Category Archives: Religion

A Life Well Embellished

Culture, Religion

 

heavens-gates-opening_248004The Summer 2016 issue of the George Washington University magazine includes an article titled “About Death.”  It shares retiring psychology professor Pamela Woodruff’s perspective on the end of life.  When asked about an afterlife, Woodruff responded “I don’t believe in it absolutely.  I simply hope that it’s there.”

The article reminded me of my own views on dying and an afterlife which I shared with students, faculty and friends as part of my final lecture at Miami University.  I fall into Dr. Woodruff’s camp in that I, too, do not believe in an afterlife.  I differ from her perspective in that I do not care if eternal life is a myth.  Coming from that perspective, I keep asking myself, “Why do so many people need to believe there is something else after we have completed our time on this earth?”

But, as Arlo Guthrie rifts in his classic Alice’s Restaurant, “That’s not what I came here to talk to you about.”  The previous two paragraphs are merely a preamble to a topic I have struggled with for a couple of weeks.  Why do people with successful careers feel the need to exaggerate and embellish their life stories?  And questioning the need for an afterlife was the segue I was missing.

In that last lecture on December 5, 2011, I said, “I hope it doesn’t happen, but if I were to die tomorrow I would have no regrets.  I’ve lived a full life and had more than my share of great experiences.  I wish the same for each of you.”  Were there more opportunities of which I could have taken advantage?  Of course.  Were there times I could have been a better person? Quite likely.  Regardless of these and other shortcomings, I can honestly say my life has been “good enough.”

Here lies a potential link between the need for an afterlife and the topic du jour, embellishing one’s accomplishments.  False additions to one’s life narrative suggest some underlying fear or dissatisfaction that your life has not been good enough.  Let’s look at some recent examples when individuals have felt the need to inflate their achievements.

NBC Night News anchor Brian Williams lost his job for claiming, among other things, he had been riding in a helicopter under attack in Iraq.  For him, the challenge and potential danger of reporting from a war zone was NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Bill O’Reilly claimed he was “on the scene” when Lee Harvey Oswald’s friend George de Mohrenschildt committed suicide in Florida in 1977, eliminating a potential source of information about Oswald’s motives and associations.  The claim is debunked by O’Reilly’s own phone calls back to Fox News at the time of the incident.  Being the lead investigative reporter into JFK’s assassination for a major news organization was NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Donald Trump claims to be worth 10 billion dollars.  Most independent sources suggest the true figure is more likely somewhere between 500 million and 2.5 billion dollars.  I know I would be more than happy at the 500 million figure.  But for Trump, it is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Hillary Clinton claims to have been subject to sniper fire after landing in Bosnia in 1996 when she was First Lady.  One would think being First Lady, a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State alone qualifies as an impressive resume.  But for her, it was NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

A candidate for local office includes membership in the local Rotary Club on her bio.  She pays her dues with campaign funds, but never attends a meeting or participates in Rotary sponsored events.  “Resume padding” is something we warn students against as future employers are often more interested in the quality of community service than the quantity of activities.  The candidate must think that her other community engagements are NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

It makes me wonder if the hope of an afterlife is somehow related to a feeling that one’s life has not been good enough.

I understand belief in an afterlife is of comfort to many people.  And I empathize that, for people who have lost a family member or friend way before their time, the idea of seeing them again in heaven is a source of inner peace.  But if one’s belief in heaven or eternal life is viewed as a reward or a second chance, I am reminded of what Pixar founder John Lasseter said about the process by which he and his team developed the animated movie Cars.  “The reward in life in not the destination, it is the journey.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

If You Want to Live in a Theocracy…

Politics, Religion 
Let me paraphrase the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I too have a dream.  That Americans will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the deity to whom they pray or not, but by their values and ethics, whatever the source.

The event which triggered this blog was NOT the recent Republican National Convention where religion, and specifically Christianity, were constantly on display.  More about that later.  I began thinking about this topic when someone shared with me the first article about WikiLeaks' release of emails from the Democratic National Committee.

As always, the news media is focusing on only a portion of the story.  Headlines in the major newspapers and stories on cable news present this revelation as confirmation that the Democratic National Committee was biased in its support of Hillary Clinton.  The following email from DNC CFO Brad Marshall to other DNC staff including executive director Amy K. Dacey is among the most egregious.

From:[email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 
Date: 2016-05-05 03:31 
Subject: No shit

It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

 
Sadly, instead of telling Marshall the email is inappropriate, her one word email reply?  "AMEN" (her capital letters).

But that is only half the story and maybe the least important.  We had just been witness to a Republican National Convention which promoted a melding of church and state.  It began on the first day, when SC Pastor Mark Burns, in the opening benediction, warned, "Our enemy is not other Republicans, but is Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party."  What happened to the other party being referred to as the "loyal opposition?"

In reference to the Republican candidate, he continued, "We are thankful that you are guiding him [Trump], that you are giving his the words to unite this party, this country, that we together can defeat the liberal Democratic Party...Because we are the conservative party under God."

In his acceptance speech, Trump proposed a greater role for religion in political discourse, promising to repeal laws which prohibit tax exempt organizations, including churches, from political activity.  There are two kinds of tax exempt organizations in the IRS Code.  Those designated as 501(c)(3) are generally charitable or educational entities.  Currently, religious organizations fall into this category.  Advocacy groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce are designated as 501(c)(6).  The major difference is contributors to a (c)(3) charity can deduct the gift on their individual tax returns.  Contributors to a (c)(6) cannot. Under Trump's proposal, someone like Sheldon Adelson could create a religious entity (not very hard as proven by John Oliver on HBO's Last Week Tonight) and offer personal income tax deductions to "donors" who support political speech given from the pulpit.

Is this wrong?  Ask Thomas Jefferson who wrote the following in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in response to their congratulations on his election as president.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
So if you want to live in theocracy, there are plenty of nations where you are welcome.

Which brings us back to Marshall and Dacey.  Not only did they demonstrate improper bias, they chose to undermine a candidate based on his religious beliefs or lack thereof.  To use choice of faith as a criteria for public office, is a violation of the very principles on which our country was founded.  For both their lack of neutrality during the nomination process and their violation of the imperative of religious freedom,  Dacey and Marshall, and chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz if she knew and said nothing, must RESIGN IMMEDIATELY or be FIRED.  (Not to mention the sheer stupidity of raising the issue in an email.)

In contrast, I was heartened listening to Senator Tim Kaine yesterday.  In previous posts, I stated I have no problem with people using faith as a source of inner strength and personal ethics.  Kaine ascribed his passion for social justice to his religious upbringing.  But this man, who as a Catholic personally opposes abortion, supports the law and Constitutional right for women to control their own bodies.  This is a good start.

Let me close by sharing one other dream.  If we really believe in separation of church and state, one day a president of the United States will be sworn into office with his or her hand on a copy of the Constitution as this is the ONLY document they promise to faithfully execute, not any religious artifact.

For what it's worth.
 Dr. ESP

“Religious Freedom” Laws Violate First Amendment

Religion

 

Much of the discussion about recently passed religious freedom laws in Indiana, North Carolina and Georgia has focused on the belief that “religious freedom” are code words for discrimination against people in the LGBT community.  I believe the issue is broader than that as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s non-decision yesterday (a 4-4 tie) related to the inclusion of contraception in health care policies issued in accordance with the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act (ACA).

What if someone believes religion was created as a way to bring some order to an otherwise unruly world?  (Comedian Lewis Black reminds us, “When the Old Testament was written, we were just one hair short of being an orangutan.”) What if someone thinks that Catholic doctrine on birth control and Jewish adherence to kosher laws are outdated responses to issues which are no longer relevant?  Those opinions–the right to be non-religious–are also protected by the first amendment.

Back to the recent Supreme Court case.  A group of nuns called the “Little Sisters of the Poor” (actually the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) filed a suit arguing the inclusion of contraception in an employee health plan violated their religious freedom.  Keep in mind, the ACA does not require anyone to use contraception, it only necessitates the inclusion of contraception as an eligible medical expense.  It also does NOT mandate a religious organization to pay for contraception, only that it be available under the plan.  If the Little Sisters want to persuade their employees that contraception is contrary to God’s law, that too is protected under the First Amendment.

But what if an employee is a member of an organized religion which believes God wants us to be guardians of the earth which is threatened by overpopulation.  Therefore, contraception is one means of achieving that spiritual goal.  For the Little Sisters to deprive this employee of her religious beliefs also constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.  In a previous blog, I referred to Joe Biden’s admonition, “Beware of people who say ‘Power to the People.’  What they are actually saying is, ‘Power to MY people.'”  The same thing applies here.  The advocates of “religious freedom” laws are seeking protection for their followers, not everyone.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

I Can Only Imagine the Reaction

Politics, Religion

 

An Iranian Muslim cleric ends a speech with the following:

And I want to leave with an expression of gratitude to Allah in whose hands all things lie. He has a plan for every one of our lives. Everything that comes from Allah is good. Allah is perfect. Allah makes no mistakes. And he has things planned for all of us. And we await eagerly to see what lies ahead.

Some American politicians point out this is the difference between the United States and a theocracy where the leaders use religion to justify their political goals.  They will argue it is this kind of wrong thinking that convinces young Muslims to become terrorists or even, suicide bombers. Jihad is a divine endeavor.

There is just one problem.  With the exception of my taking the liberty to substitute the word “Allah” for the world “God,” this is EXACTLY what former presidential contender Marco Rubio said in his concession speech last night after suspending his campaign.

I have no problem with individuals, politician or otherwise, relying on religious beliefs or spirituality for inner strength.  But comments like Rubio’s suggest something else.

  • Is it a perfect God’s plan that Rubio’s parents would have been denied the opportunity to come to America if the Mariel boat lift happened today?  Remember, in some circles, all Cuban refugees at that time were characterized as criminals.
  • Is it a perfect God’s plan that Rubio join his Senate colleagues in blocking the President’s constitutional duty to replace a Supreme Court justice? How many theocratic leaders suspend their constitutions when the law does not fit their narrative?
  • If God is perfect, than why does Rubio rail against the Affordable Care Act which his perfect God allowed to pass?
  • Why must a politician believe that their view of the world is God’s plan and the opposition’s is not?

When Joe Biden was a freshman Senator, I attended an event where he was the keynote speaker.  Forty years later, I remember his admonition, “Beware of people who say ‘Power to the people.”  What they are actually saying is ‘Power to MY people.'”

Theocracy has been bad for Iran.  It has been used to suppress women’s rights and identify scapegoats for failed policies and misguided leadership.  Just remember, those leaders believe THEIR god is perfect.  He does not make mistakes.  Similar thinking has the potential to be equally disastrous for America.

For What It’s Worth.
Dr. ESP

 

 

A Trinity I Can Believe In

Religion

FDH

 

Words matter.  Even the smallest of words.  Let me give you a recent example.  Last week  Pope Francis suggested Donald Trump’s stance on immigration was inconsistent with Christian values. Specifically the Pope said,

 A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.

As I re-read this comment, I noticed the word “a” had been omitted.  Francis could have said, Trump does not strike me as “a” Christian.  Instead he related it to the universal values of compassion and justice taught and practiced by Jesus in the Christian tradition as well as rabbis and prophets in all of the world’s other major religions.  How refreshing.

Was this the beginning of an ecumenical movement in which we could all begin to focus on common values instead of the spiritual path through which we adopt these values?  I quickly realized it was not the beginning, but a confirmation of efforts by other spiritual leaders in search of similar outcomes.  In 2012, the Dalai Lama shared a similar message.

All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

But how about those who do not believe the source of compassion and justice depends on the existence of any deity?  For this perspective, I turned to Christopher Hitchens, the late, devout atheist who argued he did not need a god to tell him what was right or wrong.  In his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Hitchens states,

Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.

Who could ask for a more diverse trio of compatriots?  This is a trinity I would hope everyone can believe in.

For What It’s Worth.
Dr. ESP