According to my calendar of holidays, today, Feb. 18, 2026, marks the beginning of this year’s Lent for most Christians and the first day of Ramadan for Muslims. I am told that this doesn’t happen too often, as those days are derived from different calendars, but, apparently, it did this year (at least depending on the time of moonrise). And, by the way, yesterday was the beginning of the Lunar Year of the Horse, as well, if you want to be fussy.
Lent, of course, echoes the 40 days Jesus spent fasting in the desert and enduring temptation by Satan before beginning his public ministry, according to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. In most Lent-observing Christian denominations, Lent begins on Ash Wednesday and ends approximately six weeks later, concluding either on the evening of Maundy Thursday (Holy Thursday), or at sundown on Holy Saturday when the Easter Vigil is celebrated…. (Wikipedia, citation edited by RSB)
Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. It is observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting, communal prayer, reflection, and community. It is also the month in which the Quran is believed to have been revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The annual observance of Ramadan is regarded as one of the five pillars of Islam and lasts twenty-nine to thirty days, from one sighting of the crescent moon to the next. (Wikipedia)
The Lunar New Year is the beginning of a new year based on lunar calendars or, informally, lunisolar calendars. Better-known lunar new year celebrations include those based on the (lunar) Islamic calendar which originated in the Middle East. Lunisolar new year celebrations include those of the (lunisolar) Hebrew calendar from the same region; the (lunisolar) Chinese calendar and Tibetan calendar of East Asia; and the (lunisolar) Buddhist and Hindu calendars of South and Southeast Asia. (Wikipedia, edited by RSB)
Anyway, discovering these facts, got me to thinking about what one might call “religious stuff.” Now, I have no interest in doing anything related to “converting” anyone to any particular belief system. That’s your business and you are welcome to believe whatever you wish, provided that you leave me alone with my beliefs whether they are like yours, or not. As one of European extraction, I do have some familiarity with the basic ideas of Christianity (I’m NOT going to get into its MANY variations.), and I have had a bit of exposure to some Judaic notions (which, of course, WERE the origin of many of the Christian ideas). I confess to little knowledge of Islamic ideas, or those of ANY of the religions of Asia. My only real study of these sorts of things (other than some fairly casual reading) was in one “Introduction to World Religions” course, which I took as an undergraduate. I am quite aware that, while I may have some interest, I have NO expertise in such matters, nor any great desire to acquire such. I have, however, encountered the fact that most religions which I know anything about do seem to have some threads of commonality, no matter how much they may differ in other ways.
One of these threads (it seems to me) is the idea which has come to be known as “The Golden Rule.” I suspect most readers can cite at least ONE version of it, but did you know how widespread it is? I didn’t until I ran across this (below) a while ago.
THE GOLDEN RULE IS COMMON TO ALL RELIGIONS
BUDDHISM. Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. Udanavarga.
CHRISTIANITY. All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Bible, St. Matthew.
CONFUCIANISM. Is there any one maxim which ought to be acted upon throughout one's whole life?
Surely the maxim of lovingkindness is such -
Do not unto others what you would not they should do unto you. Analects.
HEBRAISM. What is hurtful to yourself do not to your fellow man. That is
the whole of the Torah and the remainder is but commentary. Go learn it.
Talmud.
HINDUISM. This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to
thee, would cause thee pain. Mahabharata.
ISLAM. No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he
loves for himself. Traditions.
JAINISM. In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all
creatures as we regard our own self, and should therefore refrain from
inflicting upon others such injury as would appear undesirable to us if
inflicted upon ourselves. Yogashastra.
SIKHISM. As thou deemest thyself so deem others. Then shalt thou
become a partner in heaven. Kabir.
TAOISM. Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain: and regard your
neighbor's loss as your own loss. Tai Shang Kan Ying Pien.
ZOROASTRIANISM. That nature only is good when it shall not do unto
another whatever is not good for its own self. Dadistan-i-dinik.
"We have committed the Golden Rule to memory,
let us now commit it to life.”
EDWIN MARKHAM
Now, that’s a fair bunch of major religions all seeming to agree on, essentially, the same thing, “Treat others the way you’d like to be treated.” That seems pretty simple (and basic) to me, which makes me wonder why there so often seem to be (and to have been) conflicts (even wars!) between religions.
I would go so far as to venture to suggest that ALL “established” religions (traditions, practices, faiths, let’s not get tied up in nomenclature) seem to think that they exist, for the most part, for the betterment of the human race; to help people to live longer, better, happier lives by helping to establish a sense of order in a frequently chaotic seeming universe.
Unfortunately, what I encounter as I look around, in far too many cases, seems to be better represented by THIS image.
Okay, I don’t think Wiley (the creator of Non Sequitur) was truly interested in suggesting the value of a non-denominational approach to religion, as desirable as that might be. No, I believe that he was trying to point out that what leads to many (most?) “religious” conflicts is the notion that “We (US, real, true believers!) are right! Therefore, everybody else MUST be wrong, and probably should be stopped.”
Personally, I’m rather fond of the idea of a “Church” like the one mentioned in the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s play, The Ultimate Christmas Show (abridged) which takes place at “St. Everybody’s Non-Denominational Universalist Church, where all faiths are welcome because we’ll believe anything.”
Now I’m not suggesting (nor, do I think that the RSC was) that beliefs can’t, or shouldn’t, be of some importance to the people who have them. However, I also believe that the real point of this play (and, perhaps, religion as a whole) should be what I think is suggested by Mike Luckovich’s cartoon shown below.
Personally, I’m rather fond of the idea of a “Church” like the one mentioned in the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s play, The Ultimate Christmas Show (abridged) which takes place at “St. Everybody’s Non-Denominational Universalist Church, where all faiths are welcome because we’ll believe anything.”
Now I’m not suggesting (nor, do I think that the RSC was) that beliefs can’t, or shouldn’t, be of some importance to the people who have them. However, I also believe that the real point of this play (and, perhaps, religion as a whole) should be what I think is suggested by Mike Luckovich’s cartoon shown below.
To put it simply, I believe that religion should provide us with a means for getting along in the world even with those who may be different from us and/or have somewhat different values, etc. My suspicion is that what has, seemingly, led virtually all religions astray, is that they have become businesses. That simple fact may well have led to the “We are right, so you are wrong and should be stopped!” attitude which I have encountered from many people who believe that THEIR religion MUST be true because it’s THEIRS!
As a sometime reader of science fiction, I’ve read most of Robert A. Heinlein’s works. In his For Us the Living, he argues:
As a sometime reader of science fiction, I’ve read most of Robert A. Heinlein’s works. In his For Us the Living, he argues:
All forms of organized religion are alike in certain social respects. Each claims to be the sole custodian of the essential truth. Each claims to speak with final authority on all ethical questions. And every church has requested, demanded, or ordered the state to enforce its particular system of taboos. No church ever withdraws its claims to control absolutely by divine right the moral life of the citizens. If the church is weak, it attempts by devious means to turn its creed and discipline into law. If it is strong, it uses the rack and the thumbscrew. To a surprising degree, churches in the United States were able, under a governmental form which formally acknowledged no religion, to have placed on the statutes the individual church's code of moral taboos, and to wrest from the state privileges and special concessions amounting to subsidy. Especially was this true of the evangelical churches in the middle west and south, but it was equally true of the Roman Church in its strongholds. It would have been equally true of any church; Holy Roller, Mohammedan, Judaism, or headhunters. It is a characteristic of all organized religion, not of a particular sect. pp. 83-84
Now I’m not going to suggest that I am in complete agreement with all of Heinlein’s ideas, but I would suggest that there appears to be a degree of truth in these comments of his. The U.S. Bill of Rights makes it quite clear that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” That would seem pretty straightforward, but one can’t dispute that Heinlein’s points do seem pretty well founded; that arguments based on religious beliefs have often been cited in legal cases and they have not always failed, in spite of the clear statement of First Amendment.
I think that the real thrust of Heinlein’s point in the above is that just because an idea, especially one of a religious nature, becomes popular, that does not justify it being considered as proper material to be established as a law. I have long had the suspicion that this part of the First Amendment exists primarily because our founding fathers KNEW that THEY did NOT all agree on at least some questions of religion, and that the idea of a STATE religion (common in much of the Western world at that time) was unlikely to assist in “forming a more perfect union.” So, they side-stepped the problem by establishing that we would NOT have a national religion; that religion can, and should, be left up to the individual citizen to decide for him/herself, and that the legal system should keep its hands out of matters of religious belief and practice completely. As the First Amendment says “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….” (emphasis added, RSB)
I find the current state in which so many of our political “leaders” seem to think it’s to their political advantage to brag of THEIR religious affiliation (which many of them don’t seem to be all that aggressive about actually practicing) and to disparage those of their opponents, whose beliefs may be somewhat different. As one whose has been baptized as a Christian, I find it especially troubling that many of the worst offenders here, claim to be Christian. I guess that they wish to disassociate themselves from the facts of Jesus’ life, as indicated by John Fugelsang in the sign below:
I think that the real thrust of Heinlein’s point in the above is that just because an idea, especially one of a religious nature, becomes popular, that does not justify it being considered as proper material to be established as a law. I have long had the suspicion that this part of the First Amendment exists primarily because our founding fathers KNEW that THEY did NOT all agree on at least some questions of religion, and that the idea of a STATE religion (common in much of the Western world at that time) was unlikely to assist in “forming a more perfect union.” So, they side-stepped the problem by establishing that we would NOT have a national religion; that religion can, and should, be left up to the individual citizen to decide for him/herself, and that the legal system should keep its hands out of matters of religious belief and practice completely. As the First Amendment says “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….” (emphasis added, RSB)
I find the current state in which so many of our political “leaders” seem to think it’s to their political advantage to brag of THEIR religious affiliation (which many of them don’t seem to be all that aggressive about actually practicing) and to disparage those of their opponents, whose beliefs may be somewhat different. As one whose has been baptized as a Christian, I find it especially troubling that many of the worst offenders here, claim to be Christian. I guess that they wish to disassociate themselves from the facts of Jesus’ life, as indicated by John Fugelsang in the sign below:
Now I will admit that I probably wouldn’t have stated these ideas in quite this way, but I can’t find any place in the above where Fugelsang has, in fact, been less than accurate in describing the one often described as the “Son of God.” Now, I am NOT a serious Religious, nor Roman Empire, scholar, but everything he says about Jesus seems to me to be accurate, if somewhat bluntly stated.
When one of my my daughters wished to get married a few years ago, during the recent pandemic, she was unable to find a legal “officiant” to perform the ceremony due to legitimate fear of spreading the disease). So, I looked into it and learned that it’s possible to become “legally ordained” online, so that I could “officiate” for this occasion. In that process, I discovered the I can quite fully support the ideas espoused by the Universal Life Church on their website @www.themonastary.org. On that site, the ULC defines itself by saying:
When one of my my daughters wished to get married a few years ago, during the recent pandemic, she was unable to find a legal “officiant” to perform the ceremony due to legitimate fear of spreading the disease). So, I looked into it and learned that it’s possible to become “legally ordained” online, so that I could “officiate” for this occasion. In that process, I discovered the I can quite fully support the ideas espoused by the Universal Life Church on their website @www.themonastary.org. On that site, the ULC defines itself by saying:
The Universal Life Church (ULC) is a non-denominational religious
organization that brings together people from all walks of life. We embrace
individuals across the spiritual spectrum; anyone who wants to join our
body of faith is welcome to do so. Further, the ULC is proud to open its
doors to all people, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race,
ethnicity, or any other defining characteristic. Since the organization's
founding, we've provided legal ordination to over 20 million ministers
worldwide.
The ULC has only two core tenets that ministers must uphold:
1. Do only that which is right.
2. Every individual is free to practice their religion however they like as
long as their actions do not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others
and are in accordance with the law.
Therefore, I became a duly “ordained” Minister of the ULC, and was able to serve as my daughter’s “officiant.” The most important thing, however, is that I can, and do, buy into these principles, and try to follow them. But, my religion is my business and yours is yours! What ultimately really matters is what kind of person you are, how you treat others, etc. Which Deity, or Deities, if any, you chose to worship (if you engage in such practices) makes no real difference, as long as you respect MY right to have beliefs different from yours. We all SEEM to have a basic notion of right and wrong. The simplest expression of this is simple kindness and toleration.
Recall, if you will, that Jesus used a Samaritan as an example of how one should behave, if you remember THAT parable. I’d bet that it was because Samaritans and Jews were most often at odds with each other, each group actively disliking the other one. It’s also worth noting that a priest and a Levite (Levites were a Jewish tribe which served particular religious duties for the Israelites and had political and educational responsibilities as well) are specifically indicated as having passed the injured man by in the story, but the (hated) Samaritan was the one who went out of his way to provide assistance to him. Think about what THAT could imply. I think it’s worth considering the implications of that story in today’s world, but that may just be the “minister” in me coming out.
I expect to be back in a couple of weeks. I wonder what I’ll ramble on about then?
🖖🏻 LLAP
Dr. B
Recall, if you will, that Jesus used a Samaritan as an example of how one should behave, if you remember THAT parable. I’d bet that it was because Samaritans and Jews were most often at odds with each other, each group actively disliking the other one. It’s also worth noting that a priest and a Levite (Levites were a Jewish tribe which served particular religious duties for the Israelites and had political and educational responsibilities as well) are specifically indicated as having passed the injured man by in the story, but the (hated) Samaritan was the one who went out of his way to provide assistance to him. Think about what THAT could imply. I think it’s worth considering the implications of that story in today’s world, but that may just be the “minister” in me coming out.
I expect to be back in a couple of weeks. I wonder what I’ll ramble on about then?
🖖🏻 LLAP
Dr. B
RSS Feed