“Why do you keep writing about religion?” one of my correspondents asked. “Does anyone care anymore?”
Statistics support his point. I’ve written before about plunging membership in churches. In the white western world, that is – Asia and Africa seem to be flourishing. U.S. evangelical churches have been the exception, until now, but surveys suggest their decline simply lags about 40 years behind the mainline churches.
But that doesn’t make religion irrelevant. It just means that more and more people aren’t aware of what’s pushing their buttons.
And their buttons are their belief systems.
Which may or may not be what’s traditionally called “religious.”
Author Ayn Rand called herself an atheist, but she believed passionately in every individual’s right to live without government interference. Her ideas permeate the U.S. Republican party.
David Suzuki professes no religious beliefs. But in interviews, it’s clear he believes passionately in evolution.
Carl Sagan believed in science; Stephen Hawking believes in mathematics; Sigmund Freud believed in sex.
Different gods
Beliefs matter, especially for those who still believe in some kind of God. That’s an important descriptor -- the “kind of God” they believe in.
Tragically, much of what people believe about God comes from ancient texts of a warlike people fighting for survival. And from what they were taught by people who took those ancient texts as literal truth, people who never needed to reconsider their beliefs, or people who used those teachings to exert power over others.
Cartoons of St. Peter sitting at the Pearly Gates, of angels flitting through clouds on impossibly tiny wings, or of a giant finger delivering thunderbolts, are unlikely to affect a one’s reactions.
But what if you think of God as a superhuman judge? A stern male judge, who’s also jury, forensic researcher, and prosecutor. Keeping track of everything naughty, and dispensing punishment. From which there is no appeal or parole. Ever.
Revealing comments
I see that kind of God reflected in the statements made by a variety of U.S. religious leaders, about tragic disasters.
Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former Republican presidential candidate, blamed Hurricane Katrina and terrorist attacks on legalized abortion. Robertson also famously claimed that a "pact with the devil" caused the devastating earthquake in Haiti.
Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, similarly argued that Katrina was God's punishment -- for homosexuality, bestiality, pornography, and the removal of the Ten Commandments from schools and government offices.
Jerry Falwell – how could I ignore him? -- blamed the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center on America’s “moral decay”. Which he attributed to the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, and gays.
Radical views are not limited to Christians. Yehuda Levin, a Jewish leader, linked an earthquake in Virginia to gays in the military. Levin justified his views with a Talmudic teaching: "You have shaken your male member in a place where it doesn’t belong. I too, will shake the Earth."
Charitably, Levin said homosexuals shouldn't take it personally: "We don’t hate homosexuals. I feel bad for homosexuals. It’s a revolt against God and literally, there’s hell to pay."
That didn’t stop Cindy Jacobs, a charismatic preacher with the Generals International ministry, blaming the 2011 Japanese earthquake, tidal wave, and nuclear disaster on the Pentagon’s “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy. As proof, Jacobs quoted the Book of Josiah, which you probably won’t find in your Bible.
Command over nature
I am amazed at the powers that gays seem to have. As far as I know, no other humans can cause earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornadoes.
A congressional candidate in Chicago, Susanna Atanus, explained gay power by asserting that God is punishing America for gay marriage and abortion by afflicting it with polar vortexes, tornadoes, autism, and even macular degeneration.
"God controls the weather,” Atanus told the news media. “God is angry. We are provoking Him with abortions and same-sex marriage and civil unions."
Maybe evangelical leaders are jealous that gays get bigger reactions from God than they do.
Granted, I’ve been cherry-picking for inflammatory quotes. No doubt these people are kind, generous, and thoughtful in person.
But I have to ask you. If you believed in a God who loves unconditionally, would you make those statements? If you believed in a God who forgives, would you relish an opportunity to make victims more miserable? If you believed in a God who suffers with us, would you thunder condemnation from a safe distance?
I hope not.
That’s why beliefs do matter. Especially about the kind of God you believe in.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
I rather expected a pile of mail about last week’s column, and I got it.
“It is a conundrum, isn't it?” Jean Hamilton wrote. “Innocent until proven guilty only applies in a court of law -- it may be a moral law, but meaningless in the current situation. Proving a negative is a notoriously tricky thing to do.
“I prefer to believe the victims until proven false. Taking away a woman's right to remain anonymous will put us right back where we have been all these years: with women afraid to come forward because of the backlash and the trauma of speaking of deeply personal things, only to know that you will be blamed and doubted...not only in the court of public opinion, but too often by the police and other authority figures as well.
“In fact, Jim, after stating your preference for disallowing anonymity, you go on to state all the reasons why that won't work. Anonymity shifts the balance of power slightly the other way. For now, maybe that's the way it has to be.”
A former teacher shared a personal experience of unjust accusation: “I am gradually getting over the trauma caused by an accusation of sexual misconduct. Fortunately I knew who the accuser was and what I was being accused of. During the investigation and trial I was placed on unpaid leave from my teaching position even though the allegations were not from a former nor current student. I found I had to prove my innocence rather than the accuser proving my guilt. I found that very difficult but with the help of supportive family, friends, and colleagues, as well as a good lawyer I was found innocent.
“I was reinstated but my reputation had already suffered. I received back pay but the amount was not enough to pay the lawyer's fees. Whenever I applied for a volunteer position requiring a Criminal Record Check it always came back with a record of the arraignment which I had to explain. It was 20 years before all this was erased from my record. I am well into retirement now but am still haunted by memories of that experience. Your column brought the memories flooding back. Thanks for the privilege of sharing this with you.”
Gary Willis wrote, “I’m now retired, and in my career as a psychologist no one ever accused me of misconduct. But I felt perennially wary about that prospect, which could be a career-ender even if the accusations proved groundless. My anxieties led me to be very cautious in my behavior. Sometimes anxiety can be helpful!”
Tom Watson picked up the political angle: “The fact that his two accusers remain anonymous [to the public] has set conspiracy theories afoot. In a conversation, one friend suggested that maybe the provincial Liberals put the two accusers up to it. Another countered it was equally possible that since the provincial Conservative establishment folks were never comfortable with Brown as leader in the first place they were quite happy to see to his political demise. It's, as you suggest, one of the problems associated with anonymity -- the path to truth is littered with boulders and, so far at least, Patrick Brown is the only one who has tripped and fallen.”
Judyth Mermelstein confirmed some of Tom’s suspicions: “At least two Conservative Party of Canada men on Twitter are actively soliciting women to accuse Justin Trudeau of sexual improprieties.”
Judyth went on, “Many of the #MeToo moments are inherently unprovable, especially given few abusers are fool enough to do it before witnesses. There's a cathartic effect for the abused who speaks up after months or years or decades of silence, but no real possibility of justice for either party. What good would it do for me to name the now (presumably) respectable accountant who did his darnedest to wrestle me into submission when we were in our teens? Or the guy who grabbed my breasts in front of my employers ‘as a joke’ back in the 1970s? It still would be ‘he said, she said’ with people choosing to believe one or the other, and zero chance of a court sorting it out.
“The problem, I think, is that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ maxim has never been granted to the women who reported sexual improprieties. The usual presumption was that they were lying, for spite or financial reasons or because they were delusional or couldn't take a joke. Even outright rape, even with obvious physical injuries, rarely led to prosecution; more likely, the woman's reputation was ruined while her attacker got off scot free.
“Now, we're asked to feel for the men whose reputations are impugned... while the vast majority of offenders remain unnamed and free to carry on as abusively as before.
“I do sympathize with anyone who has been wrongly accused, and even with the few who are losing jobs over minor offenses (i.e., harassment they assumed was allowed because they got away with it), but there are limits.”
Patricia Brush made four points.
· We know from research that abusers often ARE damned good actors. That's how they get away with it.
· Perhaps instead of being politically motivated, Brown's accusers knew that he had one heck of a good chance of being the next Ontario premier, and having to see him constantly in the news was already affecting their mental well-being, never mind how bad it would be if he won.
· You said that writers of letters to editors could be listed as anonymous if they have proven their identity to the editor. Is this not the same case with Brown's accusers? Someone knows who they are, but the choice has been made not to make that public [to avoid] physical danger for the accusers.
· I don't think that trial and conviction should be the test as to whether or not something happened. Not all sexual harassment is illegal. The burden of proof cannot be met for the court's purposes. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or that there should be no redress.
Isabel Gibson favoured fairness: “There's a lot of negative comment on the Patrick Brown case -- that is, people questioning its fairness or lack thereof. Good. Maybe this is a swing back of the pendulum, which has swung too far.”
Sandra McTavish: “I love your three operating principles. I worry that society is swinging to a point where anyone can anonymously destroy another person’s life.”
Steve Roney: You are right that accusers must not remain anonymous. This is a fundamental principle of justice: the accused must have the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers
“What we are seeing now is not the end to millennia of male domination, but the end of millennia of clear rules around sexual behaviour. Now nobody is sure what is allowed; the rules change year to year and even month to month, and something you did ten years ago that everyone then seemed to think was okay is now a career-wrecking scandal when revisited. I read that reruns of sitcoms from the 1990s are now being pulled from the air because they scandalously violate current sexual norms.”
Bob Rollwagen: “I understand that the accusers in all of the cases have come forward to someone in the press or a management group on a confidential basis and that these people have seen a pattern that causes concern. In the past, the authorities promised action, the perpetrator was reprimanded, and little changed. Leadership has had ample time to deal with these realities and has not. They are still hoping a few sacrifices will get us over this.
“There needs to be a process that allows indiscreet action to be reported, an independent arbitrator to judge and inform the guilty party with the decision, and necessary response to insure the victim is free to pursue a normal life. The victims should not have to suffer; they should remain anonymous unless they choose to come out. They did not choose to be abused.”
Catherine Mcdonald: “Four of us, well employed career women, had recently privately discussed our concerns, about the process the large societal shift was taking. Every one of us, has experienced abuse in our pasts. And it is marvellous that women finally are speaking up. And in the process, some men who wouldn’t otherwise learn, are learning.”
Trina Norman offered support, and a correction: “As a survivor I feel for these women and applaud their strength and conviction. I also agree with what you said whole heartedly. The court of public opinion is not what our country and laws are based on.
“On the correction side, Jamie Baillie was leader of the Provincial PC’s and leader of the opposition, not Premier.”
There were more letters, on several subjects, but I haven’t included them all simply for space reasons.
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the ‘Reply’ button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
To use the links in this section, you’ll have to insert the necessary symbols.
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at wwwDOTsinghallelujahDOTca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://wwwDOThymnsightDOTca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://wwwDOTchurchwebcanadaDOTca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, wwwDOTtraditionaliconoclastDOTcom
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawoodATgmailDOTcom to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatsoATgmailDOTcom or twatsonATsentexDOTnet