was the beginning of independence for Haiti, and a now distant bright memory against the backdrop of death and devastation.

That a "Christian" minister would not only base his premise on apocryphal and false information is nothing new; the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trails, the death of Jean d'Arc... throughout history, it has always been easier to look on those considered "different," and fear them for their difference. This is, at the root, bigotry and discrimination, neither concept being anything new. Haiti is an 80% Catholic nation, and perhaps because they hew so closely to the mother church, upon which many a Christian sect looks unfavorably, it is easy to take up the "they got what's coming to them" screed.

Of course, Reverend Robertson is merely taking advantage of the First Amendment, which protects his hateful and hypocritical speech, as well as providing him the ability to worship whatever way he chooses. It could easily be said that had he made his remarks anywhere else, there might have been a greater swell of indignation. Perhaps it is because he has made such remarks in the past; perhaps the American people are simply used to people doing this and have become a bit blasé.

I suspect that Reverend Robertson has not read his Bible lately, or he might have come across this, from Luke 13:1:

"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

And it will require repentance for Pat Robertson to see the gates of Heaven, for to claim to worship Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, on the one hand while ignoring his teachings on the other, is to incur a penalty most grave. While Jesus wanted people to follow his way, he knew it could not simply be imposed. First, the weakest amongst us had to be brought up from the gutter. The most wicked amongst us must be reformed. The richest amongst us must help the poorest; the wounds of the sick and the dying must be tended. Jesus knew that for anyone to be able to believe in God, his father, they must first know that his followers were earnest, nonjudgmental, and willing to extend them kindness and compassion. There must be a uniting of humanity.

So let preachers and pundits and purveyors of anger and hatred peddle their wares, for they alone are responsible for the stain it places upon their soul. We, who believe in higher purpose, greater good, and human duty, do not need their ilk, for we shall rise up and reach down, to take the hands of the hungry, the tired, the sick, the destitute, and the devastated, and raise them up, too. In the end, we will represent humanity, long after the words of the wicked have mixed with the dust on the ground.

My God Can Beat Up Your God

Faith and religious belief are not as simple as a name, a divinity, or a book. The range and diversity of faith systems -- including denial of faith -- that are extant on this globe is staggering. Even within what are considered "main" religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, et. al.), there is a breadth of belief that encompasses a multitude of variations on the main religion's themes.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of this, and of the strife created where the State imposed a religion upon its people. Therefore, the First Amendment to the Constitution enjoins the U.S. government from establishing a national religion. In doing so, it limited the ability of the government to proselytize for or cater to any one religious belief system, and simultaneously separated religion from government, so that no one religious faith could hold sway over the entire country, save by unanimous acclamation, a situation unlikely to happen given the diversity of the citizenry.

So, each to his or her own. Whatever faith fits your circumstance best is yours; your right to it is assured. That said, this will not stop others from attempting to use their faith as an exemplar of the "right" religion, for you and for everyone else. This leads to some very thin ice.

Faith is individual. Even in relatively homogeneous religions, how you choose to interpret them, how you choose to worship, how you exercise your faith, is entirely up to you. Some will follow the tenets of their religion to the letter; others will pick and choose what suits them. Some will follow religious leaders blindly; others will question what is said in light of what they know. Your faith may fall under the umbrella of a particular religion, but how you choose to worship (or not) is entirely your decision.

This sets up friction, between those who interpret religious teachings more rigorously, and those who do not. In every religion, this leads to some form of fundamentalism, which expresses itself in various fashions, depending on the teachings of that religion. This friction is often expressed in actions, as members of orthodoxy seek to spread their faith outward and impose it on others, sure of its "rightness." Such efforts put a strain on our secular life, imposing conflict and sometimes danger.

This conflict is nothing new, and the secular world and the religious world have done this dance for eons, it seems. That the United States should be founded on the ideal that religious freedom is a right, and religious tolerance is sacrosanct, has proven to be both a bold move and a ramping up of the dance. It is not often easy for some to understand that no matter how fervent their belief or faith, not everyone is willing to share it, and no one is under any obligation to give it consideration. What works for one group, may not work for another.

The constant push-and-pull of religious faith versus secular society could weaken us, not unlike what happens when a spoon is bent repeatedly until it breaks. We need not let this happen, however, for the answer lies within each of us: the belief in liberty. We sometimes take for granted that we can even have such conflict, given the history of humankind is replete with examples of the imposition of religious dogma, or the brutal ransacking and destruction of some faiths by secular oppressors. If we cherish the hard-won liberty that is now ours, then we must see that it is enough that we believe in a thing, and if others believe it, so be it. This is true in so many other arenas, and while this may be difficult to employ in regards to religion, we would do well to consider the consequences if we do not. Liberty has fallen under less.

Un-holy War

Some facts:

- Pope Benedict is not President of the United States

- The First Amendment has not been repealed

- America, while predominantly Christian, is not 100% Christian (roughly 84%)

Now, while this country was founded primarily by members of Christian sects, who emigrated to America to escape persecution or start new lives, and also given that many of the Founding Fathers were members of Christian faiths, men who were strong believers in God, but also in the freedom to worship the god (or gods) you saw fit, it is interesting to note that one enjoinder that is pivotal to the formation of this nation as a free nation, is the one regarding the government's ability to establish a national religion. So important was this idea, that the government should not be able to establish, recognize, or support a single religion, that it was made a part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The founders were well aware that the contentious differences between religions as a whole, and divisions of those religions in particular, would be anathema. For representative government to work, and for all sides to receive fair and equal representation, various aspects of a person's life would have to be kept separate from governance. The general welfare of all Americans was more important than the petty squabbles brought about by differing belief systems. There would be enough squabbling created by the simple act of trying to get so many different States to agree on anything.

We must also remember that there were many among the founders who were Freemasons, and one of their main precepts was that it did not matter which god you believed in; as long as you believed in "god," then it was possible to have discussions about other things without needing to invoke any particular religion's deity to make a point. Mind you, this way of thinking still denies the atheists their due, but at the time, it was more enlightened thinking than "worship my god or else!"

Personal belief had to be separated from governance, if the expounded principles found in the Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.") were to be realized. The citizens of the United States had to be taken as individuals, each in his or her own way, and treated equally, irrespective of religion -- though race, gender, and the like were sadly lacking in equal treatment.

Flash forward more than 200 years, and we find the Roman Catholic Church, or at least some high priests of it in the United States, attempting to dictate social policies affecting all Americans, because they conflict with Catholic values. They have gone so far, as to use Holy Communion as a political tool, making it clear that any Catholic public servant who takes positions contrary to the Catholic Church should not receive Communion.

Now, my days of calling myself a Catholic are long over, mainly due to such improper manifestations of power as these. While there is nothing wrong with the Catholic belief system, per se, there is a great deal wrong with those who consider themselves "keepers of the faith." It is quite clear that the church is becoming quite reactionary, to the point of overstepping its bounds in America by attempting to meddle in the affairs of the nation. This bombast and hypocrisy has made its way throughout Christianity, to the point of poisoning my view of organized religion. I am a great believer in spirituality and its role in making people better, by encouraging us to look towards the needs of our fellow humans and giving them the same care and concern we would expect them to give us.

What I am not a great believer in, is the idea that there is one "true" religion, whose precepts are manifestly better than any others, and whose system is to be placed ahead of all other consideration. I have nothing against those who worship in any particular belief system, as long as they understand that they are free to live by those codes if they choose, but they cannot impose those same codes on me. On Earth, humanity and fellowship must reign, and religious belief must be a function of the individual; it is against the founding ideals and laws of this nation, that any one religion may hold sway over public policy, for the laws of humanity must apply equally and without rancor, if there is to be true freedom and justice.

It is safe to say that any public official has a duty to all citizens first, above and beyond personal considerations. Anyone who cannot see this is not fit for public service. The constituency any public representative is representing, stands to be a complex mixture of race, culture, gender, and belief. To claim that personal preference trumps the will of the citizenry, is to claim that an individual's personal belief is somehow "superior" to the judgment of those he or she represents. This is hubris of the highest order, for no matter what an individuals capabilities or beliefs, when elected to an office by the citizenry, it is the task of the elected to not only carry out what is in their best interests, but what is in everyone's best interests. This will no doubt cause consternation among the citizens, as it will be impossible to please everyone, but in the end, to maintain the principles of freedom and democracy, it will be necessary to make hard decisions which go against popular sentiment, because they stand to give everyone greater latitude and liberty.

So, it must be said, strongly and forcefully, that the ministrations of Catholic bishops are better spent on their flocks, than in the political arena. While it is admirable that they would look to "protect" people, the basis for their efforts is a flawed understanding of what individual liberty and freedom are. Any American is free to worship as they choose, and accept or reject the precepts of any religion or belief system as they see fit. In the end, the only way to protect such freedom is in the way outlined by the founders, in the strictest terms, by compelling the government to respect the rights of individuals to their beliefs, and conversely, for the government to protect Americans from the undue imposition of any other group's beliefs. Only by maintaining such balance, and by keeping politics and religion separate, can we progress toward a more harmonious future.

Leap Of Faith

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of one of the most remarkable books to ever come out in the many fields of science: On the Origin of Species. It is interesting to note that the book, that outlined the process of natural selection which is the driving force behind evolution, was not as feared in the mid-19th Century as it is today. In fact, Charles Darwin sent a copy of the book to Reverend Charles Kingsley, a prominent member of the Church of England, who, upon reviewing the work, wrote back to Darwin: "It's just as noble a conception of God to think that he created animals and plants that then evolved, that were capable of self-development, as it is to think that God has to constantly create new forms and fill in the gaps that he's left in his own creation."

The fact is, that if you look down the corridors of history, and specifically those of science, you see that faith was often the starting point for explorations of the workings of the universe. In every faith, everywhere, we see thinkers, looking around at the world, and up to the heavens, wondering how it was all put together, why it all works the way it does. The natural curiosity of philosophers, scientists, and even clergy, throughout the centuries, led to the expansion of human knowledge and the growth of human society. Concepts first outlined in one place and time worked their way forward to inspire others. So it was that the Egyptians inspired the Greeks, who inspired the Romans, and so on, taking concepts of the universe and its workings and passing them down the line to be refined.

One has to realize that this process, of identifying nature and attempting to explain its workings in more rational terms, is not some new phenomenon of the later centuries of Mankind, but a continuous thread that runs through the tapestry of human society. Science, far from denigrating faith or impugning religion, sought to open up the curtains, to see how the creation of the universe was accomplished. It was not enough for some to believe in a god or gods, but that if these deities were responsible for everything, including the appearance of Mankind, then surely their fingerprints were still indelibly etched on the world. To their minds, the perfection of creation was something to not just be mindful of, but to be understood, that they might know their creator better.

Their names are writ large throughout history: Archimedes, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, and yes, even Einstein, who remarked: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." At some point, their personal beliefs drove them to think about, and discover, more about the universe. They believed that if the creation were the work of a god or gods, then it should be comprehensible and logical.

Thus it is inconceivable, given the breadth of human knowledge and the world we now live in, that at the beginning of Third Millennium of Humanity (as per the Christian doctrine), we should see religion attack science for its attempts to pervert or destroy faith. Specifically, we see Christian faiths decrying such things as the teaching of evolution in schools, because it somehow "attacks" their faith. The "intelligent design" movement is just the latest "theory" to provide a direct response to this "threat," attempting to show that there is a "scientific basis" for creationism. This goes far beyond a refutation of evolution, for traces of it can be found in the firestorm of protest over stem cell research, abortion, and the rights of homosexuals. It is all part of a toxic mix, designed to cloud judgment and pander to fear. It is not too far removed from the conditions that ultimately led to the Salem Witch Trials; faith in Christ can lead to salvation, peace, and a better regard for your fellow humans, but it can also lead to suspicion, self-righteousness, and fear-mongering.

It is a measure of the fear of some Christian groups -- and the Roman Catholic Church, from which they sprung -- that such vehement opposition is raised. The mantra heard most often is that science, and government, seek to destroy faith, through the imposition of secular ideals at the expense of that faith. Evolution offends them, contradicts what they know from The Bible, and that somehow diminishes them. Allowing a woman to decide if she will keep a child or not contravenes the lessons of their belief, that it is the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply," that to terminate a pregnancy somehow extinguishes a soul. Allowing homosexuals to marry will erode the meaning of what it is to be married, because homosexuality is an "abomination" in the eyes of the Lord and for them to marry means their faith is somehow stained, and they will not be found worthy.

What the Christian faithful do not truly understand, is that science is not interested in matters of individual faith, per se. Science is interested in teasing apart what makes the universe, and the great variety of things in it, work. It seeks to uncover the watchmaker's fingerprints, to understand the architecture and peruse the blueprints of the creation. Far from annihilating faith, science expands the avenues of it, by showing us the glories of the universe. Who can look at a picture taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and not be moved by how the glowing stars and their home galaxies stretch out into space, filling it with delicate structures, like cathedrals of light? Who cannot marvel at how the sum total of the universe is built of the tiniest number and type of particles, particles too small to see, yet leading to the profusion of things we experience? And how can you not be astounded by a feat of biological engineering, to build such a simple mechanism as evolution, to take a handful of living things, and fill a world?

Blind faith is just that: blind. To take only the words of a book as gospel, to avert your gaze from the true marvels of creation, to wallow in a comfortable stupor as the world changes around you, to never question or show curiosity, is to travel a lonely road to salvation. If you believe in God, and you believe Mankind was made in his image, then is it so far a leap to believe that the brains we were given, the curiosity we were imbued with, and the world we were placed upon are not at once his gifts, but also his puzzle and the means to solve it? Perhaps salvation does not rely on a closed system of faith, but an open system of wonder and belief in a greater world to be explored.

Crosses To Bear

The acme of ignorance is to feel that your beliefs are beyond reproach. Nowhere is that represented more fully than in organized religion.

Now, before I am crucified and told what a bad human I am for spouting my blasphemies, let me say that I have nothing against religion and religious conviction, save where such conviction is twisted toward purposes that are against the greater good of humanity. There is a great deal to be said for having faith in something, and I have struggled for many years with my own Catholicism, accepting and rejecting it at various times. I have studied many of the world's major religions, most recently having the good fortune to listen to the Dalai Lama speak of the path of faith in Tibetan Buddhism last summer. I think I got the most from his talks, because he emphasized that Buddhism shares so many commonalities with other religions of the world, and to find the true path, one must start with one's own faith. In other words, the Dalai Lama is not out to make everyone a Buddhist.

My belief is that you must have faith in something. Being a man of science, I have delved into the workings of the universe, from the tiniest atom to the most distant quasar. Einstein's equations have spoken to me of a universe governed by a set of unalterable yet malleable principles, that allow it to function, separated from the need for oversight. Set in motion, the grand cavalcade that is the march of the galaxies has been going on for billions of years, guided by simple equations and knowable forms. My core faith tells me that the universe will continue to work as intended, without the machinations of its creator. Who that creator is, and by that I mean I believe there was one, remains a mystery. The signs are there in the stars.

If you find the strictures of an organized religion more palatable, there is nothing inherently wrong with that... unless you are unwilling to question the tenets the religion is founded on. If the universe teaches us anything, it is that nothing remains static. So too it should be with our beliefs. When the evidence of our senses and our cognition tell us that the tenets of our faith are misaligned with the way of the universe, we must be willing to alter those beliefs. Strict adherence to beliefs in the face of contrary evidence is anathema. Science teaches us that lesson ever day; in fact, it tells us that no matter what we think, we must be able to subject our beliefs to critical testing in order for them to remain strong.

And while the average person can see clear to believe what they need to, in order to live a harmonious life, altering core beliefs to better fit their view of the world, it is the zealotry of some which unfortunately tinges religion with an unsightly pallor. Blind adherence to beliefs, whether religious or scientific, creates the illusion of power over the world. In science, it is too often the case that someone will try to make the universe fit their theory, rather make their theory fir the universe. The course of science is marked with ideas (Terracentrism, the ether, perpetual motion, constant creation, etc.) which held on far longer than they should have, given that scientists were sure they were right, and could not adjust their thinking until the preponderance of evidence made it folly to maintain the belief. Even then, some went to the grave certain their ideas were not incorrect, merely misinterpreted.

Religion, dealing more directly with personal faith in ideas, finds it harder to yield to fact or even to the idea that one faith is not necessarily the faith. While the adherents of a religion are often able to navigate the schisms caused by differences between daily life and religious teaching, far too many people are trying to force daily life to fit their religious beliefs, not just for themselves, but others. The friction caused by this is seen in much of the political debate in the United States over issues such as abortion, sex education, and school prayer. While it is good to see people take their faith seriously, it is disturbing when they take it so seriously that it blinds them to fact or causes them to feel that they must force others to fall in line (either through law or deed).

Now, my beliefs have been shaped over the many years of my life, and while in youth they changed frequently, as I have become older I find them becoming more set, less malleable. I am still able to change them, do not get me wrong, but the level of evidence and discourse required is much greater, and I put a greater premium on how someone approaches me in an attempt to change my mind. I find that a knee-jerk reaction is very off-putting; when I voice a contrary opinion, it is not an attempt to denigrate what someone else is saying, only to stake out the grounds for discussion. Those who cannot stand to hear a contrary view, who leap immediately to an offensive mindset rather than engage in discourse, very rarely will hold any sway with me. I do sometimes wonder if my views of the world have become too rigid, to the point of limiting my flexibility, but finding it hard to step outside myself as I once could, and forced to take my queues from others, I tell myself that I am being as scrupulous in that regard as I can manage. I would like to think my view is right most of the time, but I am the first to admit when I am wrong. Or so I would like to think.

It is my desire to see harmony in the world, and that cannot be approached until we are willing to set aside our differences. There is room enough on this planet for every type of belief (or non-belief), without the need to exhort against any one system, or to attempt to legislate them away. For whatever you or I might feel about any group's beliefs, at the core we owe them the respect that we wish to be accorded for ours. We will disagree, we will see others as perhaps misguided, but in the end we will extend the hand of friendship and goodwill, because it is for the greater good.