• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

197     A “Religion” I Can Believe In

2/24/2021

0 Comments

 
In my last post (#196 in the archives), I tried to explain some of my concerns about “established” religions, or more specifically, the established churches.  I think I can say with some accuracy that I have NO familiarity with ANY religion which doesn’t, deep in the depths of its beliefs, espouse the idea that WE (the members of the religion in question) are the ones who have it “right” and, therefore anyone who doesn’t believe as we do is, essentially, wrong and is, therefore, outcast, or going to burn in hell, or otherwise inferior and/or stupid.  I say this in full knowledge of the fact that I have not engaged in extensive study of any religion, but I believe it to be true, in any case,
 
I find that this is completely unacceptable to me.  Having previously argued that I believe religion to be personal, I refuse to accept such notions.  I accept that what I believe to be the right approach to such things for me, may not work for you; AND THAT’S OKAY!  If we happen to agree, that’s great, but it’s NOT mandatory, at least to me. 
 
Now, I accept that this probably disqualifies me from fitting into (being a member of) any of the established religions, denominations, cults or practices, that I know of, and probably most (all?) which I don’t, as well.  Therefore, if I wish to attempt to provide MY personal religion with a name, it appears that such a name would have to include the idea that it is “non-denominational.”
 
Now, I am perfectly willing to allow you to believe whatever you want, as long as it DOESN’T include the idea that I have to at least pretend to conform to YOUR ideas.  I INSIST on the right to be allowed to have my own beliefs, as long as they don’t interfere with your right to have yours, and as long as we both obey the law.  I would state that this as an idea with universal applicability.  Therefore, whatever my religion is, it also seems to be “Universalist” at its core, since “Universalism is the philosophical and theological concept that some ideas have universal application or applicability.”  Since I also accept the “Golden Rule” as a “universal” truth, the “Universalist” denotation is even more appropriate, since: “A belief in one fundamental truth is an important tenet in Universalism.”  
 
So, what IS it that I believe?  While I was thinking about this, I ran across an article called “What Theaters Learned From 2020” in a recent issue of the Shakespeare Plus newsletter published by the Folger Shakespeare Library.  In it, Ty Jones, the Artistic Director of the Classical Theatre of Harlem, was quoted as having written:

 
          What have I learned during the pandemic?  That the power of theater is real and the people who make it                    
          are heroes.  We have shifted to Zoom/online platforms to continue to tell stories that give meaning to our
          lives.  We as theater people have been conditioned to improvise, adapt and continue to shine light on the
          human condition.  I continue to stand in awe of my brothers and sisters, who despite the terrible conditions,
​          make art that moves us in profound ways.
 
Now, THERE is something which I know I believe in, the importance and power of theatre.
 
Therefore, stealing a notion from the Reduced Shakespeare Company, I am hereby founding St. Genesius’ Non-denominational Universalist Church.  While this is my personal church, all are welcome to be members who believe in the power of Theatre.  So, what do I mean by “the power of Theatre?”  There are probably a lot of ways to describe it.  
 
First, it acknowledges that theatre is a form of art which can, as Mr. Jones said, “… shine light on the human condition.”; it can move us in profound ways; it can help give meaning to life.  As a part of this, I would suggest that, among other traits, those who practice theatre may be, at least generally, more accepting of social, religious, sexual and cultural differences than some other groups in contemporary society.  I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that this acceptance is not always present among all theatre people, nor has it always been present.  But I would suggest that theatre people today, as a rule, don’t give much of a hoot about what you are, or do, in your personal life, as long as you contribute your best efforts to the success of our joint theatre project, whatever that may be.  I admit that some people who work in the theatre have had exclusionist attitudes and behaviors for various “reasons” and some probably still do.  

​A case in point, which I think is appropriate, is that of Ira Aldridge, “the African Roscius,” who performed with the African Company in New York in the 1820’s to some acclaim.  It is sadly true that racism in American society forced him to spend most of his career in England and Europe, where he played many roles (especially Othello) and achieved considerable fame.  But he was accepted as a member of the Theatre community!  In fact, he is the only actor of African American descent among the thirty-three actors of the English stage honored with bronze plaques at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon.
  
I confess that I DO believe that he would be widely accepted in the US theatre community today, as he WAS accepted in the European theatre communities which were at least somewhat less attuned to the racism which was common in the USA.  In any event, I would suggest that, in spite of occasional cases of racism, prejudice, and bigotry, theatre people today, generally, just want someone to demonstrate his/her competence to do the job assigned to her/him every time, and for every performance to achieve acceptance.  
 
Progress is even currently being made on Broadway in the various areas of technical theatre which have been behind the curve in this area for far too long.  Therefore, while there is still much to be done, I still believe that it is generally true that most people can find acceptance in the theatre no matter who she/he is or what he/she believes, provided that they demonstrate competence on the job.  I won’t argue that theatre people are perfect-I know I’M not and I don’t expect it from others.  But my observation suggests that, generally, theatre people seem to look most seriously at their co-worker’s competence, not their race, sexual preference, or other unrelated criteria.  I suspect that that MAY arise out of the fact that real theatre people understand that theatre is a group art which pursues perfection, while knowing that it will never be achieved, but the dedication of ALL is a major factor in any success we all achieve. 
 
So, what makes theatre special enough for it to form the basis of my religion?  I think it may begin with my notion of Art.  Historically, the five Fine Arts were painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and poetry.  Note that the performing arts of theatre and dance, are not included.  I would suggest that this is because Theatre (and Dance, which I would argue is a form of theatre) essentially combine all of the historical fine arts in their existence.  To explain: Architecture provides a place for the performance; Sculpture is based on the human body and the human body is an essential part of theatrical performance; Painting provides the decoration of the performers (sometimes as costume) and the performance space to contribute to the impact and meaning of the performance; Poetry, which includes all forms of literature, provides the structured words and ideas which establish the specific actions and words used; and Music is created by the voice speaking and/or singing those words (along with accompaniment, if present).  Theatre (and Dance), I would argue, do not exist without all of these.
 
In the School of Stage and Screen, we used to say that “We are storytellers.”  That’s not a bad start in explaining this concept more completely.  The theatre, as I see it, is a place (similar to a “church,” if you will) where people gather to share ideas.  In the theatre, these ideas are usually presented in the form of a dramatic performance, and that performance has a PLOT (see Aristotle), which is, most commonly, built from a story, in much the same way that many religious teachings often tell a part of the story of the “sacred.”  The performance includes the presenters (priests, ministers, shamans; the storytellers) and the audience (a congregation, the observer/participants).  While traditional folk/religious stories may contain ideas to explain the origins, beliefs, etc., of a specific tribe (group, people), the theatre, l would suggest, goes further than just telling (reciting) the story, it interprets it, encouraging contemplation and debate as to the ideas and questions which the story presents.  I believe that this allows us to participate more fully in those questions of existence which “religion” often attempts to explain.  But rather than providing the specific answers often stated by religions, l would suggest that it is fairly unusual for good theatre to provide specific answers to the questions it arouses.  Rather, the theatre usually raises awareness, suggests alternatives, and encourages thought, so that one can arrive at a more personal solution. 
 
It may be worth noting that theatrical performance most commonly, perhaps even definitively, is created as a celebration of a PLOT (a sequence of events, of which a story is a common form).  I begin with Aristotle because I was taught to do so throughout my education in theatre.  It’s also worth noting that Aristotle states that theatre, at least to his knowledge, began as a part of religious worship of the lesser god, Dionysus, in Ancient Greece.  
 
Personally, I think it’s probably true that what could be called theatre predates Dionysian worship, especially if you will accept that ALL ceremonies are, fundamentally, theatrical in nature.  AND all ceremonies are ritualistic by definition, as Wikipedia points out:

 
          A ritual is a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, actions, or objects, performed in a sequestered
          place and according to a set sequence.  Rituals may be prescribed by the traditions of a community, including
          a religious community.  Rituals are characterized, but not defined, by formalism, traditionalism, invariance,
          rule-governance, sacral symbolism, and performance.
          Rituals are a feature of all known human societies.  They include not only the worship rites and sacraments
          of organized religions and cults, but also rites of passage, atonement and purification rites, oaths of allegiance,
          dedication ceremonies, coronations and presidential inaugurations, marriages, funerals and more.  Even
          common actions like hand-shaking and saying "hello" may be termed as rituals.
 
Thus, rituals are common in human society.  If one looks at this definition, however, I believe it becomes obvious that theatrical performance clearly fulfills the characteristics of ritual.  But that only focuses on practice, be that practice religious or theatrical.
  
As it seems to be traditional to name a “religious” organization in honor of a major idea considered to be essential to it, or a person or deity being honored by it, I have chosen to include St. Genesius as a part of the name of my “church.”  So, you ask, “Who or what is this “St. Genesius” that you should name your church for him?”  Well, having been (sort of) raised in the general Christian tradition of much of Western Civilization, I trace my religious roots back to the early Christian church of the Roman empire, which was the most dominant of the early sources of Christian power.  Now, it is said that Genesius, was an actor in Rome who “converted” during a performance intended to mock the Christian practice of baptism.  He is/was(?) considered by the Roman church to be the patron saint of actors, lawyers, barristers, clowns, comedians, converts, dancers, people with epilepsy, musicians, printers, stenographers, and victims of torture.  His feast day is/was August 25.
 
Now, from what I read, we can’t prove that Genesius actually existed and, in any case, I confess that I have no belief in his “holiness.”  I vaguely remember that he may have even been de-sanctified by the Roman Catholic Church, which had made him a saint during the Fourth Century C.E., although I’m less than sure about that.  In thinking about founding a church based on theatre, however, I was drawn to The Reduced Shakespeare Company’s The Ultimate Christmas Show (Abridged), which I saw performed here in Omaha, a few years ago.  That play, is about a Christmas Show being performed at “St. Everybody’s Non-Denominational Universalist Church, where all faiths are welcome because we’ll believe anything.” 
​
So, in that spirit, and acknowledging that I am NOT really into “Organized” religion (see #’s 78 and 196 in the archives), I decided that my church of the theatre should be called St. Genesius’ Non-Denominational Universalist Church and that the motto of that church should be: “Where all who believe in the importance and power of Theatre are welcome.”  I believe that this statement agrees with the stated principles of the Universal Life Church that “Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws.” (see archives #196), so I’m probably not being heretical to my ordination.
So, how do I practice this “religion?”  Simple.  By participating in the rituals of the theatre.  Those include participating in the creation of performances (sadly rather limited to me at this time of my life); seeking out and attending performances; and even viewing movies and theatrical television programing; reading plays; and supporting theatre and theatre workers as I can.
 
Theatre is, I believe, a ritualistic act, just as worship services are.  Western theatre, as we know it, apparently began as part of the worship of Dionysus in ancient Greece, but we know that something closely resembling theatre has existed in Asia, Africa, South America, literally all over the world and in a wide variety of different cultures, probably for as long as there have been people and cultures.  The specifics vary considerably, but the ideas of exploring questions like: “Who are you as a part of a greater people?”; Where do you fit into a greater universe?”; How do you define right and wrong?”; How should you relate to others?”; and all of the other “religious” questions that I can think of have been among the subject matter of the Theatre, I believe, for as long as human beings have existed.
 
As I said when I started this journey, I have yet to discover THE answers to these, and many other such questions.  I have come to believe, however, that the value of such questions MAY lie in the SEEKING for the answers, not necessarily only in the finding of them.  I find this to be parallel to the idea that we SEEK perfection in our theatrical endeavors, but we know it will never be achieved.  As the recent Super Bowl Michelob ULTRA ad called “Happy” asks; “What if Joy is the whole game, not just the endgame?”  Or, as Jennifer James suggested: “Success is the quality of the journey.”
 
It’s just possible that the answer lies in the attempt, not only in the achievement.  Achieving perfection, if that’s possible, doesn’t leave you anyplace else to go.  But the fact that it may never (can’t?) be achieved doesn’t make the seeking less meaningful.  I would suggest that that is what gives it value.
 
So, what I’m saying boils down to the idea that, at least for me, my work in Theatre (especially including my work as a teacher of Theatre) has been much more than just an occupation, a way to earn a living.  It’s been a cause for me to work for and which has provided considerable meaning (and happiness) to my life.  Bonnie jokes that she understood early on that the Theatre was my “first wife” and she was my second.  I suppose that’s true in a way.  Without Theatre, I don’t think I would be who I am, for better or for worse.  I suspect that I may not be the only one who feels this way, at least to some extent.  I hope those who feel as I do will join with me to keep St. Genesius’ Non-denominational, Universalist Church strong.  I think it’s something to which it’s worth dedicating one’s life.
 
As I close this, consider the picture below from the Universal Life Church:
Picture
I confess that I’m not familiar with ALL of the symbols presented in this logo, but I recognize enough of them to believe that the attempt is being made to include all of the major religions of the world.  I like that idea.  We need to learn to give the other guy a bit of understanding.  I think my “church” is an attempt to do that.
 
So, there you have it, my statement of MY religion.  Anyone who believes with me in the power of Theatre and its value and importance, is welcome to be a member.  And, lest you think that this is leading up to some sort of plea for money, as suggested below:
Picture
Let me assure you that the only cost of membership is your belief in the power and importance of Theatre and your dedication to its enjoyment, creation and the study of its history and literature.  I have found these to be worthy of my life’s time, energy and spirit.  If you agree that this is true for you, you are a part of St. Genesius’ Non-Denominational Universalist Church and I’m happy to have you as a fellow member.
 
However, if you don’t feel right about “joining” a “church” without putting an offering in the plate, make a donation to one of the many groups trying to provide support for all of the theatre workers who are currently without work due to COVID; or make a donation to your local community or educational theatre (or BOTH).  Theatres, even non-profit theatres, REQUIRE income to pay their bills and continue to exist.  Whatever we can do to help assure the survival of these theatres is needed at this time, so that the larger theatre community can continue to make its contribution to human existence. 
 
I plan to be back in a couple of weeks, with a return to more usual fodder.  I thank you for allowing me to indulge my personal traumas in these last couple of posts.  I think I needed that….  Perhaps you found the ideas worth some thought, as well.
 
LLAP,
 
Dr. B
0 Comments

196     Some Thoughts on Religion:

2/10/2021

0 Comments

 

As I start this, I am acutely aware that some people may take offense at my ideas and believe that I am, somehow, mocking their beliefs.  This is not my intent at all!  However, in the light of my becoming ordained as a minister of the Universal Life Church in order to fulfill my daughter’s desire to be married on the day chosen by herself and her then-to-be-husband, during the pandemic (see #177 in the archives), I found myself with a real desire to consider, somewhat seriously, how I feel about religion and religious beliefs.  So, for the past several months, I’ve been trying to figure out (mostly to/for myself) how, and what, my feelings are about such things.  That’s the background of this post.
 
I will confess that my credentials were from the Universal Life Church largely because it was possible to satisfy the legal requirements to serve as their “officiant” through this simple, online process.  However, I DID take a look at what the group SAID were its principles, and I found that I agreed with them.  Here is their basic statement.

     The Universal Life Church was founded of the basic belief that we are children of the    
      same
 Universe and, derived from that basic belief, has established two core tenets by
      which it Expects its ministers to conduct themselves:
       1.          Do only that which is right.
       2.          Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their
      choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does
      not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the
​      government’s laws.

I like this because it’s about as free of specific doctrine as one is likely to find and, it establishes the idea that one’s religion is personal to oneself; it does not have to conform to someone else’s idea of what it is SUPPOSED to be.  I like that, as I am sure that I have not yet found “THE ANSWER” in any of the various religious practices I have yet heard espoused.  It’s also true that the idea of beliefs being personal appeals to me.  
 
I take that to mean that MY “answer” doesn’t have to be the same as yours, nor is it any of your business what mine IS, as long as I don’t expect you to conform to MY beliefs.  In the same way, I don’t need to know your beliefs, as long as you let me have mine.  We actually MAY share our beliefs, but it is not our place, or right, to try to force others to accept them as CORRECT!  That’s how religious wars start; and we’ve had too many of them. My religion is between me and whatever deity, if any, I choose to acknowledge.  I think religion should be personal and private.  I’ve read Matthew 6, 1-8 and I support the principles expressed.  One can argue about the details of “the Father,” but the basic ideas expressed there seem sound to me.
 
I guess that I could probably most accurately be referred to as an agnostic, but I really don’t care what you call me, I’ve probably been called worse.  AS I see it, an agnostic is one who admits that he/she doesn’t know THE answers to all of those “religious” questions.  Still, I find that I do, somehow, feel that the world/universe has meaning, is somehow good, and that my being here has purpose, even if I don’t know exactly what it is.

When I took a course in what was, at the time, called “Comparative Religion” (Wow, isn’t THAT a currently NON “politically correct” name!) quite a long time ago, one of the things I learned was that a point of commonality among every religion we looked at (most [all?] of the prominent Western religions and several of the Eastern ones) is what is often referred to as “The Golden Rule,” the principle of treating others as you want to be treated.  In passing, I am told this idea is accepted by the vast majority of religions AND most cultures, as well),
 
I’ve read that this “rule” may be expressed in a variety of ways, such as:
1.  Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)
2.  Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or 
        prohibitive form)
3.  What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form)

These are, obviously, simply various ways of stating the same, basic idea.  That may get us to the crux of my issue with religion.  If (essentially) all religions agree that fairness and equity in the treatment of others (treating THEM as YOU wish to be treated) is a fundamental principle, how is it possible to understand that “… more people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason.” as Harvey Milk once said and has be stated in a variety of ways by many others.
 
As one who has studied a bit (a very LITTLE bit) of the history of Western civilization, I find myself forced to agree with Ruth Hurmence Green that “There was a time when religion ruled the world.  It is known as the Dark Ages.”  I find it sad that that appears to be the case, but, based on my own, limited, studies, it does appear to be true.  The REAL problem, then would appear to be why religious communities, which claim to have kindness, fairness and equity as fundamental principles in common, can’t get along to the point of going to war to destroy those who don’t have religious practices which are identical to their own?
 
This leads me to suspect that my real issue isn’t with RELIGION, but with CHURCHES!  I should note that I’m using the term, “church,” in the broadest possible sense, as a body or organization of people professing to “believe” the same thing.  I would suggest that once a body or organization is formed, a hierarchy, an organization, a leadership structure becomes necessary and, hence, the opportunity for individuals, or groups, to establish authority (power, superiority) over others by defining the “beliefs” of the particular organization.  My suspicion is that it is usually quickly established (at least implied) that this power structure rules by “divine” authority, so that anyone who opposes the will of that structure is defying the “correctness” of the “church,” and that challenges the church in its entirety.  
 
Once that structure is created, however, the possibility (I would even venture to say inevitability) of power struggles developing among those who wish to be at the top of that structure seems almost inevitable.  It also establishes the idea that the followers will be encouraged to believe that for THEIR specific set of beliefs to be acceptable, ALL others MUST be unacceptable.  After all, if THEY (we) don’t have the exclusive sanction of Divinity, then SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT, which would make them (us) wrong, and that simply can’t be permitted.  
 
My experiences in the theatre have taught me to observe others.  In doing this, I have found that it is often wise to follow the advice of Rachel Maddow and not pay much attention to what people say, but to focus quite intently on what they do.  In doing this, I have all too often become aware how many people do NOT suit their actions to their words and their words to their actions.  That is, that all too often what people SAY are their beliefs and values don’t seem to agree with their actual behavior.  I suspect that that may well be at least a major factor which explains most (if not ALL) of the violence, war, and destruction which has made up so much of human history.  I suspect even so-called “trade route wars” and many other forms of violence may well have a component of religious conflict within their causes, but I certainly can’t prove that.
 
As I said before, I would argue that Religion is PERSONAL!  If it violates YOUR religious principles to drink alcohol, or to dance, or to have an abortion, or to wear purple with polka dots, then DON’T DO those things!  That’s your belief and YOUR choice.  I would argue that that’s what “freedom of religion” means.  However, I refuse to allow you to make a law to prevent me from having different beliefs and acting on them as long as I don’t try to force those beliefs on you.  I have often wondered how so many people can wish to legislate against abortion because they insist that it involves killing, yet apparently are perfectly happy to demand the death penalty.  I don’t understand how they can believe that “Thou shalt not kill.” allows one, but not the other.  Still, I WILL grant them the right to have religious beliefs which I find completely incoherent and inconsistent.
 
Carl Sagan once noted that:

           In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument;
          my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you
          never hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.  It doesn't happen as often
          as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it
          happens every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics
          or religion.
  

I suspect the reason for this is that scientists are trained to understand that science is based on the idea that we accept as true those things which appear to be supported by the best evidence available.  Hence, science adopted the idea that the Earth was flat because the available evidence supported that idea.  Once the evidence against this notion seemed more supportable than that for it, the earlier idea was abandoned.  Much the same can be said of many ideas from the “superiority” of one race over another; to one sex over another; to one culture over another; to meat-eaters over vegetarians (or, vice versa); to democratic vs autocratic political systems; and on, and on.
 
The difficulty with many (most?, all?) “religious” belief is that there is NO specific, verifiable evidence to support it; it is simply DEFINED as “TRUTH” with no room for debate.  Stephen Hawking pointed out, “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason.”  I would suggest that the key to the problems this causes MAY be that politics and religion have been, and are, so inter-twined, at least in much Western thought, as to make it virtually impossible to separate them, creating political consequences to religious disagreements.  I believe one can say that studies of “primitive” peoples would appear to suggest that even in such situations the political leaders of the group quite commonly include, if they are not limited to, the shamans (medicine men, priests) of the group.  As Arthur C. Clarke once said, “One of the greatest tragedies in mankind's entire history may be that morality was hijacked by religion.”  To which I would add that then religion proceeded to hijack politics.
 
I think this notion was stated quite well in a comment attributed to Robert A. Heinlein in Religion in Science Fiction: The Evolution of an Idea and the Extinction of a Genre.  He said, “Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.”  A quick look at, say, anti-abortion political activists would seem to reveal their essentially religious justification for their position on this issue, just as alcohol was once outlawed largely due to objections by religious “do-gooders.”
 
Since religious worship (in my opinion but based on three-fourths of a century of observation) remains the most divisive portion of American life (which may be true in other countries, as well, but I don’t have enough information to assert this as a fact), I do not find it improbable that the mixture of religion and politics, which is technically unconstitutional, but is, in fact, supported by many laws, has contributed to much of the toxic state of affairs in much of American life today.  In the USA, especially, the division of Christianity into a “White” church and a “Black” church has probably done more damage to American culture than anything else, certainly it’s responsible for much of the racism which so infects our society.  And that doesn’t even touch on the arguments over which is the truly “proper” denomination of Christianity.
 
I think it’s important that we remember the words of John Adams, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”  This does NOT suggest, at least to me, that Mr. Adams was, necessarily, anti-Christian, just that he did not see the actions (or desires) of the Founding Fathers as being based on the notion of founding a specifically “Christian” nation. I suspect Mr. Adams might, as I do, tend to agree with Mark Twain when he said, “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” 
 
I think Mr. Twain was suggesting that religious, and, therefore, political, beliefs, should be understood to be different from scientific ones.  That they are NOT subjected to the same scrutiny as scientific ones, and are, in fact, based on emotion and “authority,” NOT on serious, careful examination of the best evidence available.  Perhaps, Joseph Campbell expressed it better when he pointed out that “Every religion is true one way or another.  It is true when understood metaphorically.  But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.” 
 
This may have turned into a more negative treatise on churches than I intended.  I am well aware that some church organizations make valuable contributions to our society, especially in times of need, such as the current pandemic.  However, I take considerable issue with the actions of ANY church, or religious-based organization, which insists on using its “charitable” activities as a form of propaganda and/or recruiting.  The notion that in order to obtain a meal when I am hungry, I have to agree to “pray” according to someone else’s religious practices, turns my stomach.  I agree with Phillip Pullman when he said,
 
 

          I think it's perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing
          God into it, but I don't know everything, and there may well be a God somewhere,
          hiding away.  Actually, if he is keeping out of sight, it's because he's ashamed of his
          followers and all the cruelty and ignorance they're responsible for promoting in his
​          name.  If I were him, I'd want nothing to do with them. 

I have probably spent too many words discussing these issues, but (obviously) I find them difficult, confusing, and upsetting.  I do, however, agree with Garrison Keillor when he said, “Anyone who thinks sitting in church can make you a Christian must also think that sitting in a garage can make you a car.” 
 
I ‘m finding it helpful to say (write down) these things, and, again, I apologize if they upset you.  I repeat, that was NOT my intent.  I’m trying to determine and express MY truth here, to satisfy my own needs.  Like a penitent at confession, I’m finding that writing my thoughts down and trying to edit them into coherence, is helping me to clarify them in my own mind.  And, who knows, I just might be engaging in what some might call my “ministerial” duties.  After all, I AM a “minister” and have the credentials to prove it.  (see below)

Picture

Next time, I plan to take a stab at trying to explain more specifically what I DO believe beyond just discussing the Golden Rule and what troubles me about what I see all too often around me in “religious” practices.  That is, of course, if I can be at least this coherent about them.
 
LLAP,


Dr. B

0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly