Isms and the Individual

I really like Steve Paiken and "The Agenda." I wish it was on at a time when I'm not packing lunches and getting the kids off to bed so that I could watch it occasionally. I find Paiken to be more broad in his approach than a lot of mainstream journalism. So I was happy when I noticed an "Agenda" channel on You Tube. I started scrolling through some available programs and I noticed a female professor talking about the recent high profile gang rape of a 23 year old student in Delhi. The question she was asked to answer: is India a culture of misogyny? A number of minutes into the interview she stated that rape in India is often a systematic punishment of women for daring to step beyond the limitations of the class system in India. I'm paraphrasing, but I believe that's the gist of what she said. The question that I was left with after watching the video was...how do you talk about class structure in India and gender inequality and never talk about the underlying belief system from which the caste system originates and is held together?  How do you do that? But they did, for twenty long minutes. More than that, how do you begin to change the caste system, when it is deeply rooted in Hinduism, a religion which Indians generally believe to be the foundation of their cultural and national history and identity?  That's the question I wanted to ask, and may I  mention, something that I see western journalists do ALL the time. That is, we in the west have this outlook, it seems to me, when viewing other cultures, that somehow they think like us, or should think like us, or if they don't, then somehow they will inevitably, eventually think like us. Why would they? Why should they? Why do we have this egalitarian expectation in the west, that we expect other cultures to conform to? Where does it even come from?  How on earth are people equal in the first place? It's not the sacred commercials that tell us that, or our annual incomes or tax statements at the end of the year. So, why do we look at India or in the case of the Middle East, with the expectation that they are on the march toward egalitarian liberal democratic societies? Are they? The Arab spring, I naively thought that was about the surge of western style democracies. Is it? We shall see. Are we seeing?

I've had this question in my mind for some time. Why did human rights come out of the western world? Now, I don't think that the west is above reproach for a moment. We have our own bloody history, our own agendas, own own societal failings and issues, I don't think otherwise. But in terms of this expectation of egalitarianism that we hold up for the world to see, where does that come from? What I'm trying to get at here, is what we all take for granted, this idea of human rights, that did not come out of eastern philosophies. With much respect for people of other faiths may I humbly ask, why would the expectation of egalitarianism come out of a culture dominated by Hinduism, if the castes of India stem from the body of Brahma Him/ It self? Why would egalitarianism come out of an ideology that strives to deny if not extinguish the very individual self?  Why would  human rights come out of an ideology or religion that demands that the individual submit wholeheartedly and without reservation to a conditionally loving God? Why would human rights be sustained or found in an ideology that believes in the violent progress towards a earthly utopia-at any cost?  It seems to me that in each of the above, that the adherent's faith is in the process toward an end, and working to get there, regardless of the amount of suffering that people endure in the meantime in this lifetime. That charge has been leveled against Christianity over the years too, as short of a Bob Marley phase as I went through, but I don't think that's good theology, that view of justice waiting for heaven, so to speak. Jesus calls us to be in the world but not of it. The kingdom of God starts here in short, when we begin to love our neighbor as our self, as we're called to serve God and love other human beings. Please forgive me if you're reading this thinking that I'm missing something or misrepresenting something you hold dear.  My intention is not to offend anyone here, simply to understand. So, feel free to share your thoughts. 

In the case of Hinduism or Buddhism though, as I've heard said, it's not this life that is valued, it's union with Brahma or Atman within or Nirvana, at the cost of suffering through this and many lifetimes. Sorry, but that's why I almost feel like laughing when I see westerners make reincarnation a me-thing.  Reincarnation is not a me-thing lol. I haven't seen the movie (watched "Eat, Pray, Love" last night after I wrote this, wasn't far off what I expected), to be fair, but something tells me that if Julia Roberts or the Beatles had gone to India and lived as an untouchable for a few lifetimes, that they would have a very different opinion of Hinduism. See, that's my test of an ideology, is how does it treat the despised...the outcast? How does it treat the poor soul in the sewers of society, the woman, the children, the immigrant, the handicapped, the reject? And that's where Judaism and Christianity outshine them all. Now some people would claim that this is an evolution. No, it is not.  It is right there on the first page of the Bible. That he created mankind in the "Image of God," and it is there all throughout the Old Testament, in countless admonitions to care for the orphan and the widow, the sojourner and the oppressed. And it is fulfilled in the person of Jesus, who gave himself freely as an act of suffering with the least of these, for all. Am I saying that western societies have always lived up to this ideal ourselves, in the treatment of our own people or other cultures?  Not at all.  What I am saying is that the concepts are Judeo-Christian. To answer my own question, we are equal because we're created in the image of God, because God loves each of us and desires to have a relationship with us, regardless of our station or outward appearance. That gives an infinite value to the individual person, who's soul is eternal. So the question becomes, what are the social conditions that arise with generation after generation of an implemented ideology?  How are the people on the bottom of that ideology treated? Jesus talked about the kingdom of God, where the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. In the west we've had these concepts or ideals, and with time it's gotten better, as people were influenced by the teachings of Christ. Not saying there isn't work to do... 

In closing, as I'm wrestling with this, the thing I find myself wondering as I observe western society throwing off it's conceptual foundation, while Christianity is exploding  in other pasts of the world where there is much suffering... I can't help but wonder if that is a mistake. Sigh...Am I arguing for a theocracy here. No, not at all...but I was listening to an Indian woman speaker some time back, and I remember her commenting that Gandhi had tried to change the caste system, speaking of the untouchables as the "children of God."  Her conclusion as a Christian was that it didn't work because it's very hard to change a society that is very old and entrenched, that you have to change the heart. I'm not someone who thinks that everyone is going to come around to my worldview, but I do think it is very interesting when I hear atheist commentators suggesting that we should call ourselves Christians, regardless of what we believe.

thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey


Here's the Steve Paiken interview I was referring to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDcEq6a-fs8


and a book I heard about recently, "Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians:"

http://www.libertylawsite.org/book-review/why-we-should-call-ourselves-christians-the-religious-roots-of-free-societies/

Here's a quote from the above link:

‘In brief: we should call ourselves Christians if we want to maintain our liberties and preserve our civilization…If… [second] our liberties must have, or must be felt as if they had, a religious foundation in order to bind the nation together, then today’s secularized Europe… can never be politically united together… Europe should [therefore] call itself Christian if it desires unification… Secularism [is, thirdly]… bringing about a moral decline. Our moral norms, and with them our coexistence and our institutions… would wither and die if they were to cut themselves off from Christianity. [Therefore] we should — we must — call ourselves Christians.   

Another House on the Horizon

I can't seem to find it at the moment, but I'm recalling a black and white image on a post, where several young white boys were carrying a sign (circa 1952 or so), that said that blacks were not allowed to enter. The caption beneath left me feeling small, implying that anyone who did not conform to the gay rights movement as presented would soon be viewed in much the same way that we view racism now. That seems to be the current thought isn't it?  That there is no excuse, no room for difference where gay rights are concerned. I agree, and I disagree. I agree that gay people should be treated equally, but I disagree with erasing religious rights and freedom of conscience as part of that process. Having spent many a long night and countless hours wrestling with some of these issues, I've come to the conclusion that there is never going to be a day where everyone agrees on abortion or homosexuality. There are always going to be people on both ends of the spectrum that feel very strongly. I'm okay with that. These are hard questions, and I've gotten past the point of thinking that I'm going to convince everyone to see the world as I do. But may I say, this is my vision of where I hope all this is going.

Concerning the gay community, that rather than seeing people like myself as dinosaurs that are not hip to the new reality, I hope that the gay community can begin to respect religious rights, as we begin to respect their right to disagree with us, and that we could each begin to respect each others space.  The turning point for me personally with this issue, was not being called a bigot or a hate mongerer ( I seem to have gotten myself an assortment of t-shirts over the years), but rather was in beginning to understand how human rights developed in the western world, through protest and religious dissent. I began to ask myself, what really is the difference between a gay person's right to self-identify as gay, and my right to self-identify as a Christian? Is that not what protestants fought for in the reformation, the right to disagree, the right to believe differently? And does that not amount to the right to self-determination, so much so that  we've been disagreeing and splitting ourselves down the middle ever since haha.  It's taken a few hundred years and a lot of bloody corpses but we we can finally laugh about it haha. Oh boy, sorry. But that is why I believe that religion is not as great a threat to the gay community (at least in the western world) as is commonly assumed, because quite arguably human rights came out of religious rights. http://teach.learnoutloud.com/Browse/Philosophy/Ethics/Are-There-Christian-Foundations-for-Political-Liberty/22169

With that history in mind, do you think that we could  begin to look at each other, figuratively speaking, as neighboring houses or communities? Another house on the horizon, when all the court cases have been settled, the gay community alongside a church alongside a synagogue alongside a mosque? Another house on the horizon where we understand that there are differences here, that we don't agree on everything, but we respect each others right to be equally part of the larger community, as Muslims, or Jews or Christians (or non-believers) or, as a member of the gay community? Another house on the horizon, where everyone is welcome, where you're free to come in and have a discussion, but you don't have to stay, and you don't have to agree. 

A fb friend posted this article today and I thought well, not quite sure how to summarize it, but may I just say that I would hope that we (speaking as a theologically conservative Christian) could eventually gain the support of the gay community, by being authentically who we are. Sometimes there doesn't seem to be enough examples of that, at least in the media, so I was thankful for this article.  Time to get dinner started.

take care,

M. A. Harvey

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/my-train-wreck-conversion.html

The Unloved Prodigal

Wow, well, this isn't what I was planning on writing about, but I'm rather in shock at the moment. You see, I've been reading through the Koran for a while now.  I'm a slow reader, or maybe it's that I don't have a lot of time being a mother with young kids, but for whatever reason it seems to take me a while to get through just about anything.  I stop and start and then I lose the book or I lose my page. Maybe that's good in the long run, maybe it means I retain more.  So, I'm nowhere near done, but I've been trying to get though the Koran, thinking gosh, this is harsh stuff, very us versus them mentality, while trying to keep an open mind, trying to find the Allah of peace that I've been hearing so much about. Trying to get past the demand for amputations and the demands to not associate with those pagans or those Jews or those Christians. God doesn't love them, after all. But this morning it really hit me, I'm sad to say. Just before Surah 6:142 I read "But you shall not be prodigal; He does not love the prodigal."  Really?  God does not love the prodigal? Are you sure, Mohammad? God does not love the prodigal? Well, if God doesn't love the prodigal then that clears it up for me rather nicely, thanks Mohammad, for clarifying that you're not advocating for the God that I've known, who has loved me all my life, warts and all. Anselm talked about God being that which nothing greater could be conceived.  I can conceive of a greater love, that loves me in my garbage, that loved me in my filth, enough to die for me. And pardon me, but a Jesus on a cross, saying it is finished, doesn't require a prophet to come along and tell me that God doesn't love me until I submit. Why would I submit to a God that is not all loving?  Why should I trust a God that is limited in His/ It's capacity to love? Why would I submit to a God that I don't trust?

Anyway, it's unfortunate that asking these sorts of questions gets you labelled a bad guy in our present culture.  What I can say is that I have a lot of respect for Muslims, in my experience they're good, well-intentioned people.  As a recovering fundamentalist myself, I see a part of myself in the rage of Muslims, and I have a greater faith in them as people, than I do in what they believe. Thanks for listening, sorry for any offense, but I see a need for honesty here.

Take care and God bless,
M. A. Harvey

Here's the story of the prodigal son, as I've always known and appreciated it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cacAlQ3TG64