Several months after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush told Palestinian leaders at a Palestinian-Israeli summit that God told him to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan, and that he must end the tyranny in Iraq. The former president told them this statement in private, which was later disclosed for a BBC interview with one of the Palestinian leaders. This message was never overtly expressed in the reasoning leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Instead we were fed lies and mistruths of Iraq's possession of WMDs, despite all evidence proving there were none. Since the initial invasion, theories have swirled of whether these tales of WMDs were actually to paint legitimacy into a more sinister, totalitarian effort to secure oil fortunes, or that our deep theological differences was used as a prong to push the administration into conflict- a modern day Crusades. While one of these two reasons might be a better excuse for entering a conflict with the Middle East rather than lying about none existent weapons, neither justifies, in our modern world, military action. In fact, both are incredibly dangerous rationalizations. But the former president implicitly expressed such a sentiment to the Palestinians.
I'm not going to argue the case of criminal charges being brought against the former administration. President Obama has wrongly decided that no further inquiries into the invasion of Iraq will take place, and thus no accountability shouldered. But what I want to delve into here is the numerous "prayers" I see everywhere for an end to war. Don't freak out; I'm not about to start justifying or war-mongering in any sense, and will be first on line for a global peace treaty (I know, liberal idealism...). But what strikes me is that individuals reach out to God, a god, the God (I'm not sure) to end wars, while, as far as I can tell, it is God telling his followers to do the exact opposite. Deuteronomy 7:2: "and when the Lord your God delivers [seven nations greater and mightier] over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them." [Emphasis not added.] I'll avoid redundancy and just say the Bible offers a great many passages similar to this. The Torah: the same (obviously); the Quran: equally guilty of condoning violence as a means to an end.
And what is this end? Theological dominance; the utter destruction of competing religions (or simply competing beliefs) by the use of the sword. Why are we praying to God to end war? The only outcome is to wipe out all "non-believers," those who do not strictly follow one religion's beliefs. Praying for God to end war begets only more war, more bloodshed. The Crusades lasted nearly 200 years. I imagine many military generals at the time praying for an end to the fighting, but relinquishing their attacks only after the deaths of their enemies to regain the "Holy Land." I could see similar rationalizations offered during the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of Jews during World War II, and rattling around in George Bush's head prior to the invasion of Iraq. Of course they don't want to fight, but if someone disagrees with their faith, they're left no choice. Right? "It's not my fault officer, she made me hit her..." If God is listening and responding to prayers, isn't the answer going to be "defeat and utterly destroy" whomever is opposed? Deuteronomy 7:2 is a passage at its core of intolerance, notably God's. It's this perspective of God, the one touted by the Westboro Baptist Church, which is often erroneously brought forward when a particular belief of the church finds opposition.
Is war a constant of the universe? Competing organisms ranging from animals to plants, to microscopic bacteria are pitted in a seemingly endless battle to survive. Is war and fighting ingrained in the very fabric of all living organisms? Each cell composing our bodies fight daily to live. We are a mass of striving cells overpowering weaker ones for sustainability. Does the collective of these tiny organisms signal hostility to our brains, a feeling of threat, and trigger a defense mechanism? Have we evolved into hopelessly bellicose beings? No. Can religion end war? Perhaps. But are prayers of peace really any good when the being we are praying too would just as soon see billions perish? Maybe those who pray should send a prayer to God of tolerance, in part for Himself, but more for the raging wave of intolerance rushing towards the sandy shores.
Prayer is the hope of intervention by some divine force capable of doing what we feel we cannot, or providing answers to the questions we feel elude us. The power of tolerance is not something that should elude any individual, nor by necessity need divine intervention to achieve. Tolerance is a power within each and every human to treat another with mutual respect; we all contain the capacity of kindness and love that is not granted by God, but is intrinsically, inherently part of our being. We've never needed a book to teach us this.
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The LGBT and Their God Given Right
A Pew Research poll conducted in 2009 found that about 70% of evangelicals, both black and white, are opposed to gay marriage. The Barna Group conducted a phone interview in 2009
to find roughly the same number of Americans believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. To me, the similarity in these two numbers isn't striking, but it got me thinking. We're in the midst of two very important moments in regards to equality for the LGBT community: the Armed Forces is currently reconsidering the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy; and across the nation gay couples are fighting for their rights as individuals, as Americans- land of the free- to be able to marry legally under the law. Based on the numbers above, it's no wonder we see such staunch opposition to equal rights for LGBT individuals. But seeing these two beliefs side-by-side, it just doesn't make much sense to me how evangelicals can oppose gay marriage and hold the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing god.
Let's start with the premise that god is omnipotent and omniscient. His power is unsurpassed and he is eternal. He knows our everyday lives, sees our joys, our sorrows, our indiscretions, and our heroics. He is a god who has preordained our very lives, that leads us upon a path towards salvation, or enlightenment. We do not choose our path; the choices we make are in essence his bidding, his choice, written in the cosmic tablet long ago. Partly, we accept the deaths of friends and loved ones because we argue it was "all part of His plan," and that our loved ones are "with him now." If you strongly believe in the Christian God then you believe most of the above.
One argument evangelicals contend against LGBT individuals is that they chose to live that lifestyle. Not being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgender, I'm sure these evangelicals have some divine insight into how LGBT people actually think and feel... Anyway, suppose this premise were also true, that yes, all homosexuals chose to be that way at some point in their lives. If that were true, can't we then say that god does not predetermine their lives? And if that were true then the next logical step is to say that god is indeed not all-powerful, nor all-knowing. And if god is not all-powerful and all-knowing then the Commandments, and when he "answers" a prayer, lose credibility and force. We look to the divine seeking enlightenment, but if we knew that even sometimes that encouragement was not in our best interests, would we unquestionably follow?
I'm sure there are several arguments one can make against the above, but I want to point to one of the most obvious: that god grants free-will to people, to allow them to make their own choices, in this case, commit the sin of homosexuality. To this, my response: whereas the Bible damns homosexuality through many courses in its' texts, it also condemns other, far more ridiculous things: working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2); women cannot teach, nor hold positions of authority (1 Timothy 2:11-15), etc. Both of these were common thoughts of practice in the 1st Century, but we've adapted to the changing times, progressed into modernity where these, and many other "sins" of the Bible are meaningless. Can we without doubt conclude homosexuality is a sin? No. Can we then chastise their choice, if it is actually a choice they make? I don't believe we can.
But let's get back to the argument. Conversely, if homosexuals do not chose to be gay then they must be born that way. The majority of homosexuals that I am glad to call friends have confided in me how they knew they were always gay, or lesbian, but fearfully held back their feelings whether because of familial, or societal pressures to be "normal." And I tend to hold their own personal diagnostics in higher regard than some evangelical because well, these people are inside their own minds and have a far better understanding of who they are, and what they feel than some Christian wing-nut out there. So, if they are born that way, and evangelicals want to retain that god is omnipotent, thus presuming god made everyone to be how they are, then homosexuals are created by god to be homosexuals. And since god is the unquestioned authority over the universe, evangelicals should not oppose homosexuality as something unnatural since god granted such freedom.
Now, some might argue that it's not that evangelicals do not accept homosexuals, but that the evangelicals do not want the institution of marriage corrupted. Again, let's look into the Bible. Hm... Couldn't find anything. Gay marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. When marriage is mentioned, it relates specifically to the union of a man and a woman (1 Corinthians 7:2-16, Ephesians 5:23-33 for example). But should the omission of any language specifically singling out gay marriage be enough to promulgate against it? I don't think so. The Bible doesn't mention anything about computers, or corporations. Yet we've had to establish our own laws and doctrines regarding these modern fixtures in our lives, so we should adopt our own modern laws for gay marriage, not based on centuries old dogma and assumptions based on omission.
John Rawls' theory of social justice, "the veil of ignorance," is the best tool to establish law that will have the most weight and be the most fair. "The veil of ignorance" is placed over each specific person, so that he or she does not know the color of their skin, their religion, their gender, or in our case, their sexual orientation. If you do not know, when the veil is lifted, if you are straight, gay, transgender, etc. then when choosing rules and laws you would want them to be altruistic, because if you establish law opposing gay marriage and you are gay when the veil is lifted, you've discriminated against yourself, you've limited your own individual freedom. By choosing a law that accounts for everyone, doesn't limit the individual freedoms of anyone, you've created a far better world for everyone and have taken steps to accept all for who they are. You've established a more peaceful world. You've established a world of love, not hate. You've done, in essence, what Jesus preached of you to do. Shouldn't that be reason enough?
to find roughly the same number of Americans believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. To me, the similarity in these two numbers isn't striking, but it got me thinking. We're in the midst of two very important moments in regards to equality for the LGBT community: the Armed Forces is currently reconsidering the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy; and across the nation gay couples are fighting for their rights as individuals, as Americans- land of the free- to be able to marry legally under the law. Based on the numbers above, it's no wonder we see such staunch opposition to equal rights for LGBT individuals. But seeing these two beliefs side-by-side, it just doesn't make much sense to me how evangelicals can oppose gay marriage and hold the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing god.
Let's start with the premise that god is omnipotent and omniscient. His power is unsurpassed and he is eternal. He knows our everyday lives, sees our joys, our sorrows, our indiscretions, and our heroics. He is a god who has preordained our very lives, that leads us upon a path towards salvation, or enlightenment. We do not choose our path; the choices we make are in essence his bidding, his choice, written in the cosmic tablet long ago. Partly, we accept the deaths of friends and loved ones because we argue it was "all part of His plan," and that our loved ones are "with him now." If you strongly believe in the Christian God then you believe most of the above.
One argument evangelicals contend against LGBT individuals is that they chose to live that lifestyle. Not being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgender, I'm sure these evangelicals have some divine insight into how LGBT people actually think and feel... Anyway, suppose this premise were also true, that yes, all homosexuals chose to be that way at some point in their lives. If that were true, can't we then say that god does not predetermine their lives? And if that were true then the next logical step is to say that god is indeed not all-powerful, nor all-knowing. And if god is not all-powerful and all-knowing then the Commandments, and when he "answers" a prayer, lose credibility and force. We look to the divine seeking enlightenment, but if we knew that even sometimes that encouragement was not in our best interests, would we unquestionably follow?
I'm sure there are several arguments one can make against the above, but I want to point to one of the most obvious: that god grants free-will to people, to allow them to make their own choices, in this case, commit the sin of homosexuality. To this, my response: whereas the Bible damns homosexuality through many courses in its' texts, it also condemns other, far more ridiculous things: working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2); women cannot teach, nor hold positions of authority (1 Timothy 2:11-15), etc. Both of these were common thoughts of practice in the 1st Century, but we've adapted to the changing times, progressed into modernity where these, and many other "sins" of the Bible are meaningless. Can we without doubt conclude homosexuality is a sin? No. Can we then chastise their choice, if it is actually a choice they make? I don't believe we can.
But let's get back to the argument. Conversely, if homosexuals do not chose to be gay then they must be born that way. The majority of homosexuals that I am glad to call friends have confided in me how they knew they were always gay, or lesbian, but fearfully held back their feelings whether because of familial, or societal pressures to be "normal." And I tend to hold their own personal diagnostics in higher regard than some evangelical because well, these people are inside their own minds and have a far better understanding of who they are, and what they feel than some Christian wing-nut out there. So, if they are born that way, and evangelicals want to retain that god is omnipotent, thus presuming god made everyone to be how they are, then homosexuals are created by god to be homosexuals. And since god is the unquestioned authority over the universe, evangelicals should not oppose homosexuality as something unnatural since god granted such freedom.
Now, some might argue that it's not that evangelicals do not accept homosexuals, but that the evangelicals do not want the institution of marriage corrupted. Again, let's look into the Bible. Hm... Couldn't find anything. Gay marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. When marriage is mentioned, it relates specifically to the union of a man and a woman (1 Corinthians 7:2-16, Ephesians 5:23-33 for example). But should the omission of any language specifically singling out gay marriage be enough to promulgate against it? I don't think so. The Bible doesn't mention anything about computers, or corporations. Yet we've had to establish our own laws and doctrines regarding these modern fixtures in our lives, so we should adopt our own modern laws for gay marriage, not based on centuries old dogma and assumptions based on omission.
John Rawls' theory of social justice, "the veil of ignorance," is the best tool to establish law that will have the most weight and be the most fair. "The veil of ignorance" is placed over each specific person, so that he or she does not know the color of their skin, their religion, their gender, or in our case, their sexual orientation. If you do not know, when the veil is lifted, if you are straight, gay, transgender, etc. then when choosing rules and laws you would want them to be altruistic, because if you establish law opposing gay marriage and you are gay when the veil is lifted, you've discriminated against yourself, you've limited your own individual freedom. By choosing a law that accounts for everyone, doesn't limit the individual freedoms of anyone, you've created a far better world for everyone and have taken steps to accept all for who they are. You've established a more peaceful world. You've established a world of love, not hate. You've done, in essence, what Jesus preached of you to do. Shouldn't that be reason enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)