There Is Too Much Pain and Suffering

I can hardly see my computer screen for the tears.  Suffering seems rampant; needless suffering caused by inexcusable actions by an increasing number of people. 

I have just finished reading the entire 12-page letter written by the victim of the outrageous rape committed by Brock Turner, the Stanford University student, who felt privilege entitled him to brutalize a woman without penalty.  In my opinion, every male student entering any college should be required to read this letter and be tested on its contents.  Perhaps female students would be well served to do the same.  No, it will not stop the abuses, but it may bring a greater degree of sensitivity to what happens when alcohol enters the equation.  And, no, every rape is not the result of alcohol abuse.

For me, the anger I feel about the context of privilege versus victim makes me want to scream along with the victim of Brock Turner.  (Every time I type his name it seems an extra letter accidentally gets appropriately added:  Brock Turdner.)

To the pain and suffering all have experienced in this ordeal, we then add the ridiculous six-month sentence handed down by Judge Aaron Persky!  Certainly, one must not cause permanent damage to a star swimming athlete’s future.  After all, as Brock’s father so succinctly noted:  “That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.”

Even one of the juror’s, a person who recently became a US citizen after living in this country for 30 years, wrote the judge regarding the relative light sentence compared to the severity of the crime.

There is too much pain and suffering.

And this is but one of the terrible events we are facing in what seems like a daily assault on our senses.  I do not need to list them here.  We all know what they are.  When are we going to “re-civilize” our society?  It is not enough for outrage to last a day or two.  We must return to teaching responsibility and being responsible.  The personification of “privilege” as a right will never be right.  We must respect and honor the dignity of EVERY PERSON.  Women are not sex objects to be fondled and raped because a male feels privileged to do so.  Minorities, of all types, are human beings to be respected for their beliefs and cultural practices.  I could go on and on with what we all know are the attitudes that we must recover and express if we are to remain human.

There is too much pain and suffering!

Please!  Please help to heal our hearts, minds and souls.

Religion and the Rise of Atheism

Recently my friend, Lloyd Agte, forwarded an article to me asking if I wanted to weigh in on it. [1]  The article posed the question: “Will religion ever disappear?”  The author is Rachel Nuwer. It was a fairly long article so I printed it out in order to be able to mark areas I wanted to respond to specifically.  As I read the piece I thought of several of my friends who identify themselves as atheists.  I also realized my comments might end up too long for a simple email response.  So, here is my attempt to “weigh in” on the discussion.

First, here is my disclaimer.   I am a retired Unity minister whom one might expect to be biased to begin with.  That said I have over the years modified my belief systems in many respects.  I do believe in God, though my perspective is certainly different from traditionalists or fundamentalists.  I hope you will see what I mean as I proceed.

I used to argue that there are no “real” atheists.  They were simply folks who did not believe in God by that name or characteristics.  Surely they believed in the Cosmos, the “greater than I” aspect of self, or some other concept of life that most persons would include in the broad definition of God.  Generally speaking, most atheists do not believe in some form of life after death, no divine plan that is responsible for the unseen order of all that is.  For those persons there is one shot at life and this is it.  Oblivion follows. 

While the article points out that atheism is growing, both in sheer numbers as well as a percentage of the world population, it is still a relatively small population.  Should such growth continue, one could postulate that religion, as we know it would eventually disappear.  Of course, the reverse could be true as well, given the proclivity of “believers” to hold on to their faith.

In the course of my education I was introduced to a definition of religion in its simplest of form.  Religion is a system of beliefs.  Interpreted most broadly this could cover almost every conceivable set of beliefs one might subscribe to, including atheists.  Their “system of beliefs” would include such things as one life to live, nature as a system of adaptations supported by scientific principles.  Indeed, science would be the cause celebre for explaining the physical world and all of its forces.

The article also pointed out that religion’s appeal is that it offers security in an uncertain world.  So, the more secure and satisfying the world appears to be, the less need for the support offered by religion and the greater tendency to see scientific thought/principles as the reason for the way things are.  I was reminded at this point of early humankind who placed great emphasis on “gods” of nature; the movement of stars in the skies, the rotation of the seasons, and eventually the understanding of development through evolution.  Icons were developed representing these unseen forces that appeared to bring order and security (or the lack of it when necessary to correct the faulty behavior of humankind).

The author indicates that in countries “where the majority of citizens have European roots are all places where religion was important just a century ago, but that now report some of the lowest belief rates in the world . . . People are less scared about what might befall them.”  She goes on to say, “As climate change wreaks havoc on the world in coming years and natural resources potentially grow scarce, then suffering and hardship could fuel religiosity.” 

One of the principles the author shares has to do neuropsychology of the species.  This principle states that we have two basic forms of thought:  System 1 and System 2.  System 2 evolved relatively recently and enables us to plan and think logically.  System 1 is intuitive, instinctual and automatic.  What this suggests to me is that we are born with System 1 operating for all of us no matter the circumstances or location of our birth. “It makes us prone to looking for patterns to better understand our world, and to seek meaning for seemingly random events like natural disasters and the death of loved ones.”  There is more in the development of this concept in the article, which I will leave for you to read on your own.

It seems to me that we might conclude, at least for now, that religion developed in the pre-science period where explanations for the world came mostly from the natural, intuitive nature.  A system of beliefs developed and modified over time based on a faith in things unseen, but taken as true for lack of any other explanation.  As scientific knowledge grew a new set of explanations came about that for some seemed in opposition to religious beliefs.  This is the crux of the matter.  Is religion/atheism a simple case of either/or?

For me the conflict exists due to the distortions of religious systems based on controlling the masses and bending their independent will to the “higher authority” represented by the church.  If you are going to believe the world (our earth and everything that ever existed on it) came about in all its glory in seven days, you are unlikely to ever accept any other explanation regardless of the demonstrated reality of modern scientific methods.  Most religions long ago resolved, at least in part, what appeared to be a contradiction between religion and science.  Again, for me, the problem of religion comes about through the absolutism of Fundamentalism, which today seems to be growing, especially among the religious right.  Is this the result of the uncertainty existent in our world today—economically, environmentally, and physically?  I would argue that it is.

Finally, I distinguish between religion and spirituality.  Religion, as a system of beliefs, may exist independently of one’s spirituality.  Religion requires persons to subscribe to a set of principles and codes, often at odds with the way the world works today. It excludes those who do not subscribe to the “rules.”  Spirituality, on the other hand subscribes to few, if any, codes of conduct or religious practices.  Spirituality is a view that is inclusive rather than exclusive.  It is intuitive in nature.  Rather than seeking hard and fast rules, it operates as a blending force that sees all things as part of something greater.  The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

In a world that appears often to be out of control, hurtling toward oblivion, persons may tend to defer to the concept of a “god” ultimately taking care of us when we realize we cannot take care of ourselves.  I would like to go on here about children and their natural tendency to believe they are taken care of.  This goes beyond the care of parents. I believe they intuitively know they have come from and are heading toward something greater than themselves, but which INCLUDES them.

The author’s conclusion is that “even if we lose sight of the Christian, Muslim and Hindu gods and all the rest, superstitions and spiritualism will almost certainly still prevail.  Humans need comfort in the face of pain and suffering, and many need to think that there’s something more after this life, that they’re loved by an invisible being.”  I do not subscribe to the “invisible being” concept.  I subscribe to the principle of All That Is as an interconnected, omnipresent essence in all and through all that embraces us and responds to us according to our beliefs and actions.

I hope you will take the time to read the article by Rachel Nuwer footnoted at the end of this article.

---

[1] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141219-will-religion-ever-disappear

On The Occasion Following the Inauguration of Barack Obama As President of the United States of America

This is very difficult for me to write about. It is now more than a week since the inauguration. I have waited to post this article in order to be certain I wanted to voice these concerns. On the day after the inauguration of Barack Obama, I was basking in the sense of hope and the realization of accomplishment that we have risen above the bigotry and racial separation that has long limited our full flowering as a people and as a nation. As I rode this wave of enthusiasm about the opportunities now open to us I was brought down to earth with a thud as I realized once again that not everyone feels the same as I do. For some this was still just another election. Still just politics. Still based in self-interest. I guess I am naïve after all. I guess it is too much to hope for that humanity could grasp the real potential for change that is before us. I realized that my path in life had perhaps prepared me to view life differently than many others.

Barack Obama stated in his address that 60 years ago his father would not have been served in a restaurant in the town where he, Barack, now stood taking the oath of office for President. I was so sad because I now realized and remembered what it was like those 60 years ago. I remember the hardship and deprivation and segregation. I did not experience it at that time. As a white person my whole culture and world offered a different set of opportunities and advantages that were taken for granted.

As a child growing up in Portland, Oregon I thought nothing about racial bigotry. I didn’t have any problems thinking about equality or non-equality. As far as I am aware my family exhibited none of the characteristics of racial bigotry. I was raised to respect the individual regardless of heritage or ethnicity. We had a black population and I had no problem with that. Today, I remember that one of the reasons I had no problem with segregation was because that black population was conveniently gathered in their own community. I did not see a black child in grade school. I did not see a black child in high school.

In the late 60s, as a faculty member at seminary, it became quite clear to me that two different worlds co-existed and not in harmony. The school had hired an imposing black man as an adjunct faculty member whose job it was to help bring awareness to our organization of ways we needed to face our white-based operations and open ourselves as Christians to the integration of ideas, cultures and persons within minority communities. It was a tense time of confrontation and it was not easy for many in the white community to understand what all the fuss was about. White people were guilty for the segregationist views that kept minorities in their place. White people often denied they had anything to do with such attitudes. They did not personally hold back minorities from progress.

This naiveté was brought clearly to my attention one day as I conversed with John, the black faculty member. I had asked why there was a general anger against all white people whether they were segregationist or people who never had any encounters with the black community. He said that because I was white I was guilty. It did no good to protest that I felt I had never acted in a way that harmed a black person. He made the point that as part of the white culture I was part of the limitation the black culture had to endure.

It is not my intention here to go into the subsequent details that helped me realize it is not enough to have not personally held segregationist ideas. One must begin a proactive intention to understand the issues and consciously change the cultural position in one’s thinking and acting. To the best of my ability I did that. Being able to attempt these changes among many other attitudinal changes I have made through the years brought me to a point where I tended more toward seeing the likenesses in others rather than the differences. I do not imply that I have perfected this process, but I do know that I have come a long way toward accepting others for who they are rather than requiring them to embody my expectations.

So, again, I have been given the opportunity to see that not everyone thinks as I do. Surprise, surprise! There is still work to do. No, not work to convince others to be what they are not. The work is to be clear about who I am and what I believe. As I make the effort to live what I believe and to share my thoughts and beliefs as clearly as I am able, perhaps others will find something that intrigues them to ask “Why does he believe that?” That, my friends, can be the beginning of openness to new possibilities.

I admit to times of deep discouragement and disappointment in my fellow human beings. That so many hang on to threads of thought that have never produced anything but disappointment is a mystery to me. My conclusion about that to this point is that we have given up our sense of personal responsibility for so long that now we believe it really is someone else’s job to take care of us. While we blame government and politicians for acting without regard for our well being, we at the same time tell them to stay out of our lives. A real community does not work that way. A live community, a successful community, calls on all members to participate in every way they are able. For that positive participation the community prospers and grows and all are served in harmony and satisfaction.

Something more is going on here than concerns about racism. There are major concerns about whether we can rise above politics as usual. It is time to ask ourselves in the context of personal responsibility and what we expect of each other and our government: “What do I believe and why do I believe it? Are my beliefs a positive contribution to my society?”