A European's View of Future Danger

My husband's brother in law was telling us this morning that the birth rate for Euopeans is about 1.3, while the birth rate of Muslims is a lot higher. Why is he worried? Several reasons were given and they gave me room for thought...

He said that the Dutch culture was "dying" due to the infilteration of the Muslims, who use the tolerance of the Dutch to undermine Western values. He said that there was a priest who had been banned from a Christian school due to intolerance to Islam, and he gave other instances of Muslim use of religious tolerance to bring about a reverse discrimination. This is very disturbing when you consider how many immigrants are infilterating the culture and expanding their numbers by enlarging their families. In a couple of decades, he prophesizes that Shairia Law will have rule over Europe if nothing is done to stop it.

Westerners have been concerned for the planet's limited resources, and have limited their population growth., as a result Civilized societies have ceased to base their views on sacred sources, therefore, where Scripture has commanded man to '"be fruitful and multiply", the West has deemed it ïrrelavant as authoritative. Science has replaced religion in authoratative influence.

Science is not "pie in the sky", but proveable through observation, experimentation, and manipulation. Man has taken the reigns of power and determined his own destiny through the power of science''s knowledge. While science has empowered the West, the West also knows its dangers. Those who are religiously minded and do not heed the dangers of science, are even more dangerous. as they use the sword as the 'weapon of God'. This is why our national security is of utmost importance. We must in the West not abandon NATO. but, seek to broaden the influence of protecting science from hands that would use scientific power subversively.

Religious freedom and tolerance has been the bulwark of the West, but our strength may become our weakness, if we do not wake up to the insidiousness of religion's influence and power. Those who think they speak for God are a danger to civilization. Secular humanists are right in their call to tighten the belt against religion's rights in the West.

I really don't know which is worse, a totaltalirian secularized State, or a totaltalarian religious regime. Both subvert something that is distinctly human; choice. freedom and religious conviction.

Have You Ever Wondered

Today we arrived in the Netherlands to visit my husband's family. It has influnenced who he is, but I wonder how much it has influenced him really? I can see both similarities to his family of origin and dissimilarities. This is quite normal and is why neuroscience is investigating how much of our "selves" is written on our brains. I have wondered about personality and how much is innate and how much is formed. I am sure that most have thought about these things.

Personality has little to do with spirituality, in fact, spirituality can hinder personal growth as much as further personal growth, because of the conforming demands of religion in understanding of religious teaching.

Theology is about what we cannot know, as it is about a transcendent realm, that is, unless we view man, as God's point of reference. What is man to be like? Man can develop irregardless of spiritual connection, or religious commitment.

So, I am wondering if religious commitment and spirituality is a hinderance to man's development. For if man does something because of something outside himself, then what kind of person is he, really? A person must have their individual conviction and commitment to those convictions if he is to attain what he is to become. But, that takes knowing oneself and staying true to what one values.

Freedom Comes From Self- Knowledge

A philosopher once said that an unexamined life is a life not worth living. I think this is a truth that is pertinant for today. This afternoon, my son in law, whose degree is in psychology, gave us a personality test. I had taken this test before and it didn't "sit well" with me, as far as the results. It just didn't seem like it "fit' or was comfortable. I asked the tester back then, if stress or extenuating circumstances would affect the answers and therefore the results. I know now, that it does.

After taking the test, and reading the results, I felt relieved and "okay". I am a "General". My childern all agreed that this was who I was/am. I had been thinking that there was a "perfect" or "ideal" Christian. That is NOT so...and it is freeing to know that how I am, is what I am supposed to be. Religion is very deforming, in its conforming stance, and demanding "change" because one is not "perfect" or "ideal" like Jesus.

Religion can be a form of mental illness, I think. It hinders self-acceptance, and creates another reality, instead of dealing with the real, and pertinent. It seeks to attain something that is alien to the natural person, some spiritual sense or spirituality that is not based in the 'real world".

So, on this Mother's Day, it is okay that children are not my "ideal goal". And as I wrote before, I don't care about politically correct things, and many times I don't care about religiously correct things. If that is okay with you, then maybe we can be friends. Otherwise, we must go our separate ways. No guilt, as Paul and Barnabas went their separate ways and that seemed okay for the writers of "your authority".

Quandries, Questions and Qualifications About the Church

Today, our pastor had a sermon about "the spirit" and the scripture. His thrust was that by believing that god speaks through human words, we can be spiritually formed. He said that this formation was more important than the news in the newpaper, as the "old wisdom" is a higher form of "wisdom" than the "Hip" one. This is the spritualized "gospel" separated from reason that supposedly appeals to those "in need". If this spiritualized gospel is rejected, then it is asserted that those who reject it are reprobate, doomed to destruction in eternal hell fire. This attitude is not very becoming of the Church.

Tradition, reason and faith intersect in the person's experience. It is a hard row to maintain a relevant message when one's belief in a personal god, becomes impossible to believe, yet, tradition demands the obedience "of faith". Those who have sought to literalize the text, so that they can demand obedience of some standard of behavior that is socially convenient and create destruction to others in their struggles of life. If ones is struggling and does not obey these "demands" according to Scripture, then they are disobeying god, are rebellious, and need discipline and correction. Correction, inevitably means conformity to the shape of the "standard" and however that standard is understood. This is horrendously oppressive to the individual as an individual.

Yet, my pastor said that we first must learn to obey, and then seek to understand. This is the irrational faith of a leap into the dark.....because of a belief in a personal interventional god...it is the same that Job's comforters tried to have him do. While Job did not do anything wrong, as he was blameless, the comforters sought to give the reason for his suffering which pinned the guilt upon him. Job did need to learn that mystery is not found within "right behavior" and recieving "just desserts", but in life itself. As life is given and gifted.

Today's sermon left me cold, just as spirituality does. I don't want spirituality, but I do want to be human. That is what life should be about, seeking the good, as defined and lived by one's own conscience and allowing freedom of conscience to others, while allowing open doors in relationship.

I don't believe in imposing "bibilical reconstruction", or "dominion theology", as that becomes a way for the Church to dominate the discoursein the public square , and not listening to other opinions and viewpoints. Academic freedom should be what the church is about, because who should be afraid of any truth seeking endeavor? And truth should be applauded wherever it is found. The Church has not been known for this attitude historically. They have wanted to maintain the social order and control, so that society would "not fall apart". Much has to do with how one views "what god's plan is" and IF god has a plan, which is doubtful. Christians have pinned their hope on an ancient text, church tradition, and dogma. That does not bring about constructive change, if it is not relativized.

Those who adhere to this mentality do so because they feel that the Church should have power and control over others, instead of living in such a way that they are alluring. All the Church has to do is "preach the cross" and people flee, why? Because what was used in Scripture pertained to persecuted times, is used today to justify a "sectarian attitude" that ultimately does bring about persecution. And then, the Church acts smugly as if Scripture has been fulfilled and "proven" and those who have fled are deserving of the "just punishment' that God will give them in the afterlife. This is apocalyptic thinking and it is not appealing to civilized people. I don't see where the Church has done anything to add to her appeal in a free and open society and this is her demise.

Questions About Trust

This morning while checking my e-mail, I had gotten a comment on the "A Few Good Men" entry. In responsing to the comment, I suggested that although support systems were important for the young lawyer to pursue justice, that trust was the foundation of receiving the support. That got me thinking...

Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.

Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.

In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.

I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.

While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.

I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.

There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.

In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".

I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.

Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.

"A Few Good Men" continued....

Whenever I watch a movie I usually chew on it for a long time afterwards, that is, if it is worth chewing on :). Things that were meaningful during the movie come to my remeberance and once again I learn something.

Today as I was continuing to think about the movie from last night, I realized that though the two Marines and the colonel and the trial all were significant in regards to the issue of justice. It would never have transpired if the lawyer had not taken the case, or taken the risk of loosing , not only the case, but his life in the military as well as his reputation in the future. He believed in justice. That justice could be known, and found. Justice was elusive at times, but he pursued, at one point almost gave up hope and despaired, but was encouraged to continue to seek justice and he did. And justice was won.

It always does a heart good when justice is found and served. People don't get away with crime, abuse of others, or with getting around the system in legal manevuering. It gives one hope that the world is not forsaken or hopeless. That is what justice is about. And civil or formal justice is a better way to understand and see it, as a trial has an "end" and a verdict. A trial does not continue the suffering or the injustice like life so often does.

Whenever I see a movie like this, I always ask myself the question, if I would have done the same thing, if not, what would I have done differently. It is always worth a self-assessment. I hope more movies will pursue the subject of justice.

Walled Hearts and Walled Religions

Many years ago when I was in undergraduate education as an adult, I wrote a paper for my"World Religions" course. In that paper, I wrote, "is a rose by any other name, just a sweet?" That question haunted me, but has come to have meaning to what I believe nowadays.

Is a rose by any other name, just as sweet? Yes, of course, it is. The word "rose" conjures up an image to those that have been exposed to roses and sometimes it can activate the sense of smell in our memories. But, what if someone had not known the flower by the name "rose"? If they smelled a rose, called a "chamelleon", would it smell the same? Yes! Would it be the same flower? Yes, even though it was called by a different name. The same goes for true faith and one's character.

My point in all of this "rambling" is this: is the "Christ figure" just as sweet by any other name? Is the Christ figure represented by other names, such as Gandhi, Mother Theresa, uncle Joe and aunt Harriet? Does the "image" of Christ have meaning besides the person of Jesus of Nazareth (if he is a historical person)? What is the Christ image? And does the Christ image have to be manifested in the same way as Jesus of Nazareth?

The Greek Fathers understood the image of god in man. They knew about representation within real time, not the "City of God" of St. Augustine. This is where all religions point beyond themselves to a world beyond our knowing. Some agnostics may find solace in idenifying with a community of faith as they understand the purpose of myth and myth-making. Others may find more solace in understanding their connectedness to sciences' "real reality" in this world. It really doesn't matter, as both types of agnostics will "do faith" in their own realms of influence. Both types have come to terms with faith as a real "unknown" and unknowable mystery about life in its complexity.

I named my paper "Walled Hearts and Walled Religions" because this is what I think hinders the "ideal" world, life and value. Walls bring definition, but do not bring resolution or reconciliation. Walls keep others out, while protecting one's understanding of oneself within comfortable zones of definitions, behaviors, and religious rites.

Today's world is torn because of these walls. Walls that hinder and resist. Walled hearts are not open to another's views. And walled ideas are not about academic or religious freedom. We are bound by the very definitions that we make. We enslave ourselves from our small-mindedness and our fears.

The reason I changed my major from sociology to religion and philosophy was because of an ethics course. That very ethics professor just recently died. I owe him a lot. I wrote a paper for that course about moral development and moral character. He told me at graduation that it was brillant. I found it hard to believe, but the more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that character is indeed the essence of life and it doesn't really matter about religion.

Moral behavior is more about attitude first and foremost, not behavior, as behavior is culturally bound. But, whenever moral behavior is defined by a tightly defined cultural understanding, it is a means of oppression and a hinderance to moral development. Ethics would not allow such "standards" to stand, as it is more important to protect human rights, than any cultural "ideal".