Michael Gerson has missed the point in his latest article. he attributes morality and the respect of human dignity to the catholic church. all the while referencing terrible things that popes of the past have done, not to mention what clergy of late have done. he claims that catholicism is the moral compass of the world. that it leads the way in caring for the downtrodden and valuing every human life.
i can think of a number of ways to refute that. starting from the beginning, Catholicism is built on Judaism. the only thing original about catholicism is the pope and the that Christ is the son of god. sure theres some different rituals (many of which are just different versions of Jewish ones), some different names and places, but the basics are the same. how can you claim to be the original human rights watchdog when you have copied most of your faith from an older one?
second, as we move through time, come the crusades. crusaders really valued human life as they slaughtered Jews and and Arabs alike for dusty town that none had any real need for. thats not showing much respect for the value of human life. not to mention the papal atrocities that Gerson himself cites.
next we come to the inquisition. i dont think i need to explain myself on this one. just be glad you werent around unless you happen to be catholic.
fast forward to the 20th century. where was the catholic church when Hiltler was taking over Europe murdering and imprisoning millions at a time? why were they silent as Mussolini was Hitler's man in the Mediterranean? maybe i missed that day in history class.
how about the more modern and ever expanding list of child molesters that use their position as a moral and spiritual guide to take advantage of children?
politicians are constatly citing records as to why or why not to vote for a candidate. as Gerson states, the catholic church has been around longer than any nation on earth(he must not be counting China) and therefore has a lengthy record on human rights on which to judge their moral leadership. looking back on it, i cant say that it is impressive. well, not in a good way, anyhow. and they continue to lobby against women in the clergy while the rest of the modern world has given women full rights so long ago the idea that they wouldnt be equal is about as foreign as can be. they also obstruct the right of clergymen to have a wife. i have to say of all requirements of the job, thats got to be the toughest. they claim to have the high ground on birth control and abortion as well. i wont comment on abortion other than to say that medically, i think that doctors need to have that option at times. birth control is a complete misnomer. in reality it is conception control. and in thins age when we are fighting AIDS and other STDs on a world wide scale, lobbying against safe sex practices is just irresponsible.
the catholic church says it has moral authority, but when you look at the record and policy of the church, it is easy to argue otherwise. religion in general, and especially not the catholic church, doesnt have a monopoly on moral teaching. in my opinion thats the parent's responsibility. i was raised Lutheran, but we were never a very religious family. i dont like church. i havent been voluntarily since middle school. i havent done much raping and pillaging lately. i am always troubled by unethical actions. the kindest people that i personally know are not religious if they even associate themselves with any church. i think the idea, no, the belief, that my god is the right god and anyone who believes other wise is wrong plays a large part in the problem. having a faith in the underlying goodness in humanity in general is much more universal and opens the mind and heart to everyone.
catholicism is not the path to righteousness. i can be. but there are many paths. religion with exclusivity clauses like catholicism are frequently paths to false righteousness. that path leads to misguided efforts of conversion like the inquisition and missionary work such as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. i think we are much better off as a human race if we just allow each other live and love and just dont be a dick.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Friday, April 18, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
13% of Americans think that Barack Obama is Muslim. i found this out when i was watching the news and eating my breakfast this morning. the bit started out with them interviewing random people on the streets of NYC to see what they would say. and at first, i felt a bit embarrassed as i wasnt sure, but i thought he was Christian, which, in fact, he is.
then i realized something. if i cared i would have known, im sure of that. so then i felt pretty happy realizing that the major candidate that i like best could have been a Muslim and i didnt care. he could be Jewish or an atheist, it really doesnt matter to me.
it was one of those realizations that you have to step outside yourself a bit to make. whether Senator Obama practices Christianity or Islam doesnt matter to me, and i really only realized when the news made a point about the perceptions of the public, and somewhat covertly about how believing that Obama was not Christian would affect their vote. im very happy that i can see past this and be able to look issues that really should matter when selecting a candidate.
this reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Keith Ellison in his choice to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office as the first Muslim US congressman. there was a call for him to use the Bible, which makes no sense to me. the oath of office is taken over a holy book in order to promise to not just your constituents, but also to your deepest faith, to take your position seriously and abide by your values that got you elected and to honor your promises. having a Muslim take such an oath over the Bible is like a Christian saying "by Allah, i swear i will do my best." it means nothing. (check out the un-bias in this article)
the point here is that too much is made of things that really shouldnt be of great importance. have you heard anything of Keith Ellison since he was sworn into office? has he tried to topple our government from the inside? it really doesnt matter, and it doesnt matter that Obama has a Muslim father. it doesnt matter that Obama is in fact Christian. what matters is what he stands for.
i also find it interesting that the religious right attacks his links to Islam through his father and step father, they also take the opportunity to attack his connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright has come to light lately and his sermons have been all over youtube. Obama has tried to distance himself from the man who baptized his children and married he and his wife, Michelle. its hard to ignore this connection. i dont see it as a liability, but many could. i like Ralph Nader, but i wholly disagree with some things he says. i like Rolling Stone magazine, but i think the lean a little too far left and sometimes go too far in endorsing and denouncing candidates. the point is that Wright probably helped Obama by encouraging his early political activism in Chicago, but that doesnt meant that Obama stands for all that Wright does. just like Obama's enrollment in a Muslim school does not mean he is in fact Muslim.
the important thing here is not what religion Obama is. its not who Obama is associated with, or whose sermons he has heard. the important thing is to look at the candidates yourself. to see who they are through your own eyes. dont let media spin make your decisions. dont let me make your decisions. take it all in, do your own research, and decide for yourself. then cast your vote for the person who you think will do best on the job.
i think that Obama's exposure to Islam and Christianity alike make him the best suited of all candidates to understand and better the situation in the middle east. he has already made trips to Iraq, Israel, and Syria. i think that he above the other candidates is best suited for diplomacy in that troubled region of the world. but its no up to me. its up to you and me.
then i realized something. if i cared i would have known, im sure of that. so then i felt pretty happy realizing that the major candidate that i like best could have been a Muslim and i didnt care. he could be Jewish or an atheist, it really doesnt matter to me.
it was one of those realizations that you have to step outside yourself a bit to make. whether Senator Obama practices Christianity or Islam doesnt matter to me, and i really only realized when the news made a point about the perceptions of the public, and somewhat covertly about how believing that Obama was not Christian would affect their vote. im very happy that i can see past this and be able to look issues that really should matter when selecting a candidate.
this reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Keith Ellison in his choice to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office as the first Muslim US congressman. there was a call for him to use the Bible, which makes no sense to me. the oath of office is taken over a holy book in order to promise to not just your constituents, but also to your deepest faith, to take your position seriously and abide by your values that got you elected and to honor your promises. having a Muslim take such an oath over the Bible is like a Christian saying "by Allah, i swear i will do my best." it means nothing. (check out the un-bias in this article)
the point here is that too much is made of things that really shouldnt be of great importance. have you heard anything of Keith Ellison since he was sworn into office? has he tried to topple our government from the inside? it really doesnt matter, and it doesnt matter that Obama has a Muslim father. it doesnt matter that Obama is in fact Christian. what matters is what he stands for.
i also find it interesting that the religious right attacks his links to Islam through his father and step father, they also take the opportunity to attack his connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright has come to light lately and his sermons have been all over youtube. Obama has tried to distance himself from the man who baptized his children and married he and his wife, Michelle. its hard to ignore this connection. i dont see it as a liability, but many could. i like Ralph Nader, but i wholly disagree with some things he says. i like Rolling Stone magazine, but i think the lean a little too far left and sometimes go too far in endorsing and denouncing candidates. the point is that Wright probably helped Obama by encouraging his early political activism in Chicago, but that doesnt meant that Obama stands for all that Wright does. just like Obama's enrollment in a Muslim school does not mean he is in fact Muslim.
the important thing here is not what religion Obama is. its not who Obama is associated with, or whose sermons he has heard. the important thing is to look at the candidates yourself. to see who they are through your own eyes. dont let media spin make your decisions. dont let me make your decisions. take it all in, do your own research, and decide for yourself. then cast your vote for the person who you think will do best on the job.
i think that Obama's exposure to Islam and Christianity alike make him the best suited of all candidates to understand and better the situation in the middle east. he has already made trips to Iraq, Israel, and Syria. i think that he above the other candidates is best suited for diplomacy in that troubled region of the world. but its no up to me. its up to you and me.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
perhaps i can help
the following is a fairly casual and not entirely persuasive blog/article about the perception of Muslims in America and that few Muslim leaders do anything to denounce and discredit violent and extremist Muslims.
The Spell of Islamophobia.
the point is that most Muslims are not terrorists. most are peaceful people just like any other religious group. there are certainly Christians who are militant about beliefs that the Bible doesn't even address. the same can be said for just about every mainstream religion, they all have their radical factions.
having grown up in metro Detroit, that has the largest Arab population in the US and is home to the Islamic Center of America, i dont see the threat that many do who havent been exposed to Arabs and Muslims might. i dont claim to fully understand their culture and beleifs, but never felt threatened at home or when visiting Dearborn, MI that has a population of over 30,000 Muslims.
i feel like the media is at least partially responsible for perceptions. few views of prominent Muslims are published widely, and i must comment the Post for putting the link to the article on their main page. another problem is that while Arabs are a large group in metro Detroit, they make up a fairly small percentage of the total US population. various studies and polls spout numbers anywhere from 0.5% to 2% of the US population. its no wonder that they arent fully understood. it would be nice if media outlets took more note of those Islamic leaders who denounced violence and preached peace, because they are out there. i guarantee it.
if i may comment on the subject, and i think i may, as this is my blog, i would have to say that religions is the root of too much violence. i cant recall who, but i want to say that it was a comedian or satirist(im pretty sure it was Chris Rock in Dogma...), but someone posed the idea that the reason for interfaith conflict is beleifs. beleifs are unchanging. written in stone. when you refuse to yield, conflict arises. it would be far better if everyone just had ideas. ideas are much more malleable than beleifs. i dont claim to know what is right, but i have an idea. i just try to be a good person. to act as my family taught me, which are Christian values, but the worlds dominant religions all espouse the same core values.
i think bad religion may have said it best: "we’re ready now to feast on an atheist peace."
The Spell of Islamophobia.
the point is that most Muslims are not terrorists. most are peaceful people just like any other religious group. there are certainly Christians who are militant about beliefs that the Bible doesn't even address. the same can be said for just about every mainstream religion, they all have their radical factions.
having grown up in metro Detroit, that has the largest Arab population in the US and is home to the Islamic Center of America, i dont see the threat that many do who havent been exposed to Arabs and Muslims might. i dont claim to fully understand their culture and beleifs, but never felt threatened at home or when visiting Dearborn, MI that has a population of over 30,000 Muslims.
i feel like the media is at least partially responsible for perceptions. few views of prominent Muslims are published widely, and i must comment the Post for putting the link to the article on their main page. another problem is that while Arabs are a large group in metro Detroit, they make up a fairly small percentage of the total US population. various studies and polls spout numbers anywhere from 0.5% to 2% of the US population. its no wonder that they arent fully understood. it would be nice if media outlets took more note of those Islamic leaders who denounced violence and preached peace, because they are out there. i guarantee it.
if i may comment on the subject, and i think i may, as this is my blog, i would have to say that religions is the root of too much violence. i cant recall who, but i want to say that it was a comedian or satirist(im pretty sure it was Chris Rock in Dogma...), but someone posed the idea that the reason for interfaith conflict is beleifs. beleifs are unchanging. written in stone. when you refuse to yield, conflict arises. it would be far better if everyone just had ideas. ideas are much more malleable than beleifs. i dont claim to know what is right, but i have an idea. i just try to be a good person. to act as my family taught me, which are Christian values, but the worlds dominant religions all espouse the same core values.
i think bad religion may have said it best: "we’re ready now to feast on an atheist peace."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
