Time for REEDBACK! Edition 2

Hi Everyone,

You may remember that six months ago, I introduced a new segment called REEDBACK. I expected to use it a lot more often than I have, but since this is such a low traffic blog (I don't particuarly care how many people read it, to tell the truth), I only get about one or two comments per post. Most of those comments have not been enough to devote an entire post to a response. But in checking up on monday's post, I found four comments. The first two were quite lengthy, and were really parts of one comment. They were from someone called "laloyalist." So for the second time, on July 17, 2009, it is time again for...REEDBACK!

Here is what laloyalist wrote:

The first part:

"This area has been the subject of a good deal of thought on my part, so I'm going to weigh in. I spent a long time as a religious (more specifically, Christian) person. To me, it was just something people did. And though I was religious, I eventually began to come by all the things people traditionally receive from religion (moral code, purpose, joy, etc) from other means. Once I realized this, I eventually shed my religion. Yet I did not do this out of any "anger", it was simply a decision that I made as the product of involved thought.I consider myself primarily a Secularist, since I'm not intrested so much in the existence of deities or supernatural entities as their signifigance, which I feel is secondary to human reason and emotion. However, I'm not opposed to religion insofar as it is an excersize of people's freedom to believe what they want; moreover, I feel that the majority of the time a person's belief about the physical nature of the universe is a fact as mundane as his/her hair color. But some religions aren't simply views of the physical nature of the universe, but also doctrines which seek to negate any views - and any persons - which hold them not only as true but absolutely and irrevocably trumping everything else, period. From the reign of Constantine to the Enlightenment, Christianity was one of those religions. At it's core, it remains about repressing free thought; Christians are told in the Bible that the most important thing they can do is not promote human well-being but to believe in a deity. It is for this that, while I fully support your right to feel the way you do, and as a former believer can understand the impetus to feel that way, I also think that a "Christian only" outlook on things implicitly negates others' ability live a good life through other religions, or no religion. As someone who not only treasures freedom of thought, but employs it as my primary source of personal joy, it saddens me that a movement which at its core stifles one's very thought patterns has gained such popularity.Of course, anyone who is critical of Christianity immediately sets himself up to be counterattacked as an enemy of all the good things in the Bible - as a side note, many religions include a body of noble beliefs which religionists claim are inextricably linked to scriptural nastiness and effectively serve to deflect all criticism of that religion. However, I contend that all that is good, noble, or wonderful about religion can be validaded by secular means. Conversely, all that is intolerant, mean-spirited, and destructive in a religion can only be accepted if that religion is granted special treatment in the first place.With regard to religion in politics, Wallis claims (and as best as I can tell you agree) that "The liberal side has made a mistake in ignoring the fact that the teachings of Jesus are what give movements for justice and peace the most strength, and turn to a purely secular vision." If by the "teachings of Jesus" Wallis is refering to the Christian religion, that can be factually proven as incorrect. There is of course the Hindu satyagraha movement of Gandhi, and the prominent women's suffrage advocate Matilda Joslyn Gage was nonreligious. But if Wallis is referring to such teachings as Matthew 5:44, "Love your enemy", I would argue that that is powerful but for a secular reason; a society based on human rights, in which even your enemies are treated with dignity, is our higest calling as humans seeking a better existence.So basically, I disagree with Wallis on many of his points. I particularly am a bit saddened by the final passage about the young agnostic; like so many other exchanges it lays on a heavy implication that the default position of all agnostics, atheists and secularists are against human goodness. Too often we hear either "he's religious and a good person" or "he's an agnostic, but still a good person". Why can't it be "he's agnostic AND a good person"?"

The second part:

"Conclusion:However, I do support Wallis insofar as his message promotes the advancement of human rights and well-being. That's something you don't have to be either religious or secular to support. Now if only we could get good old Jim to acknowledge that."

First of all, the decision to commit to a religious tradition is a deeply personal one. This is a decision everyone must come to on their own. Laloyalist says at the top that he received everything religion traditionally promises (moral code, purpose, joy, so on) without religion. Good for you, laloyalist. However you arrive at those things is fine. However, even in this age, religion does give some people those things. It is important to recognize that religion and spirituality can and does still serve a purpose. If there was nothing of Truth, nothing of existential value, in religious traditions, they would have been confined to the trash can of history long ago.

He goes on to say that how a person believes the universe was created is no more relevant than their hair color. This is not entirely true. For one thing, your hair color probably won't influence how you think about the world, how you treat others. This is so because, as laloyalist later notes, religion encompasses not only the creation and trajectory of the universe (hence the famous Darwinist-Creationist conflict here in the US), but also ways that people should conduct their lives, sometimes for the better, other times for the worse.

Laloyalist goes on to argue that religion stifles free thought and is all about repressing it by making its followers believe that the highest good lies in believing in a deity. I am painfully aware that too many times in the past, and still today, religious doctrine has been used by power-hungry leaders to stifle any criticism of them, elicit vast financial and cultural influence from their followers, and justify dehumanizing and even endorsing violence against those they feel threatened by. This is what made me, for most of my recent life, skeptical of organized religion, as I pointed out in the post.

This was why Jim Wallis's book resonates so strongly with me. Because I feel that, for all its flaws, the Christian tradition does have some truth to it, and I wished, for the longest time, that someone would use this tradition to build others up, rather than justify tearing them down. It was very heartening to get reminded that there are Christians who care about issues like poverty, environmental stewardship, and war and peace. Any religious or spiritual tradition that can seriously be called a guide in life, in my view, must address these larger issues as well as the personal ones.

The loyalist (let's call him that from now on) then states that anyone who dares criticize Christianity sets himself up to be the enemy of all that is pure and good in the religion. This is not entirely true. It is a sad fact that some are still suspicious of those who profess nonbelief, ore even simlpe uncertainty. However, this book also addresses fundamentalism within Christianity, and Wallis mentions that he had someone who didn't agree with him theologically, as the loyalist does not, but nonetheless knew that the way Wallis sought to put his faith into action was right. Hopefully the loyalist may come to a similar conclusion.

Next, the loyalist argues that all that religion offers can be arrived at secularly, but all the intolerances, bigotries, flaws in religion, would not happen had religion not achieved such a high place in society. This is a mistake, I believe, that many nonreligious, or nondeist, if you prefer, people make. They dismiss all good that religion can accomplish by stating that people would do it anyway, but any bad that occurs in the name of religion or a spiritual tradition, that couldn't have happened without religion. It seems to me that any attitude could be justified and empowered by religion, good or bad. To assume that it is entirely either good or bad would be a mistake. Those in religion and out of religion alike must not assume that their traditions are always good, but strive to make them better, to answer the questions I believe we all have and the need we all have to make our world more just.

The next paragraph talks about how Christianity isn't the only religion that has powered movements for social justice, since Gandhi was a Hindu, I think, and one of the Sufferagette leaders was nonreligious. Wallis never claims in the book that Christianity is the only way. What he argues in the book, and what I would argue (what I am arguing) is that religion (Christianity in this context, but doubtless others, as well) can be used to wage powerful campaigns for justice, peace and healing. When such movements have selfless religious and spiritual roots, they are made all the more powerful. The unfortunate tone I detected in that paragraph is that it seems the loyalist is more interested in shooting down theological arguments than listening to what Mr. Wallis is really after.

Lastly, the second, and concluding, part of the loyalist's comment stated that he agreed with Mr. Wallis's mission to promote human rights and well-being. There I believe the loyalist is correct. Then he writes "Now if only we could get good old Jim to acknowledge that." But I believe he does. When Mr. Wallis talks about needing more religion rather than more secularism, he isnt talking about people who demand that creation be taught in school, that the ten commandments be on display out front of every school, and that everybody, on pain of death, say "Merry Christmas." He is talking about the decency that guides us to be just and kind in our dealings, as many biblical passages implore us to do. This is what I believe God and the religious traditions should speak to. Now, if only we could get the loyalist to acknowledge that. I kid the loyalist, with love. But seriously, I hope that comes across. That's why I liked the book so much.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Time for REEDBACK! The first edition of this segment

Hi everybody,

Well, the Daily Reeder has passed another milestone today. I've been checking my posts for new comments (I admit it, all those who've posted comments so far have been by relatives), and upon checking my monumental post on the ongoing conflict in Gaza, I found a comment by someone named Mister Sneaky.

I had been planning a segment like this, where I would respond to comments posted in response, but I didn't get an opportunity until now. So, without any more rambling, let me introduce to you... Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart, wait, no, wrong intro. Let me introduce you to the first edition of my new segment... REEDBACK!

Mister Sneaky had some really good things to say. Here was his comment in its entirety:

"Mr. Reeder,What do you have in mind for a two-state solution?One pressing problem, I would say, is that neither Hamas nor the Israeli government has ever expressed a genuine commitment to abide by the relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions (centrally, 242 and 338). Israel was long opposed to the creation of a third state between itself and Jordan, and in recent years the most it has been willing to accept is a demilitarized Palestinian state consisting of Gaza, roughly 90% of a significantly cantonized West Bank, and a capital on the outskirts of Jerusalem rather than in predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem. Hamas, of course, remains officially dedicated to the destruction of Israel -- a good example of the foolish pride you're talking about, since Israel has nuclear weapons and by far the most powerful military in the region.Since Hamas is powerless in the face of Israeli military might, it would be sensible for its leaders to change the group's charter so that it calls for some version of the two-state solution instead of Israel's destruction. This would shift the focus from Hamas' rejectionism to Israel's, which would in turn make it considerably more difficult for the U.S. to continue backing Israel in the face of near-universal international condemnation. But in order for Hamas to take this step, pragmatism will have to take the place of pride, and I'm not confident there's room in their rigid ideology for that.Glad to see you're thinking this stuff through.-S.B. True"

This is kind of like what I was saying. I believe both sides have made grievous moral errors. I have to admit I hadn't read the UN Security Resolutions. I realize why both sides have done what they did, even though I heartily object to their doing so.

One point that the video brought up is that those in Palestine would do well to look what Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King all did to succeed in their struggles. Did Gandhi launch rockets at the British? Did Martin Luther King dedicate himself to the destruction of White America? Did Mandela call for the massacre of all who were a part of the Apartheid regime, including the children?

No, no and hell no. These men all succeeded by employing peace in the face of violence. They knew that the only way they could dissolve the oppression was by being peaceful while the oppressors employed violence as only they knew how. Every sane, good person in the world eventually woke up and realized that the people were being oppressed. The occuppying powers, the White racism in South Africa, the White racism in America, the British oppression of India, were all forced to change their ways or get out.

Imagine if someone from Palestine decided to take this action. To admit that Palestine had done wrong to people, and then to shift from dedication to the destruction of Israel to wanting to be out from under Israel's grip. Because the Palestinians were there, and the Israelis came in, took over the land, then told everyone there where you can go, and all. Now, anyone would be pissed at this. However, this will only prolong the suffering for all involved. And as the video said, peace doesn't make you weaker, it actually takes more courage, more strength.

As to his first comment, "What do you have in mind for a two-state solution?" Well, I'm not the one making policy decisions. I don't live there. I will say this, though: Both sides will have to give some. Because this simply can't go on. And with Israel's nuclear capabilities, like Mr. Sneaky mentioned, the imperative is that much more pressing that both the Israelis and Palestinians put thier ideologies in the backseat, admit that they both made mistakes, and then work out the issues themselves.

You have really good ideas on this, though, Mister Sneaky, so keep reading this blog and post your responses if you feel compelled to do so. Well, this concludes the first edition of REEDBACK, on January 17, 2009. The segment will doubtless evolve as this blog does. Thanks for listening, everyone, and please continue to write in your responses.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.