Author: uurevjeff

Illusions in America Today #3

/ uurevjeff

I recently began reading Abbie Hoffman’s 1969 book Woodstock Nation. Two portions particularly caught my eye. One was the following from “Thorns of the Flower Children.”

They were sick of being programmed by an educational system void of excitement, creativity, and sensitivity. A system that channeled human beings like so many laboratory rats with electrodes rammed up their asses into a highly mechanized maze of class rankings, degrees, careers, neon supermarkets, military-industrial complexes, suburbs, repressed sexuality, hypocrisy, ulcers, and psychoanalysts.

Education will be a subject of a future posting on this topic, but not today. After the initial assault of reading this passage, I felt that mixture of wanting to soften it for those involved in the system who are indeed doing good work and the feeling that nothing had really changed in nearly 40 years. I was 13 at the time Hoffman wrote this, and was fully enmeshed in middle class comfort. So, the radical hippie message was an alien voice to me.

But, today, after more than 30 years in the American higher education system, I am beginning to speak Hoffman’s language. Dealing with the bureaucracy and, too often, hypocrisy of a system that is bankrupting our youth financially and perhaps in other more important ways, has left me cynical.

Then, I read further in Hoffman’s book, to a selection titled “Che’s Last Letter.” I saw Motorcycle Diaries when it came out and then read Che’s Diary. The writing did not reflect the angry image I was taught as a child, but a gentle and reflective person. After calling for the youth of the United States to join in the revolution, Hoffman’s chapter continues

“What is so revolutionary about your revolution?” But, of course, you are cynical. Your universities teach you to be eternal cynics, a cynicism that can only be drowned in alcohol and diet pills and psychoanalysis and golf. Forget your cynicism…You must vomit forth your cynicism on the streets of your cities…

One may argue with the content or philosophy of the revolution. But, this passage speaks to a truth that the motivation to effect change in the world may only begin with the seed of cynicism. In order to view the illusions we live in, and grow the tree of a new way, we must shed cast aside cynicism as our primary tool. We must be willing to put aside the axe and use the shovel and how. We must always use the microscope, but add poetry and song. A revolution in society must be born of reason, but also passion.

A humanist vision can be critical of our current progress and helps us break down centuries-old paradigms and institutions. But, the intellectualism of the humanist vision needs to embrace the cocktail of Hoffman’s anger and Che’s compassion. Cynicism can serve as a primary vehicle to disillusion. We should water our tree of transformation, however, with the sweat of our determination, the wine of our creativity, and the tears of our love.

Illusions in America Today #2

/ uurevjeff

When you look over the course of your entire life to date, what has given you the most unbridled joy? What was it in your life that made you so happy or had such worth that you would preserve at all costs?

I would guess that most of you thought about things like family, love of a partner, children, and accomplishments. I would also guess that few of you thought about acquiring some amount of money, buying an expensive car or appliance. We live in a society that espouses a capitalist economic philosophy, and yet, the truly important events and experiences in our lives rarely have anything to do with money or the acquisition of wealth. But, a huge proportion of our lives seem to revolve around getting resources and obtaining commodities.

We have all read statistics about how a tiny proportion of people in our society control a massive amount of the wealth. We read these statistics and we shake our heads at the economic injustice that creates poverty, and its affiliated afflictions of racism, inequality, and hopelessness. But, we continue to buy insurance, invest in mutual funds, and buy brand name products of things that we “need” at Wal-Mart and its clones. Have you ever asked yourself why you do this?

We do this because, from childhood, we are taught that these are the behaviors that make our society healthy and strong. And who teaches us this lesson? Who owns the vehicles of this message and propogates this philosophy on every billboard, web site, television show, and magazine? The answer is people who have money and want to acquire more money. So, if their goal is to procure our resources to fill their coffers, should we not question the basic assumption about whether our current form of capitalist economy is indeed in our best interests?

You may ask, what is the alternative? Let me respond with a series of questions.

  • If you lived in a community where your well being was guaranteed by the community, would you need medical insurance?
  • If you lived in a community where, upon your early death, the well being of your dependent loved ones was guaranteed, would you need life insurance?
  • If you lived in a community that valued the elderly and fully integrated their lives in rewarding and meaningful pursuits, would you need retirement plans?
  • If you lived in a community that guaranteed a basic level of a satisfactory lifestyle to every citizen contributing to the welfare of the community, would you need to spend the majority of your life pursuing the acquisition of wealth?

Now, you may well be thinking that this sounds like communism and that we have seen that communism does not work. You would be right in that this sounds like communism at first. But, here is the difference.

  • In this society, you keep your earnings – up to a certain level – and those earnings are yours to spend as you wish.
  • In this society, you are free to pursue the occupation of your choice, with rewards given to those whose activities exemplify social responsibility, justice, and community health.
  • In this society, you will give up unlimited choice of consumer products in return for lower prices and preference given to a market basket that is produced ethically and responsibly.
  • In this society, all market choices are made publicly and disseminated freely by democratically elected citizens (to be more fully discussed in another posting).

Is it possible? Once we shed the illusion that the capitalist system that we have in 21st century America is actually working for the good of all, perhaps such a vision is possible. But it will not be easy. Citizens entering this community must agree to limit their annual income to a cerain level, with amounts exceeding that level going to the community as a whole. The assumption here is that very few people (if anyone) “hit the jackpot” of the American dream, or that they ever do it alone. This model also assumes that the possession of was sums of wealth by any small minority of private citizens is inherently bad for the community, no matter how magnimous those people may be.

Once a caring community of responsible citizens comes together in common purpose, do you really need to buy security? Once you can depend on your neighbors, do you really need more than one home? Once your community functions ethically and responsibly, do you really need the status symbols of wealth? Because, like it or not, our participation in our current system of economics make us complicit in the ongoing poverty and oppression of millions in this country. Until we create an economy that is just, ethical, and compassionate, we will continue to spend most of our time earning money just to buy things and keep us away from the people and experiences that truly bring us joy in life. Until the priviledged in this country sacrifice their “earning potential,” that is their ability to acquire more wealth than they would need in a rational and loving community, then the poor will remained consigned to lives of desparation, class systems will perpetrate economic injustice, and people will continue to hate each other merely on the basis of skin color, physical appearance, or accent.

Illusions in America Today #1

/ uurevjeff

The positive meaning of disillusionment is that we can be freed of our illusions. Since I risk misunderstanding and possibly offending strongly held beliefs, I want to be clear exactly what I mean when I call something an illusion. I believe that this country was created with some intent to adhere to a range of noble concepts that were, to a large part, new paradigms for running a nation. They were as imperfect as the people who created them, but I value these concepts and would like to see a return to them, or at least a valiant effort to strive toward them.

While our rhetoric today may still reflect the ideals of the founders, our society today has strayed far from their vision. We may use the same labels, but our actions belie a hypocrisy of commitment, priority, and ideology. What are our illusions in 21st century America? There are many, which I will address in future posts, including among others: democracy, capitalism, freedom, education, and family. But, in this first post, I will address the illusion of primary personal importance. In 21st century America, religion is an illusion from which we should be freed.

What can a person in seminary studying to become a minister possibly mean by saying that religion in America is an illusion?

  • As an atheist, I see my nation violating universal codes of moral behavior, often in the name of the Christian God, to further its own agenda. What part of ‘Thou shalt not kill’ are we not understanding? When was the last politician we elected who was meek, merciful, pure of heart, and a peacemaker? What would Jesus think of 21st century America?
  • As a humanist, I see millions in my nation continuing to embrace willful ignorance, supporting creationism and intelligent design. I see my government spending billions on an illegal occupation while millions at home lack decent medical care, fairly funded schools, and well-maintained societal infrastructure. Where is the righteous indignation of our churches?
  • As a Unitarian Universalist, I see our government continuing to abrogate the rights of gays and lesbians by denying them equal rights to marry, and invading the personal private decisions to end life.
  • As a parent, I see one church leader after another accused of crimes against children and learn that the church itself not only knew of the behavior but willfully acted to conceal the knowledge from the victims. I see one religious leader after another modeling shocking personal behaviors while railing in the pulpit against those in our society who are marginalized already.
  • As an aspiring minister, I see few of my colleagues calling out corporate war profiteers, or politicians owned by special interest groups. I see few of my colleagues preaching against the power structures supporting racism, classism, ageism, homophobia, and all of the other psychoses of fear and hate infecting our nation.

I could go on, but probably do not need to. If you hold that a creator God loves you and will reward you with an eternity in a heavenly hereafter if you simply believe in him, then nothing I say can ever sway you. But, if you see God largely as an invention to control the masses and to keep people from critically assessing the activities of their religious leaders, then you should be examining this illusion. If you see most religions today as a pleasant anachronism with nothing to offer in the way of solving modern problems, then you should be examining this illusion. If you want your church to truly love all people and to commit action to social justice and equality, then you should be examining this illusion.

So does this mean that all organized religion is worthless? No. But, I do believe that we need to examine the role that religion plays in our lives and ask whether or not our churches are, or can ever meet those needs. In a disillusioned America, what form of church should we aspire to create? Personally, I believe that Unitarian Universalism provides one answer. As a church that does not force a creed on members, and that values the search for truth and meaning, I believe Unitarian Universalism can address many of the illusions of religion while still providing the loving community, acknowledgement of life transitions, and the worship experience. Unitarian Universalism welcomes you whether you are atheist, agnostic, pantheist, pagan, or poly-, mono-, or henotheist. The world has seen many prophets over the centuries, many of whom have delivered a similar message of compassion. Unitarian Universalism honors all of them and their universal message.

Disillusion

/ uurevjeff

Over the winter break, my son and I had a number of conversations about his future and the state of the world in general. He is a 21-year-old student attending Ohio State University. Tyler is a bright and creative young man. But, he also feels a good deal of frustration in his life and sees few role models out there to mentor or inspire him.

Interestingly, we found that we agreed on many observations about 21st America, although our approaches to dealing with those problems may vary in technique and intensity. As one might expect from a young man, he is inclined to revolutionary change and abandonment of dysfunctional systems. I am still inclined to changing the system from within. The upshot of our discourse was that we would begin the process of drafting a manifesto for a new kind of revolution — one that creates a new type of society within the existing structure — and eliciting feedback from others. So here goes.

Why are so many people disillusioned with the current state of American society? Everywhere we turn, we hear people who have turned off the political discourse and, when they do vote, make their choices based on selecting the lesser of available evils. Many young people, after spending 16 or more years in institutionalized education, find themselves unemployable, unfulfilled, or significantly unprepared for the “real” world. Our daily lives seem filled with a bombardment of consumerism and the resultant unhappiness derived from debt and impossible expectations. Many adults find that they cannot give their children the quality of life they received from their parents, and must combat seemingly uncontrollable forces of substance abuse, over-medication, and over-exposure to sex and violence in our media.

Why are so many people disillusioned with the current state of American society? Because we are reminded every day that our nation is not what we thought it was. We are reminded every day that our nation is not what we were taught it was. We are reminded every day that our nation is not what it should be.

What does it mean to be disillusioned? Disillusionment is betrayal. Many of us are frustrated because we cannot live lives that make us happy. We feel angry because it sometimes seems that everyone in any position of authority is either a liar, a cheat, or a fraud. We sense hopelessness because we see no answers to the multitude of problems that beset us. Many Americans feel that their country has in many ways fundamentally betrayed them. That is the negative view of disillusionment.

Is there a positive meaning of disillusionment? I believe that there is. Disillusion means that we are being freed of our illusions. Disillusion means that we have the capacity to make change and to define our nation. By embracing disillusion, we can shed ourselves of outmoded ways of being and create a new society. In my next installment, I will begin to discuss our illusions in 21st century America.

Reaching Across the Generations

/ uurevjeff / 1 Comment

I have been enormously tardy posting lately as life has been intervening. Between searching for an internship site, preparing for classes, leading two worship services this week, and actually working at my University job, things have been hectic. I’ve also spent a good deal of time lately talking with my 21-year-old son. Probably the hardest part about parenting is watching your children struggle to find their way in the world. I just want to swoop down and solve every problem and provide every answer. But, I know those are the worst things to do if you want your children to become mature and responsible adults, fully equipped to explore the joy, the angst, and the fulfillment of life.

Like many young adults his age, he is searching for a life path and a career that matches his talents and desires with at least the ability to keep himself reasonably fed and sheltered. One thing he enjoys is poetry. Now, this is one area that I am particularly inept at providing much assistance. I have never been much of a poetry fan – “The Cremation of Sam Magee” is a personal favorite – so I feel relatively useless providing him with much in the way of support. Like me, though, he thinks big and likes to envision art in large scope. His ideas for novels start out as trilogies and his film ideas are 24-hour marathons.

But, I had an idea that combined my love of sermon writing with his poetic muse. I though it would be interesting if we exchanged pieces of our work and then wrote accompanying pieces – he would give me a poem and I would write a homily, and I would give him a sermon and he would write a poem. If we could put together enough examples, I even imagined that this might be something that Skinner House might consider publishing.

So, here is our first crack at this project. We would love to hear any feedback. What did it make you think? Do you like the format? Would you read more?
==========
My Brother’s Dreams
Tyler and Jeff Liebmann

The smooth penetrating glow of your radiant smile
A toothy grin of ambivalence and naivety
I dreamt of you abbreviated brother, pervading my eyes,
shining through the cloudy maze of my thoughts
You hadn’t aged, brown slivery locks danced above your
lids, constantly peering, laughing
Visits have slowed over the years, with each rustling
autumn I wonder, have you forgotten me?
How do you pass the days, slumbering in dark corners
of my mind, tucked away from the harsh reality that
stains the memories
Words spill from your rounded lips, half-phrases of
inequity and longing, muted words of love and
abandonment, long forgotten, dust in a desert wind.

Growing up, I never heard of Unitarian Universalism. And yet, my parents possessed a streak of religious nonconformity we often brandish with great pride. My parents were Christian, but they each assumed that label on their own terms.

For instance, my mother was raised Methodist in Moundsville, West Virginia – named for a large Adina Indian burial mound in the middle of the town. As a young girl, she once told her minister how she looked forward to going to Heaven so that she could be reunited with her deceased pet dog. The minister informed her (I always imagined in a rather patronizing tone) that her dog would not be waiting for her because there are no animals in Heaven. Without missing a beat, my mother told her minister that if her dog was not in Heaven, then she had no interest in going herself.

When I knew her as an adult, my mother was no shrinking violet. Many was the time she left some store clerk, teacher, or anonymous bureaucrat quaking in their officious shoes. But, I have to really admire the courage of a little girl to challenge the senior ecclesiastical authority in her life on an important point of theology. I take some measure of delight in her raw chutzpah, risking her minister’s vision of eternal hell fire over her love for the family pet. With genes like hers, I suppose it is little wonder that I eventually took the path toward Unitarian Universalist ministry.

This relatively harmless, amusing anecdote lived in our family’s history for decades and, obviously, made an impression on me as well. My mother has been gone for many years now, but her telling of that story lives clearly in my memory. An interesting question, however, is that of all the memories of childhood she could have retained, why would my mother, who lived into her 70’s, remember that brief exchange? Of all the folksy wisdom she could pass on to her children, why would that conversation rate consideration?

I believe my mother clung to that story because it represented her most primary belief in the nature of the human soul. My mother clearly felt that Heaven was not merely a Shangri-La of limitless joy and boundless serenity. No, she obviously felt that Heaven is a very personalized paradise populated by all of the dearly departed in a sort of mirror of our Earthly world. To her, Heaven would not be heavenly without her beloved pet, because her dog was an essential component of her life – a life that had earned selection into the Kingdom of God.

Let me carry the Gospel According to Helen one step further. My mother believed that her soul, once shed of its mortal body, would live for eternity in Heaven. Now, animals are not baptized, nor do they make any conscious choice to accept Jesus into their lives. I doubt that she believed animals have souls, per se, so one might ask how her dog would earn entry into the hereafter. Certainly not all animals would be there. If there is a Heaven at all, then surely it is devoid of rats and roaches and rattlesnakes, since they would evoke memories of fear and danger. So, for a particular animal to earn ascension, they must do so by displaying a humanlike devotion, living on even after death as part of the loving memory of the soul of a human being. I imagine that my mother would have agreed that as long as that dog lived on in her memory, even subconsciously, then her Heaven must include that dog.

My mother was no theologian. I am not sure that she could have given you much of an answer if asked to define the human soul. But, she knew what the concept meant to her and that was sufficient. To her, the soul was the immortal essence of each human being. The mind is the seat of thought and reason, but the soul is the seat of understanding and compassion. The mind may be the end result of neural synapses and biochemical reactions. To my mother, the soul was the vessel of the spirit, that divine spark, that piece of God within us. And, upon death, that piece of spirit reunites with God in Heaven.

But, not all of us are so fortunate, as my mother was, to have an unambiguous faith. Very few Unitarian Universalists believe in a continuing, individualized existence after physical death. Even fewer believe in the material existence of places called heaven or hell where one goes after dying. If we believe in the concept at all, we believe that immortality manifests itself in the lives of those we affect during our lifetime and in the legacy we leave when we die.

So what do Unitarian Universalists believe about the human soul? I somehow doubt that you can find any two Unitarian Universalists who will answer that question in quite the same way. To even begin would require a month of Sundays to simply lay the philosophical groundwork. Thinkers of distinguished pedigree have considered the nature of the soul to be one of the most fundamental notions of human existence, worthy of entire careers of contemplation and learned writing.

My mother lives on in my memory. I do not remember her as she would be today, in her mid-80’s. I do not remember her as she was when she died, after fighting liver cancer for a year. I remember her mostly as she was during my adolescence, when we talked for hours after school, over the dinner table, or during summer vacations. Ageless. Divorced of static from the distractions of life. She lives in a corner of my mind, tucked away from the harsh reality that stains the memories.

Does some measurable aspect of her actually live on in some tangible way? I doubt it. But, until science determines the nature of memory, how do we define the ripples left in the universal pool by the skipping of our mortal lives? Until science unlocks the mysteries of time and space, who is to say that some flicker of our life light does not continue on in the cloudy maze of thought, perhaps even retaining some mote of consciousness?

I do not believe in heaven or hell, but do take comfort in knowing that my life matters and will matter, even in a small way, after I die. I do not believe that a god imbued me with any special essence. I do think, however, that there exists something more to us than the sum of our molecular composition and collected energies. For now, I am willing to accept the uncertainty of soul and embrace the undetectable influence of others’ souls on my life.

Reclaiming Words

/ uurevjeff / 1 Comment

Exploring my religious philosophy with friends recently, I have engaged in the ongoing debate over groups of people reclaiming words once deemed pejorative. For instance, “Unitarian” was originally meant as an insult, yet our religious forebears took ownership of the word. Addressing the Boy Scouts, I commented that the song “Yankee Doodle” was written and sung by the British to mock the bumpkin colonists. In my opinion, if African Americans want to reclaim the n-word, and gays want to reclaim the q-word and women want to reclaim the b-word, then I am all for it. I have always loved the quote from the movie 1776, when Stephen Hopkins from Rhode Island breaks the tie vote allowing the Continental Congress to debate independence by saying, “I’ve never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yes, I’m for debating anything!” Well, I have never found a word so inherently harmful that it couldn’t be used during intelligent discourse. That does not mean that we must use it, but I reserve for myself and others the right to use it should we choose to do so.

I feel especially possessive about the word “atheist.” According to Wikipedia, atheism “originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.” The following citation is used to support this statement.

Drachmann, A. B. (1977 (“an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition”)). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-201-8. “Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed.”

I believe it imperative that atheists fully reclaim this word and refute the long held association with amorality, which I would contend is still held by many today.

For me, reclaiming “atheist” looms especially large because I seek to become a Unitarian Universalist minister. I feel a duty to provide other atheists (as well as agnostics or others questioning their theology) with a role model of an atheist who is also religious — even devoutly religious. I feel an equal duty to help theists understand how someone can live a religious life (and perhaps lead their religious community) whose theology lacks theistic underpinnings. It is important, for instance, for an atheist minister to model respect for and reasonable analysis of others’ sacred texts, interpreting the wisdom of those texts removed from the assumption of an anthropomorphic motive force in the universe.

And, I feel an especially enormous duty to our children and youth, growing up in a predominantly theistic cultural paradigm. If you are an adult, do you remember those early teen years when you began to question the wisdom passed on to you from parents and other elders? Imagine being 13 today in America, questioning the existence of God in a community where nearly everyone you know is Christian and in a world where nearly every major religious movement begins with the premise of an omniscient being that will, in most cases, punish you for such thoughts. Young minds need to know that such thoughts are healthy and reasonable. Young people need to know that giving up the notion of god does not mean giving up meaning in life, or the joy of human community. Children and youth need to hear the voices of adults – theist and atheist – unafraid to worship together, focusing the power and love of the human spirit on their thoughts and feelings and actions.

Boy Scouts and the Press

/ uurevjeff / 4 Comments

I had my first encounter with the press as a budding minister and, so far, I have to say I’m am very satisfied. Our local scouts hosted their second annual Ten Commandments hike the day after Thanksgiving. A group of 350 scouts, parents, and leaders walked to a number of churches in the local area, stopping at each to hear presentations by representatives of different religious traditions. Presenters included Jews, Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Christian Scientists, Hindus, and Buddhists. At each stop, we were asked to address one of the 10 Commandments and how our religion interpreted that particular rule, as well as briefly discuss our religion.

I was assigned the commandment against taking the Lord’s name in vain — which is enormously ironic since I am particularly fond of swearing. But, I explained that my interpretation of the commandment is that we should not judge or disrespect others vainly in the name of whatever we consider of ultimate importance (referring to Tillich’s concept of Ultimate Concern). As an example, I asked the scouts to look at our principles in the hymnal and pointed out our commitment to the democratic process. I said that it would be wrong for me in the name of Democracy to disrespect another person’s religion just because its structure was hierarchical.

In describing Unitarian Universalism, I told the scouts that the people they meet in one of our congregations might display a wide range of religious beliefs. I explained that they might find Christians, Jews and Muslims; atheists and agnostics; pagans, wiccans and pantheists; humanists and folks with many other views on the nature of god. Then, I told them that I am an atheist and that I do not believe that atheism and religion are mutually exclusive. That definitely raised a few eyebrows.

Funny, though, was that when the boys asked questions, they were mostly about the church building and our organ. One young man asked if Unitarian Universalists could also belong to another church. I explained that it was common for our families to have one UU parent and one parent of another faith tradition, and that these families often attend services at both churches.

A reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette attended the event. She asked me about the conflict between the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Boy Scouts. I explained my understanding of the situation and added that that conflict at the national level has not yet hurt our relationship with local scouting groups. Needless to say, I was amazed when the article came out the next day how much focused on what I had said. I was even more amazed at how well she quoted me and represented my comments. She not only mentioned my comments on atheism extensively, but also mentioned prominently our church’s banner, “Civil Marriage is a Civil Right.” So, I was able to address both of the major issues of contention with the Boy Scouts in, I believe, a constructive way.

Of course, it remains to be seen if there will be any follow up on the article or comments from readers. I really hope that some folks will read it and try us out. I particularly hope that some teens who are questioning their religious beliefs will read it and realize that we are there as a noncreedal alternative as they search for truth and meaning in their lives. I know that as a teenager, I would have loved to know an adult I could talk to on these issues.

Atheism and the Destruction of Religion

/ uurevjeff / 3 Comments

I recently listened to the latest podcast of the Institute for Humanist Studies’ Network News. Noteworthy were several brief interviews with the notable “New Atheists,” such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris (http://humaniststudies.org/podcast/). The broadcast focused on comments made by Sam Harris at the Atheist Alliance International annual conference in September, where he told the crowd that they should not identify with the atheist label.

The rationale was perfectly logical (and frankly not a new argument), and reflected my own thoughts about the term for many years. “Atheist” as a word carries an immensely negative connotation, and is really not a particularly valuable label. As Harris pointed out, atheism is not a world view, as is a belief in rationality. Atheism is simply a rejection of an unsubstantiated notion.

What troubled me, however, was not the comments made in response to this argument, but rather a question asked of all three figures and their answers. The interviewer asked whether atheists should pursue the reform of religion or its destruction. Now, obviously, as someone pursuing the life of a minister, the question is at best problematic. My more visceral reaction, though, is one of offense at its simple mindedness and nastiness. My reasons for such a reaction are these:

  1. Contemplating the destruction of organized religion is a waste of time, given that billions of people on this planet support the concept and many of them are willing to kill themselves and others to defend it. As a long-term evolutionary goal of human society, perhaps I would be willing to consider the idea, but it’s priority would lag far behind a multitude of more pressing human needs.
  2. Simply discussing the desire to eliminate religion as a “yes/no” question ignores the many positive contributions of religion. One might just as logically argue for the elimination of all government because some politicians are corrupt, all families because of instances of abuse or divorce, and all other forms of human interaction and organization because they produce some negative as well as positive outcomes.
  3. The question assumes that atheism and organized religion are mutually exclusive (an assumption which all three of the speakers appeared to share). This assumption is unwarranted even under the current dominant paradigm of our modern view of the cosmos. There are at least hundreds of thousands of American atheists (many Unitarian Universalists, for instance) who belong to and participate regularly in churches, fellowships, societies, etc.
  4. The assumption is particularly erroneous if one is open to new quantum views of the universe, in which one acknowledges that many fields and forces exist that we do not yet understand, cannot yet quantify, and may well have wide ranging effects on our lives in biological and perhaps spiritual ways (however one chooses to define the term).

Obviously, I have no desire to take on these giants of the movement, who are far more adept at verbal repartee and public debate. I do, however, think it matters when public figures present their views in a cavalier manner that divides potential members of a movement. Atheism has faced this problem for decades, as have humanists. I find this paradox fascinating, given that two billion people are comfortable labeling themselves Christian and another 1.5 billion are comfortable with the term Muslim. Until atheists and humanists even come close to 1% of any nation’s populations, how can they ever hope to become the dominant paradigm of thought?

Pizza Polytheism

/ uurevjeff / 1 Comment

Pizza in Pittsburgh resembles American politics. You can love Mineo’s and hate Vincent’s. You can love Vincent’s and hate Mineo’s. Or you can love one of the multitude of third party candidates who have no chance of ever getting more than a percent or two of the popular vote.

Personally ironic is that I love it as a metaphor, but am wholly monotheistic when it comes to pizza. I not only worship at the altar that is Mineo’s, but I am a zealous member of the thick crust double-cheese sect. In 30+ years of eating Mineo’s pizza, I am not sure if I have ever even tried any of their other varieties. I suppose one might consider my culinary tastes boring, if not downright dogmatic. I prefer to think of myself as pious (and no, I’m really not trying for an awful pun).

However, since I have adopted the pizzatorium as a reflective metaphor, I find myself straying ever so slightly from the fold. After all, I risk being hypocritical if I preach the value of diversity in pizza only to adhere to a rigid creed in my own dining.

So, at the invitation of a friend, I tried not only a different type of pizza, but a different brand – a double heresy. We went up the street from Mineo’s to Aiello’s and had a pizza with pepperoni, pineapple, and green pepper. This combination would have revolted me perhaps only a year ago. But, you can be surprised by the directions your spiritual quest can take you.

Now, I’ll have to admit that the meal was supplemented by several hours of delightful conversation, which always enhances digestion. That said, the pizza was not bad (it also helped that I had just worked out and was starving). They used canned pineapple, which I love, but not necessarily baked in a pizza. Otherwise the flavorful blend was tasty and spicy.

I suppose that I could now be tempted to engage in a global quest for pizza perfection. But, my pizzatorium is not about seeking out variety for the sake of variety. Frankly, the primary value of the experience was the invitation to try something new and sharing that communion with a friend. That is the real spirit of my muse kennel and pizzatorium.

Do you have a favorite pizza? If so, then the next time you feel inclined to partake, invite a friend to commune with you and experience it together. Perhaps the world is not ready for “Peace Through Pizza,” but I can imagine a broad ecumenically Epicurean approach to bridging the gaps between people and even societies.

Bikes and Being

/ uurevjeff

When I was very young, I had a tricycle. I don’t really know if I imagine this, but I remember that this was the biggest tricycle around…bigger than any other kid’s tricycle. My trike was decked out with a Tigeroo (with the furry tail attached to the back). We lived out in the country on a very busy road, so there were few places to ride. But, I remember that I loved riding that tricycle in our driveway, roaring around like a king of the concrete.

As a young adolescent, I had a two-wheeler with sissy handlebars and a gold banana seat. That was true love. Growing up in Pittsburgh, one learns quickly about hills. I used to walk up about a half mile hill (the bike had one speed – Jeff speed) just to get to this area of streets that was totally flat and I would ride around the blocks for hours. Eventually, I gave my golden stallion to my nephews. But, I never forgot that bike or the countless rides on Osage and Valleyview Drives.

I have not ridden much as an adult. Bicycle riding stopped being fun when it became exercise; it stopped being fun when the seat resembled a medieval torture device; it stopped being fun when it contorted my body into the position of a human torpedo; and it stopped being fun when maintaining a bike became as difficult as maintaining my car. All I should have to worry about is keeping air in the tires and slapping some grease on a chain occasionally — that’s it.

Walking to work today, I passed a bike that gleamed in the morning light, reminding me of my golden beauty of yore. I experienced a nostalgic pang for those days of my youth when riding my bike meant just being alone and thinking. I wasn’t burning calories or fine tuning a finely crafted investment. I sat upright in comfort and weaved a path along the cracks in the asphalt under a canopy of elms and buckeye trees.

Riding my bike trained me for managing the rigors of adult life. Whether I am pushing a shopping cart, mowing the grass, or driving down a highway, I can send my mind into that time of simplicity on wheels. Maybe someday, I’ll create a park with nothing but winding bike trails and no-speed bikes with sissy handlebars and banana seats for everyone. And Tigeroos, too.