They may not be the finest arguments, just my initial thoughts when reading this article...
"A guest post by Michael Terrence Worley in response to recent news reports that, according to new LDS Church policy children within a same-sex marriage (or household) may not be baptized (or blessed). I expect to hear more from the Church on the matter as clearly this is being blown out of proportion by those critical of the Church. Note: Church Spokesman, Eric Hawkins, has confirmed that this is the policy of the Church.
"Cue "Bill Nye" voice...
Did you know that, in the LDS Faith, a child cannot get baptized without their parents' approval? A spouse cannot be baptized without their husband's or wife's consent? And, in addition, if the parents practice polygamy, the child cannot get baptized? The church does a TON to protect children and spouses from being taught one thing at home and another thing at church.
Disingenuous argument and false parallels. Polygamy is against the law and “consent” of a spouse is extremely informal and in no way equal to the consent of a legal guardian.
"Sorry, "Bill Nye" voice again...
Did you know that the LDS Faith is very careful in how it proselytizes Muslims? Even in countries that protect the religious freedom of both Christians and Muslims, there are cultural differences that make it dangerous for Muslims to convert to Christianity.
It can be argued that the church simply does not want that kind of negative attention.
Each of these boundaries provides protections for the church, the prospective member, and the family. For the church, it allows them to clearly teach God's plan of Salvation (centered on Jesus Christ and marriage between a man and a woman) without worrying that those they teach will face conflict at home. For the family members of those involved, it allows family autonomy and reduces conflict and secrecy. For the prospective member, it helps them not have to lose vital family relationships (and, if they are under 18, food and shelter).
Yes, the church “worries” about their doctrines causing “conflict” at home. The family “autonomy” started beforehand, when a couple decides it is okay to allow their 8+ year old to make the decision in the first place. For the member, that argument is circular: they would only lose relationships due to the church forcing them to disavow them.
"While Christ does ask us to be prepared to give up family to follow him, (Matthew 10:37), he never teaches that one should attempt to be both a good family member and a good church member if those two are at odds. Let me explain one more thing before I address the reason I wrote this post, if you'll bear with me. It is not a small matter to become a member of the LDS Church. As I explained above, if an adult Muslim wants to become a member of the church, the church may still decline to baptize the candidate simply because of cultural conflicts. Those who were raised in polygamous households also have extra requirements asked of them if they wish to be baptized. This policy is not a sign of a lack of love, but rather, in the context of the plan of salvation, a recognition that the doctrines and ordinances of Christ are for all in His time, not ours. See Isaiah 55:8-9, Proverbs 3:5-6; Alma 40:8; Moroni 8; Doctrine and Covenants 88:73.
“It is not a small matter to become a member…” Tell that to the millions of inactive members taught the gospel by young missionaries who didn’t know what they were doing, but were driven by baptism goals set by the church that now touts that baptism is still a “sacred ordinance.”
In this context, two policies accurately leaked to the media today-- and, in at least one case, reported sensationally-- make more sense. I (and the media) say two policies, but I will split them into three policies. The first policy is that choosing to be married to a same-gender partner is incompatible with church membership ("apostasy"). As I mentioned above, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is centered on the value of Christ's atonement to the bond between a husband and a wife and their children. While individuals may experience and act on same-sex attraction without being apostate, the church considers the step of being a party to a same-gender marriage as a sufficient repudiation of the doctrine of the plan of salvation to constitute apostasy.
My only argument here is against the church and all Christianity: It is clearly ignorant to interpret the Bible as it stands into this form of belief and practice. This is not to mention the fact that the Bible and its history is rife with falsehoods and contradictions, misquoting and false attributions.
"The second policy, like the ones I began the post with, has the effect of not putting children at the center of a conflict between their household and the teachings of their church. The policy is that any child who is being raised by a same-sex couple may not receive baptism or be blessed as a baby. Like with the policies I mentioned above, it protects not just the child, but the church and the household who is raising the child. Conflicts are inevitable if a child is taught that the child's legal guardians are sinners-- and the only way for them to stop being sinners is by ending their relationship.
Many problems here. Baptizing an 8 year old, even though the claim is it’s the age of accountability, is only chosen because its fun and because all the other kids are doing it. It’s the same with baby blessings. When the kid is sitting in primary (this probably would rarely come up) if they are the only one without a baby blessing, they are possibly more likely to be marginalized. The baby blessing is essentially something for the parents, not the baby.
There is a bit of hypocrisy in this argument above. Conflicts are also inevitable (after both parents consent to an ordinance) if one of the child’s parents don’t practice Mormonism. We don’t hear about the church teaching children that their atheistic parent is a sinner and that the other parent needs to separate from that (although that was common a few decades ago). To rid the stain of hypocrisy, the church should change the age of accountability to 18 across the board.
The final policy is that those who are adults and were raised by same-sex couples must meet extra standards before becoming baptized. This, like the policies regarding adults who are/were Muslims and adult children of polygamous parents, serves to protect the candidate. In the context of the plan of salvation, this policy will aim to help people come closer to Christ by helping them be baptized in an environment where they can spiritually grow.
“…in an environment where they can spiritually grow.” The above paragraph seems to be carefully dancing and tiptoeing around the bush. What I am gathering from it is pure ignorance and hate. I read it saying same-sex couples are inferior parents. Period. I shouldn’t touch it, but the mentioning of polygamous parents, again, doesn’t equate. History has shown most contemporary polygamous practices are abusive to children in more than one way.
"I sustain these policies. Some of my friends may well disagree with these policies. However, I plea with them to not lessen their commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nothing that happens in this church-- however hard it may seem to be-- changes the fact that God spoke to a 14-year-old boy in 1820. As that boy wrote later in his life: Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Even if you disagree wholeheartedly with my church's stance on a few issues, please read the Book of Mormon and pray until the peace and mercy and grace that you need to "go on in so great a cause" comes. "
“Even if you disagree wholeheartedly with my church’s stance on a few issues, please [read this fiction that is full of propaganda and pray to god who has been very poorly defined by Christianity until you feel something positive from either emotion or the Halloween candy you ate because anything positive means the “negative” feelings you had from the disagreement have been proven false….because…you know….prayer and stuff.]
Friday, November 6, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
I have a hard time with social media for a few reasons. Since I have had a pretty big paradigm swing in worldview structure in my life, I find myself with a wide array of friends and acquaintances. Within that spectrum, though, I find I am on a scale that is largely unbalanced. My wife and I talked about some of my social media content and how she/others think I display a wrong attitude while posting. Frankly, I found that to be hilarious. A person can easily take it for granted if they mostly see posts/content they agree with. When they see something they don't agree with, they feel threatened. I feel the same way, only the majority of my contact list has an inherently opposite baseline opinion than mine. Being a minority in social media can be tricky.
Alas, I cannot stay quiet on many issues, yet, at the same time, I don't like sharing/posting too many things on social media. I have come here to vent (again).
1: Don't read into the Proclamation on the Family anything that isn't there. Satan/The Devil/Evil/Hell is NOT there. When you imply a faith-based gay couple will go to hell, you are being irresponsible. I won't condemn that reactionary piece here, but a person doesn't have to add to it to believe in it. The LGBT community has a hard enough time trying to be faithful to their belief system. Speaking of LGBTs, another fallacy is thinking that there are steps in the future that can be easily taken because SCOTUS ruled for LGBT equality, i.e., churches MUST marry people they disagree marrying. That is a giant leap with no correlation.
2: Try and be just a little responsible in the content you post on social media. If someone can devote under 5 minutes on Snopes.com or google to debunk a claim or rip an argument to shreds, then maybe you should think twice before posting it. A conservative opinion or a liberal opinion can hold legitimate value without making truth claims. A conservative or liberal post can also state facts, but I'll let you in on a little secret: it probably will not come from Fox news, MSNBC, or any of their affiliates. I am guilty of this one as well, but I am trying. It may make social media a little more worthwhile.
3: Don't default to one side of an issue or the other. I am also guilty of this one. When it comes to racism and police brutality, I default to assume the cops could have done better. I see others who will defend cops to the point where they are willing to serve the sentence if the cop is found guilty. Simply admitting we have a problem allows a conversation to happen. This topic is a little more difficult, as the circumstances surrounding each occurrence is unique and cops could/should follow a certain protocol, and sometimes even the protocol is hard to understand if one isn't a cop or isn't familiar with their protocol.
4: Atheism or Agnosticism is not inherently arrogant or stubborn compared to religious beliefs. There are plenty of people on both sides who display arrogance and stubbornness, and plenty who display openness and humility. A post or a link to an article or blog that speaks to certain ideas that are embraced more commonly with atheism or agnosticism isn't necessarily "attacking" a belief system. On the other hand, if a post or a link speaks to aspects of a belief system, but is criticizing it with valid points, dismissing it out of hand may be your right, but is not responsible. Freedom of speech comes with the understanding that not all opinions are valid.
5: I hate to say it, but having a centrist President that is black makes it hard to not call people racist for thinking he is "destroying America." You are racist. If you cannot come up with any legitimate reasons for arguing your point (Destroy: put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it), then you do not have an argument. Never has a President endured so much hate with so little to back it up. Also, he is centrist. He has demonstrated that for the last 7+ years. When it comes to the political spectrum and getting things accomplished for the majority of Americans, it is hard to argue for anything that would have been better over the last 7 years from any Administration.
6: Criticising a personal faith journey is inherently wrong. I recently read an article from a wife who struggled with her husband (both Mormon) who decided to be Atheist. Her blog post led us briefly from his decision to her figuring things out as to what was best for her. There was a popular "response" to her article in which the author had nothing good to say about a person he never met and knew nothing about except from her brief words on an internet blog. Anyone with an 8th grade education could tell she was summarizing and keeping it brief. It wasn't a blogpost about leaving the Mormon church to end all other blog posts. Yet, this happens all the time. We judge, in part, because belief systems integrated religious exclusivity into their core beliefs from the outset. It is a natural phenomenon. Questions directed toward me about my decision to leave religion are centered around the assumption that they are right, I will regret it, and we will all find out in the end.
7: The end... Just a note on "the end." Maybe we should focus on the parts of the Christian higher commandments that we can do something about? Love god: express that love here and now through what you believe he/she/it wants us to do for the sake of humanity. Love your neighbor: primarily the means through which one loves god; seek out those capabilities which do the most good in the world and for humankind here and now. I argue one cannot love these two things reasonably in any other way. If the author of those words really meant that everything else hangs off of those two, then they fall naturally into place. If you truly love your neighbor, then you as an individual or organization that promotes belief in that author wouldn't prove otherwise by your actions. One may argue here that certain actions are ultimately concerned with the souls not only of the individuals they are judging, but the souls that are being given to "righteous," "proper" families who are susceptible to worldviews that are contrary to that organization. Somehow a breakdown of families will occur for conceding the fact that everyone deserves happiness, and that everyone (speaking of children who are in need of being adopted) deserves a chance at a better life.
8: Try to understand Planned Parenthood and their legal rights regarding the women that go and see them. Truly evil people are out there trying to undermine good work that goes on in that organization. When it comes to abortion, try and remember that pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Very few people from history have embraced abortion itself. Women who experience it usually don't refer to it as a highlight in their life and I doubt would want to experience it again.
Alas, I cannot stay quiet on many issues, yet, at the same time, I don't like sharing/posting too many things on social media. I have come here to vent (again).
1: Don't read into the Proclamation on the Family anything that isn't there. Satan/The Devil/Evil/Hell is NOT there. When you imply a faith-based gay couple will go to hell, you are being irresponsible. I won't condemn that reactionary piece here, but a person doesn't have to add to it to believe in it. The LGBT community has a hard enough time trying to be faithful to their belief system. Speaking of LGBTs, another fallacy is thinking that there are steps in the future that can be easily taken because SCOTUS ruled for LGBT equality, i.e., churches MUST marry people they disagree marrying. That is a giant leap with no correlation.
2: Try and be just a little responsible in the content you post on social media. If someone can devote under 5 minutes on Snopes.com or google to debunk a claim or rip an argument to shreds, then maybe you should think twice before posting it. A conservative opinion or a liberal opinion can hold legitimate value without making truth claims. A conservative or liberal post can also state facts, but I'll let you in on a little secret: it probably will not come from Fox news, MSNBC, or any of their affiliates. I am guilty of this one as well, but I am trying. It may make social media a little more worthwhile.
3: Don't default to one side of an issue or the other. I am also guilty of this one. When it comes to racism and police brutality, I default to assume the cops could have done better. I see others who will defend cops to the point where they are willing to serve the sentence if the cop is found guilty. Simply admitting we have a problem allows a conversation to happen. This topic is a little more difficult, as the circumstances surrounding each occurrence is unique and cops could/should follow a certain protocol, and sometimes even the protocol is hard to understand if one isn't a cop or isn't familiar with their protocol.
4: Atheism or Agnosticism is not inherently arrogant or stubborn compared to religious beliefs. There are plenty of people on both sides who display arrogance and stubbornness, and plenty who display openness and humility. A post or a link to an article or blog that speaks to certain ideas that are embraced more commonly with atheism or agnosticism isn't necessarily "attacking" a belief system. On the other hand, if a post or a link speaks to aspects of a belief system, but is criticizing it with valid points, dismissing it out of hand may be your right, but is not responsible. Freedom of speech comes with the understanding that not all opinions are valid.
5: I hate to say it, but having a centrist President that is black makes it hard to not call people racist for thinking he is "destroying America." You are racist. If you cannot come up with any legitimate reasons for arguing your point (Destroy: put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it), then you do not have an argument. Never has a President endured so much hate with so little to back it up. Also, he is centrist. He has demonstrated that for the last 7+ years. When it comes to the political spectrum and getting things accomplished for the majority of Americans, it is hard to argue for anything that would have been better over the last 7 years from any Administration.
6: Criticising a personal faith journey is inherently wrong. I recently read an article from a wife who struggled with her husband (both Mormon) who decided to be Atheist. Her blog post led us briefly from his decision to her figuring things out as to what was best for her. There was a popular "response" to her article in which the author had nothing good to say about a person he never met and knew nothing about except from her brief words on an internet blog. Anyone with an 8th grade education could tell she was summarizing and keeping it brief. It wasn't a blogpost about leaving the Mormon church to end all other blog posts. Yet, this happens all the time. We judge, in part, because belief systems integrated religious exclusivity into their core beliefs from the outset. It is a natural phenomenon. Questions directed toward me about my decision to leave religion are centered around the assumption that they are right, I will regret it, and we will all find out in the end.
7: The end... Just a note on "the end." Maybe we should focus on the parts of the Christian higher commandments that we can do something about? Love god: express that love here and now through what you believe he/she/it wants us to do for the sake of humanity. Love your neighbor: primarily the means through which one loves god; seek out those capabilities which do the most good in the world and for humankind here and now. I argue one cannot love these two things reasonably in any other way. If the author of those words really meant that everything else hangs off of those two, then they fall naturally into place. If you truly love your neighbor, then you as an individual or organization that promotes belief in that author wouldn't prove otherwise by your actions. One may argue here that certain actions are ultimately concerned with the souls not only of the individuals they are judging, but the souls that are being given to "righteous," "proper" families who are susceptible to worldviews that are contrary to that organization. Somehow a breakdown of families will occur for conceding the fact that everyone deserves happiness, and that everyone (speaking of children who are in need of being adopted) deserves a chance at a better life.
8: Try to understand Planned Parenthood and their legal rights regarding the women that go and see them. Truly evil people are out there trying to undermine good work that goes on in that organization. When it comes to abortion, try and remember that pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Very few people from history have embraced abortion itself. Women who experience it usually don't refer to it as a highlight in their life and I doubt would want to experience it again.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Paradigm Shift
I have probably written down some thoughts on this before, but the whole, trying to get a stagnant church to grow and evolve thing has me thinking again. Every single time God as issued a change for humanity, he/she has done it through a person. Let's keep it simple and take a couple major personalities for examples. Jesus claimed he came representing the "Father." Everything he said he did, we were watching the Father (also, for simplicity we will assume these were Jesus' actual words). So the changes came from him, even though we took his word that he was aligned with "Father," who we will assume to be the God of this world. Moses was a prophet who was called reluctantly. Everything we got in his time from God came through him. He somehow set up a very detailed, lower law after he received the higher law from God. That law probably had more lasting effect on Judaism than anything else.
Now comes Joseph Smith, Jr. Plates or no plates, coming up with a story that is, at its minimum, inspirational (if you can stop thinking about the literal for 2 minutes). It is a representation of free-flowing inspiration. Authors are familiar with this, same as many artists trying to start or continue something they are working on. That "mantle" died with Joseph. If you don't agree, one could hopefully at least see where I am coming from. Something changed when Joseph died and left the untested process to sort itself out. I am also assuming here that some sort of organized religion was supposed to happen. In many ways I disagree with that idea, but again, for the sake of argument... So everything is hunky-dory until an external, unstoppable force meets an immovable object: Polygamy vs. the U.S. Government. At first, the church took a page from Joseph's book: magic, or in their case pretended magic or illusion. They tried convincing the government for a few years that they had stopped while having no intention of stopping. They were finally forced to come up with something. They thought Joseph's inspiration would carry them through. Inspiration had to come again...or at least a solution so they wouldn't all have to move again, this time probably to Mexico. They had been in "Deseret" for over 50 years. It wouldn't be that easy this time. This forcing of the issue lays it out very simply: the church came up with something after meeting an external force. Many will not agree, but that is the way it has been ever since. Blacks received Priesthood eligibility in 1978 after years of the prophet "prepping" all the apostles. He didn't want to present it and not have everyone agree to it. So he may have been inspired by MLK and the whole movement in the early 60's, but he didn't think he could throw that at the church without some sort of unanimity with leadership.
If you notice, the general membership didn't shift drastically at either of this moments. There wasn't a massive uprising or leaving as thousands saw this as a moment where the mantle had left the man. On the contrary, membership will keep believing the prophet talks to god. Depending on who you ask, the prophet may have a weekly or monthly meeting with god/Jesus in the temple. So even though inspiration can come from external sources (as it has done), we can choose to view it in any way we wish (and we will continue to do so, even if it is explicitly explained to us). With this in mind, let us consider for just a moment the concept I mentioned earlier with Jesus: god residing within us. Jesus implied no special requirements to be aligned with god (like having a prophet after he left). He merely told us to watch and believe. His big things were loving each other and following the spirit of the law rather than the letter. If love was what we would "hang" everything else off of (his word), followed by the concept of following the spirit rather than the letter, we may have a lasting church to be proud of. The crux of what I wanted to convey here though was our concept of talking to god and getting something in return. I think this has largely been a concept that has grown out of proportion over time. If you just look at people's stories as stories, you could see that inspiration came from within. Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., inventors, scientists that were jailed or killed for proposing crazy-new ideas...If a church isn't careful, they get caught trying to lead from behind, then using 20/20 hindsight to explain how all this inspiration is somehow connected to a church that has nothing to do with it.
The same will happen in the future. Whether it is human rights, or inventions, or a global event either for good or for bad, a religious organization that touts spiritual welfare of not only individuals but of the whole world ought to be leading from the front, trying to anticipate things to prepare the members, and trying to make this world as good a place as possible for humanity. This is not happening. "Zion" hasn't been properly attempted since Joseph, even though he wasn't fully prepared to attempt it either. Something else that affects this lackluster movement toward "prosperity for all," is the concept that Jesus is returning any day now. "Any day now," has been the phrase since he left 1982 some-odd years ago. How about we try making a "second coming" type environment on our own, what is he going to do, get mad at us for trying to improve humanity? This isn't like the tower of babel where we were going to knock the pearly gates down by force and storm the castle.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Self-Destruct-shun
I am not even average when it comes to dealing with my weaknesses. I fall well below that line. I am slowly coming to terms with that which I think will help me get more along the average mark. One weakness that I feel eats away at me internally and subconsciously is the one I saw my dad have the hardest time with when he looked at me. It can be called by multiple names. He had a name for it and I tend to articulate it in a similar fashion.
One frustrating factor to this weakness is the fact that I married someone who has the same weakness - a double-whammy. When I presented Sarah to my parents officially with our intentions to marry, my dad sat us down and spewed off a list of things that worried him about us. This is when he articulated this weakness to me. I resented it at the time. Over the past 13 years though, I have come to realize his anxiety was legitimate. I don't remember ever talking to him or my mom about it before then or since then. I also have come to find out it is tied very closely to my social inhibitions. I hate trying to listen to someone telling me something, especially when it is critical I hear and understand what they are saying, i.e., instructions or directions. I easily mishear, misunderstand or both. When it comes to written instructions I fare only average, depending on my level of knowledge on the subject.
What else is frustrating about this weakness is the fact it only rears its ugly head on rare occasions. Because of this, I don't get a lot of practice in subduing it or learning from the mistakes it brings me. Often too, this weakness tends to open the door to bigger than average mistakes. I also keep this known weakness in the back of my head when interacting with others, even on the most trivial of circumstances. Second-guessing happens to many if not most, but sometimes it can get out of hand.
One frustrating factor to this weakness is the fact that I married someone who has the same weakness - a double-whammy. When I presented Sarah to my parents officially with our intentions to marry, my dad sat us down and spewed off a list of things that worried him about us. This is when he articulated this weakness to me. I resented it at the time. Over the past 13 years though, I have come to realize his anxiety was legitimate. I don't remember ever talking to him or my mom about it before then or since then. I also have come to find out it is tied very closely to my social inhibitions. I hate trying to listen to someone telling me something, especially when it is critical I hear and understand what they are saying, i.e., instructions or directions. I easily mishear, misunderstand or both. When it comes to written instructions I fare only average, depending on my level of knowledge on the subject.
What else is frustrating about this weakness is the fact it only rears its ugly head on rare occasions. Because of this, I don't get a lot of practice in subduing it or learning from the mistakes it brings me. Often too, this weakness tends to open the door to bigger than average mistakes. I also keep this known weakness in the back of my head when interacting with others, even on the most trivial of circumstances. Second-guessing happens to many if not most, but sometimes it can get out of hand.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Keep the Faith
"Keep the Faith" were some of the last words my dad ever spoke to me. He had become lucid enough and my family knew he was close to the end, so they got me on the phone. I was in South Dakota, at my first base as a member of the Air Force's Enlisted cadre who loads bombs on the B-1 bomber. It was early November, 2008. He was in Lakeview hospital with a blood clot, water in the lungs and numerous other problems that couldn't easily be fixed. I had already arranged vacation time with my bosses and they obliged after hearing my situation. I remember having just renewed my government driver's license so I could drive a "bread truck," a tow truck, and a de-icing truck on the flightline.
I'll never emotionally forget that conversation. I knew what was happening and so did he. He was tired and he hurt but he was mine for 60 seconds. He didn't ever seem to fully accept me joining the military and I have never resolved that internally. I will also never forget the day I told him I joined. He used comedy as a defense. It threw me off and I never got back on track as far as he was concerned. As one of my heroes that has been a persistent dagger pierced well beneath the skin.
Over the years, I have morphed and molded away from someone you might consider "keeping the faith." One aspect I DO consider to keep the faith in, is humanity. I don't pretend to be staying true to a father's dying words, but I do intend to claim hold on an aspect of faith, just as every other human on earth. Even the Atheist says, "I have faith (or, I know) that there is no God." Not that I'm an Atheist. I find them to be arrogant, just as those who say, "I have faith (or, I know) there is a God."
What is important? Let's fast-forward a billion years from now. What is important? What stands the test of time? What will never change as far as how we define decency, love, compassion and mercy? Being human to each other. Life is tender, fleeting, delicate and quick. Why is it so important to stress anything to a child other than love? Jesus didn't show us love for one another so we could go around preaching Jesus. He showed us love so we could go around preaching love. We have idolized Jesus when he wanted no such thing. What he wanted has been missed by many many Christians worldwide. Similarly, many Jews and Muslims have leveraged their prophets and gods for bad in the world.
Yet, if we drop the entire act and have a conversation that talks about what is important today and today only, most of us can agree on the priorities. Treat each other with dignity, respect, love, compassion and mercy. No person deserves to sleep on a park bench. No person deserves to eat with the pigeons or the rats. Those we turn away, had it been 2000 years ago, would have found Jesus to listen to, to eat with and to have heal them, AFTER WE turned them away.
I have experienced subtle inklings of distaste over my religious decisions as of late. Overall, I appreciate them. They give me perspective and I know where people stand and how they think, not only of me, but how they think in general. In a way, they are showing their intellectual hand. Now socially, I am quite inhibited, so one may easily say the same about me. I like to hide behind emails. face-to-face is the worst, phone conversations is next, texting comes third, and an arena like commenting in facebook or Google+ would come fourth. Email is detached from anything realtime. One can mull over a response, write, rewrite, edit and show any and every emotion before hitting the send button. I rarely have that luxury. Coming back to the inklings. I find them refreshing mostly because it seems I come from a culture that chooses not to talk about conflict. Thus, when someone addresses "conflict" it is nice they feel that they know me well enough at least to address it. When we ignore, avoid or otherwise skirt a topic of discomfort among loved ones, it tells them you really don't care enough about them.
Don't get me wrong, I do it too. Remember, I am the social retard. I come from a solid family of socially retarded people. In the acknowledgment of my religious differences, it has become apparent that the distaste often comes saturated in superiority. Now I know that is the wrong word. Yet, religious people nine out of ten times look at irreligious people as lost. Most of us are definitely NOT lost. On the contrary, we feel we have stumbled or studiously enlightened ourselves away from religious lifestyles and we often bite our tongue upon looking back, rather than say something that implies your ignorance or blatant lack of enlightenment. Another reason we bite our tongues is the fact that we have already been ridiculed for our decisions. Opening our mouths often invites more ridicule.
Don't get me wrong here, either. Not everyone leaves religious faith for the same reasons. Not everyone agrees on this side, just like not everyone agrees on your side. That is partly my argument. What enlightened religious people over the years have taught over and over again is to be loving and compassionate toward each other. We are never going to come to religious agreement, therefore it is fruitless to lose sleep, or, more importantly, lose relationships and loves over it. Treating each other like humans is the message. Our time is fleeting. Our attitude in our daily lives is often broken. We seek everything but human connections, myself included. Religion, along with capitalism and the whole work-yourself-till-you-die attitude we have come to accept are all causes to our disconnect from each other.
I'll never emotionally forget that conversation. I knew what was happening and so did he. He was tired and he hurt but he was mine for 60 seconds. He didn't ever seem to fully accept me joining the military and I have never resolved that internally. I will also never forget the day I told him I joined. He used comedy as a defense. It threw me off and I never got back on track as far as he was concerned. As one of my heroes that has been a persistent dagger pierced well beneath the skin.
Over the years, I have morphed and molded away from someone you might consider "keeping the faith." One aspect I DO consider to keep the faith in, is humanity. I don't pretend to be staying true to a father's dying words, but I do intend to claim hold on an aspect of faith, just as every other human on earth. Even the Atheist says, "I have faith (or, I know) that there is no God." Not that I'm an Atheist. I find them to be arrogant, just as those who say, "I have faith (or, I know) there is a God."
What is important? Let's fast-forward a billion years from now. What is important? What stands the test of time? What will never change as far as how we define decency, love, compassion and mercy? Being human to each other. Life is tender, fleeting, delicate and quick. Why is it so important to stress anything to a child other than love? Jesus didn't show us love for one another so we could go around preaching Jesus. He showed us love so we could go around preaching love. We have idolized Jesus when he wanted no such thing. What he wanted has been missed by many many Christians worldwide. Similarly, many Jews and Muslims have leveraged their prophets and gods for bad in the world.
Yet, if we drop the entire act and have a conversation that talks about what is important today and today only, most of us can agree on the priorities. Treat each other with dignity, respect, love, compassion and mercy. No person deserves to sleep on a park bench. No person deserves to eat with the pigeons or the rats. Those we turn away, had it been 2000 years ago, would have found Jesus to listen to, to eat with and to have heal them, AFTER WE turned them away.
I have experienced subtle inklings of distaste over my religious decisions as of late. Overall, I appreciate them. They give me perspective and I know where people stand and how they think, not only of me, but how they think in general. In a way, they are showing their intellectual hand. Now socially, I am quite inhibited, so one may easily say the same about me. I like to hide behind emails. face-to-face is the worst, phone conversations is next, texting comes third, and an arena like commenting in facebook or Google+ would come fourth. Email is detached from anything realtime. One can mull over a response, write, rewrite, edit and show any and every emotion before hitting the send button. I rarely have that luxury. Coming back to the inklings. I find them refreshing mostly because it seems I come from a culture that chooses not to talk about conflict. Thus, when someone addresses "conflict" it is nice they feel that they know me well enough at least to address it. When we ignore, avoid or otherwise skirt a topic of discomfort among loved ones, it tells them you really don't care enough about them.
Don't get me wrong, I do it too. Remember, I am the social retard. I come from a solid family of socially retarded people. In the acknowledgment of my religious differences, it has become apparent that the distaste often comes saturated in superiority. Now I know that is the wrong word. Yet, religious people nine out of ten times look at irreligious people as lost. Most of us are definitely NOT lost. On the contrary, we feel we have stumbled or studiously enlightened ourselves away from religious lifestyles and we often bite our tongue upon looking back, rather than say something that implies your ignorance or blatant lack of enlightenment. Another reason we bite our tongues is the fact that we have already been ridiculed for our decisions. Opening our mouths often invites more ridicule.
Don't get me wrong here, either. Not everyone leaves religious faith for the same reasons. Not everyone agrees on this side, just like not everyone agrees on your side. That is partly my argument. What enlightened religious people over the years have taught over and over again is to be loving and compassionate toward each other. We are never going to come to religious agreement, therefore it is fruitless to lose sleep, or, more importantly, lose relationships and loves over it. Treating each other like humans is the message. Our time is fleeting. Our attitude in our daily lives is often broken. We seek everything but human connections, myself included. Religion, along with capitalism and the whole work-yourself-till-you-die attitude we have come to accept are all causes to our disconnect from each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)