stevenpiziks | Entries tagged with religion

So we're seeing news stories about how church attendance is declining because a quarter of young people (20-30) say the church doesn't reflect or support their beliefs. (What this usually means is that the church is clinging to conservative beliefs while the congregation becomes more liberal.)

This has created a ... discussion among church elders. A lot of them, the older folk, refuse to change anything. Those new-fangled beliefs ain't fer us! And the younger folk shrug. "Then we won't go church."

There's a clash of philosophies here, I suppose. The central question is, "What is the church's role?" Is it:

1. To prescribe what the congregation believes;

OR

2. To reflect what the congregation believes.

The elders cling to 1, while the youngsters point at 2.

Which one is it =really=?

This article goes discusses a new discovery: that not everyone has a "mind's eye" that can visualize objects or events, and that other people have a hyper-active mind's eye that lets them visualize with great clarity. https://news.yahoo.com/many-people-vivid-minds-eye-182748867.html 

But the article doesn't mention the implications on world religion. Many religions stress "inner quiet" or "emptying the mind" as a way to get closer to the divine. When you quiet yourself, you give room for the divine to enter. Christians require stopping thoughts--especially sinful ones--so that practitioners can "listen to god."  Skill at meditation is one of the required steps on the Eightfold Path in Buddhism.  And so on.

If it turns out that people are actually hard-wired to have an "empty" or a "full" mind, what are the implications on religious belief?  Does this mean the meditation/prayer requirement was created and fomented by people whose neural pathways =couldn't= visualize? ("You must empty your mind, as I do." "I'm trying, Teacher, but my mind remains crowded." "You must try harder, Student. I can do it. Therefore you can, too." Except maybe the student literally couldn't, and the teacher was simply the beneficiary of a system created by other literally like-minded people.  The Teacher isn't truly wise or more divine--he just appears to be because he was born with a particular kind of brain.

If this discovery about the human brain is true, it means that meditation and other mind-emptying techniques can't possibly be useful in getting closer to the divine. It would be like saying, "You must run ten miles to get into heaven" to someone in a wheelchair.  Would the divine exclude people who are physically unable to meet a particular requirement? Not in any spirituality that preaches mercy--and all of them do.

In one stroke, this discovery wipes out a big section of human spirituality.  I just don't think anyone's noticed yet.

So now there's this dipshit: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/09/megachurch-pastor-says-gays-must-be-put-to-death/

Just for fun, in a "know your enemy" kind of way, I tracked down the web site for his filthy little "church" and found a section on weddings. I read it.

If you want to get married at their "church," you have to read their rules and regs (pages and pages of them). The very first thing that pops up is several paragraphs about marriage having to be between a man and woman. A biological man and a biological woman. One biological man and one biological woman. I'm not kidding. It goes on and on and on. This guy and his toadies give lots and lots and lots and LOTS of thought to gay people.

Also in their wedding information packet, they make almost passing references to the fact that they don't allow dancing at weddings at their church except between the bridge and groom and the wedding party parents. They also don't allow alcohol of any kind. This ban is also made in a passing reference--once briefly in the general rules and once in the FAQs. There are NO references to same-sex weddings in their FAQs. This means that people ask frequently ("frequently asked questions") about drinking and alcohol at weddings, but they DON'T ask about same-sex weddings, yet this church spends paragraph after paragraph after paragraph talking about same-sex marriage.

The church leaders seem to think about LGBT people quite a lot--even though no one in their congregation asks. However, we have WAY more drinkers and dancers than LGBT people in this country, and the issue of having both at weddings has come up often enough to deserve a FAQ entry for this "church." Yet they don't explain a single thing about their stance on this huge issue. They simply ban both with a single sentence while they spend many paragraphs on a non-issue.

Why spend so much time and effort on a non-issue--unless it preys on YOUR OWN mind, yeah?

The Mormons (or the Latter Day Saints, or LDS, or whatever you want to call them) are trying to ride the coat-tails of same-sex marriage. They want to get polygamy legalized in the same way same-sex marriage has been legalized. They've failed:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-top-court-rebuffs-sister-wives-challenge-utah-163109055.html

They needed to fail.

I'm not a proponent of the LDS church. The organization is a dreadful, terrible thing. It preaches homophobia, sexism, and misogyny. The sects that practice polygamy are worse.

I don't object to the concept of group marriages. If you can manage multiple spouses, go for it. I do object to the LDS version, however. "Reguar" group marriages aren't based on gender, or the ones I know aren't, anyway. The group decides as a whole who should be in it and who should not.

However. The LDS version of the above says only the man can marry multiple wives. Women are not allowed to marry multiple husbands. The man ultimately decides who enters the group. He also makes the decisions for the group. (And no matter what you may see on SISTER WIVES, that is indeed the way it works.) This is misogynistic, sexist, and abusive.

The LDS have argued that polygamy (one man, multiple wives) is a part of their religion, and the government's refusal to recognize these marriages (and Utah's outright ban on them) amounts to religious discrimination.

When the government responded that current law states you are perfectly free to marry one person of your choice, the LDS shot back, "You let LGBT people marry the way they want. You need to let us marry the way we want."

Sorry, no. The cases aren't even close to analogous.

The LGBT community didn't argue on First Amendment grounds to get the bans on same-sex marriage overturned. They argued on equal protection grounds and gender grounds. The LGBT community also didn't argue that marriage laws be changed, only that they be extended to include people of any sex and become compliant with anti-discrimination laws already on the books. The LDS wants an actual change in the law, and there are no grounds for that. The law doesn't forbid them to marry based on their religion.

Additionally, the LDS version of group marriage violates the equal protections clause of the Constitution, since it would extend a right to men, but not to women.

If the LDS wants polygamy to be legal, they need to get marriage laws changed. They'll have an uphill battle, though. Utah's frank ban on polygamy was passed to "prove" that the Mormons were no longer practicing polygamy (but of course all that happened was that it went underground), so there's zero chance of getting it changed at the state level. Other states simply aren't interested in it. In order to have any shot at all, the LDS would have to get marriage laws changed to allow group marriage regardless of gender, and I can't imagine the Mormons arguing to pass a law that would allow four men to marry each other, or one woman to marry three guys. The challenge seems unsurmountable.

And so the Supreme Court stopped a group of sexist, misogynistic fanatics from having their way. Go them! And go all the other judges who rules against them!

Fundamentalist Christians resort to all kinds of small-minded or even cruel tactics, including this one:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/01/01/jf-christian-fundamentalist-asshole-leaves-waiter-a-dirty-trick-for-a-tip-images/

The short version is, a restaurant customer left as a tip a fake $20 bill folded on the counter. When the young waiter, excited at such a large tip, opened it, he found a note printed inside instead. It basically said that people will always disappoint you, but god never will, and if you want to fill the void in your heart, become a fundamentalist Christian.

The waiter was pissed and posted photos of the incident. The photos went viral, and lots of people offered to replace the tip, belying the note. People don't always disappoint.

What mystifies me is why fundies think this will work. I'm trying to imagine working my ass off as a waiter and getting one of these smug little notes and saying to myself, "Gosh! I'll get right down to church on Sunday!" And when I arrive on Sunday, I find myself surrounded by a dozen other people clutching fake $20 bills, their eyes filled with hope, ready to be filled with Jesus.

Yeah, no.

Human psychology doesn't work this way. When someone offers you a treat that turns out to be a trick, you get angry at the giver, especially when the treat is something you're generally entitled to, such as a tip. (And yeah, tipped workers are entitled to tips, since they usually earn less than minimum wage. If you don't like their work, complain to the manager.) And when you're angry at someone, you're actively disinclined to believe what they say. The last thing you do is shake your head ruefully and say, "I guess he's right."

These fake little notes and the Chick tracts and the angry bible verses don't win converts. Vanishingly few people receive these things and see the supposed error of their ways. Instead, they become angry at the giver, and, by extension, at the giver's system of belief.

But, believe it or not, the fundamentalists who leave these little knots of hatred aren't actually interested in converting anyone. They want to show their superiority, as in, "I'm going to heaven, and everyone else is going to hell. I win!" They leave these notes and tracts lying around not as a method of conversion, but as a way to remind us uncoverted heathens that THEY have it better. Not only that, they get to do it anonymously, without fear that someone will shove them against a wall and say, "Take your shit out of my face before I stuff your own balls down your throat!"

The people who leave these pasive-aggresive notice aren't Christians, they aren't true believers, and they aren't filled with love for you. They're smug, hate-filled bullies and cowards.

Sasha has been saying he wants to go to church. I had no idea what demonition he'd really be interested in, but knew he'd be most familiar with Eastern Orthodox. A little searching turned up a Ukrainian cathedral in Southfield, which is about half an hour away.

I called them and, after a bit of phone tag, got hold of the priest. He spoke in heavily-accented English. I told him about Sasha's situation and said he was looking for a church. The priest told me that the parish consisted of Ukrainians who were looking to hold onto a Ukrainian community, and that the services were mostly in Ukrainian. This, I replied, sounded ideal for Sasha.

This Sunday it was time to attend services.

Okay, wee pause here. I am not a practicing Christian of any stripe. I have an extensive knowledge of the bible and of Christian ritual and beliefs from a number of sects, but I don't practice. Monotheists, in my view, have a lot to answer for. I've been a practicing Wiccan for decades now, and that's not going to change.

Yet here I was, not only arranging for my oldest son to attend Christian services, but going with him.

On Sunday morning, Sasha pulled on an old t-shirt and a pair of ratty slacks. I made him put on an ironed shirt with a collar and nicer slacks. I also made him tuck his shirt in and put on a belt. "I look like a nerd," he complained.

"You aren't slouching through the hall at school," I said. "You're going to church."

We drove across town to the cathedral and arrived about ten minutes before the formal service. A cathedral, you have to understand, gets its name from its function, not its size, and this one was about the size of a medium church. The inside was very similar to other Orthodox churches I'd seen in Ukraine--pews, an elaborately carved wooden altar with a book and an icon of Jesus on it near the front, transepts where you could light candles for prayers. (In the entry foyer, a man was selling beeswax candles and votives to light, but Sasha didn't want any, so skipped that part.) Up front was a huge, floor-to-ceiling partition painted with golden-haloed icons of saints, angels, and scenes from the life of Jesus, all done in the tall, spindly Orthodox style. A big central iron gate occupied the center with a curtain drawn across the inside. Two of the icons, one left and one right, were actually rounded doors that the priest and altar boys would later use to enter and exit through.

In the choir loft up and behind the pews, the choir master was chanting prayers in Ukrainian. A small group of people occupied the pews. Most went up to the altar, crossed themselves, and knelt to kiss the icon. When Sasha saw how everyone was dressed, I think he was glad I made him put on nicer clothes.

At the stroke of 10:00, another voice floated out from behind the partition and did a back-and-forth chanting with the choir master. After a moment, the curtain drew aside, the gate opened, and priest emerged in embroidered blue vestements. He swung a censer all around the altar area while the choir joined in the chanting in a tight harmony.

The priest moved over to one of the transepts, where a lecturn held an elaborately-decorated book. This was apparently a signal for people who wanted a special kind of blessing--two people approached and bowed over the book while the priest threw part of his vestments over the person's head and whispered in their ear for a moment. The choir continued to chant. Once each person was blessed, the service began.

It was very similar to a Catholic service. There was a lot of standing up, sitting down, and kneeling. Sasha did all three. I stood or sat--as a non-practitioner, I didn't kneel. The priest sang and chanted the entire ceremony, which surprised me a little. It went on for an hour and a half.

Several times during the service, the parishoners crossed themselves. Sasha tried crossing himself but couldn't remember how to do it, so I taught him how (and all the while I was finding it beyond mere irony). Orthodox Christians cross from right to left, and the bottom of the cross is the navel, not the sternum, and Sasha had it backwards at first.

Sasha didn't take communion--he couldn't remember if he'd been confirmed or not, so we decided he shouldn't.

A chunk of the service happened out of sight, behind the partition. There was a second altar back there, and the priest was doing something near it, but since I couldn't see him or understand what he was saying, the meaning was lost on me. There was much parading of holy objects--a book, the grail, the cross (not a crucifix). Several people were given host (bread, not wafers) in little baggies to take home, I'm assuming for people who couldn't come.

Sasha asked to leave partway through, but I told him we needed to stay for the whole thing.

I have to admit to a certain amount of boredom. My only stake in this was Sasha's, and while I was willing to be there to help him, it didn't make the event itself any more interesting once I had seen everything there was to see.

When the ritual part of the service ended, the priest spoke for about ten minutes. I think he was making announcements, but I'm not sure.

He finished and everyone rose. We were sitting at the back, and Sasha wanted to leave. I said we should go and talk to the priest for a moment and hang about to meet people, but he wanted to leave. So we left. (Sasha doesn't often plunge into new situations and grab them quickly; he needs to circle them for a while first.)

In the car on the way home, he said he understood only a little of the service, and added, "It made me feel weird."

"Weird good or weird bad or just weird?" I said.

"Just weird."

"It's probably poking at old memories from when you were very little," I said.

"I did like it," he said. "I want to go back."

So we'll see what happens.

Dear Anti-Defamation League:

You say you are opposed to a Muslim group building a mosque two blocks ("in the shadow") north of the Twin Towers site. I must ask you, then:

How far away would be far enough?

Three blocks? Four? Half a mile? A league?

Where's the break point? How about you draw a little circle on a map and then explain why building a mosque on this side is Okay and on that side is Disrespectful. I mean, at some point, the difference would be a yard. A foot. An inch. Why is that inch okay and that inch not?

This coming fall I will be teaching English 12, and we'll be reading MAUS by Art Spiegelman. One of the themes in MAUS is that victims of prejudice are often themselves prejudiced. The Anti-Defamation League used to be called the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and it used to fight for religious tolerance. It also fights for intolerance, and I thank you for providing a real-world example to use in my classroom.

Sincerely,
Steven Piziks