It’s Cold Out There

I’m guest-posting at Unclaimed Territory, and this morning I posted a merged and condensed version of my last two religion posts. Which pissed off a lot of people who clearly didn’t read what I wrote. They just saw the word “religion” and went ballistic.

I may not have as many readers as Glenn, but y’all are way smarter.

Update: Speaking of religion, these people are just plain twisted.

44 thoughts on “It’s Cold Out There

  1. I visited with Swami Kriyananda a few weekends ago, he’s a direct disciple of Paramahansa Yogananda. He single handedly started a number of intentional communities around the world, and is now doing this sort of thing plus charity work in India. He’s lectured thousands of times all over the globe and has written over 80 books and composed over 400 pieces of music. The guy is 80 years old and is still going strong.

    My point in bringing this up, is that he spoke a bit about lecturing in England, which is where he spent time as child going to school. He said he loved the English people, but found them very resistant to his message. He would spend the first half of the lecture trying to convince them that he wasn’t a fraud. The second half would then be spent trying to prove to them that he wasn’t insane.

    His conclusion was that some people/some cultures are just much more ready for what he had to say than others, which is one of the reasons why he presently is in India.

    You can see the parallel with having a serious discussion about religion in the leftwing blogosphere. My suggestion for you maha, is to work up some sort of “defensive introduction” to your ideas – which you kind of have done, although not formally as such – so as to innoculate your audience whenever you go a’posting on other people’s blogs (or for that matter on your own). Present the introduction and then get on with the serious matter.

    Kriyananda hated lecturing in England because he wasted all this time on defensive work, which prevented him from getting to the heart of why he was there.

    That said, Glenn Greenwald and his very fine mind rules. We’re lucky he’s on our side. Good for you that you posted there.

  2. Good heavens. You did an admirable job, Maha!

    I also read all the comments and I think you made a dent here and there. I hope some of the thoughtful, tolerant commenters will join us over here; the others can stay wrapped inside their bristly shells over there, if they want.

    I especially liked the link that Hume’s Ghost provided on Thomas Jefferson’s view of Jesus.
    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Jesus-Without-Miracles1dec05.htmm
    (lots of comments to wade through so I’ll post it here, too)

    Paul Rosenburg’s thoughts on Unitarians and Quakers also come to mind. I’ve always admired the Friends and to read that their method of “worship” was actually done to avoid some of the pitfalls of intolerance was instructive to me:

    “…religion definitely does have authoritarian, anti-liberal tendencies, that exist quite apart from literal readings of texts. These have been observed empirically, and do seem to have to do with group identity formation, with in-groups and out-groups. It takes rather extreme and disciplined forms of practice–such as the Quakers employ, for example–to counter these tendencies.”

    However, I think he was forgetting the tolerant nature of Eastern religions, as we in the West are prone to do and as you’ve often pointed out.

    There really were some good responses – it’s just that the flurry of the enraged was a little tough to sort through. I think Glenn won’t be sorry he invited you! If there’s that much passion, there’s definitely something there that needs prodding. I would hope that someday we will be able to reach a place where we can all agree to disagree.

  3. I read your post, and the comments…and I have this to say.:
    It was a great post and I am glad you removed the readers of Glenn’s blog from their comfort zone….

    I am a huge fan of Glenn(you are still my favorite blogger) but the things Glenn writes are predictable…you can always count on Glenn to be up on the latest outrage politically with the finest commentary ….Your post was 100% outside the box from what Greenwalds readers are used to and that is great!!!

    Sometimes Glenn’s readers are so focused on the injustice they don’t have the time to look any deeper or in any other direction(a feeling I truely understand)… Some of Glenn’s readers came to the blog ready to sink their teeth into whatever rightie politician was on the menu and they just didn’t get what they expected….which I think is a good thing…I guess they don’t know the Maha motto “I’m not your monkey”….

    The thing is , there are some really really great minds over there in Glenn land(although some certainly didn’t act like it)….the problem lies ,IMHO, with getting those great minds to think past “bush sucks” (which no one disputes anymore, do they?) and onto life after bush and besides him.

    There are so many other issues worthy of thought(unlike bush himself) ….to be all consumed all the time with bush to the point where one cannot even entertain another topic is not healthy..

    Some people got it really well and were at least willing to try to step outside the box and talk about something else but I suspect the ones from whom the most complaining came where ones unable to join the conversation because the topic went over their heads ….I think it is sad , if that is the case, when people close their minds in anger to things they don’t understand rather than sit back, shut up and TRY to learn something to expand their minds….people are sometimes threatened by that which they don’t understand without ever seeing that the true threat is ignorance.

    Religion is a hard topic and you are a brave soul to even open that can of worms …those who display their own beliefs as the way we must all live make the rest of us a bit wary about even discussing our own views on the topic….but I look at it this way:

    We all have our own road to travel….no one faith can be right or wrong as a whole,only for our own hearts.If you and I met person A…we would both have a different experience, why should religion be different? Consider for the sake of this sentence there is a “God” as christians believe..we would all have a different relationship with him…Christians see him as “their father” … most of you had fathers…and if you had brothers and sisters ;you may have seen how each relationship was different…

    I think the problrm is people and their rigid view of religion , as Maha said so much better than I ,and not so much religion itself..

    Keep up the great work Maha,,, never be afraid to rock the boat.I am proud of you.Your just what Glenns group needs!

  4. I READ IT and it pissed me off. Reason: When I READ IT I saw numerous acceptances of false GOP memes:

    “I am religious, and sometimes I find myself defending Christians from the religion haters among us lefties”

    Liberals do not hate God, faith or TRUE Religion as implied in what I READ in your post. Liberals, however, do not embrace the Dobson-Falwell-Roberson ” God hates ‘em so should you” crapola as it clashes with their idea that God wants us to Love each and that is how He is quoted in the Bible. There is a point here Maha, Liberals are free to put Love, God and humanity into one pot as they are not slave to political shtick that ideologically prohibits it.

    In what seemed to a haughty scold of a bogus liberal position you reinforced the falsehood that it exists. Not smart or profound or visionary: just plain dumb or as I said over at Unclaimed Territory ..a stealth attack?

    “”We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.””….

    familiar with that Liberal?

    How about this one, it’s right up your alley:

    “”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.””

    Richard

    PS: “I may not have as many readers as Glenn, but y’all are way smarter”…I like the stealth option.

  5. Thanks, Barbara for guest posting for Glenn. I read your post and all of the comments (at least the ones that weren’t deleted) over at Unclaimed Territory. I must say though, your characterization of the commenters there is just a smidge petty. Perhaps you haven’t read the comment section on UT very often. I admit that this is only my second visit here and I only read this first post before deciding to comment, but proclaiming that your commenters are smarter than the commenters at UT is, umm, petty, maybe, not to mention a little competitive.

    Oh, well. I’m a serial lurker and sometime commenter, so what do I know? I just hadn’t thought that guest blogging for Glenn would turn out to be a competition. Who knows — maybe you’ll get a little traffic from it.

    Thanks again and later tater 🙂

  6. #7……Did you not grasp Maha is a Buddist?..

    .You say it pissed you off? Well better to be pissed off then pissed on I suppose.

    Interesting how easy it is to piss you off.Why not just move on to the next writer rather then get all”pissed off”?Your life must be lacking seriously if a blog post sets you over the edge….honestly , how very zell miller…

    If you respect Glenn so much you should also respect it is HIS blog and Maha was HIS choice to be a guest poster…I doubt he will have much respect for the way his guest was treated…you act like a right wing nut case… YOU are in control of your computer,, if you don’t like what someone writes, move on…

    When something like a blog post YOU don’t like upsets you, you lose creditibility on other issues important to you…..I am sure sorry Maha didn’t write her post while thinking “hmmm now what does richard want to read?”…pal.. She’s not your monkey! I am betting if she had wrote a post for you the rest of us would have been bored to tears ..It’s not all about you richard…you have to join the GOP if those are your needs.

  7. Liberals do not hate God, faith or TRUE Religion as implied in what I READ in your post.

    Too bad you can’t read. I didn’t write that.

  8. My suggestion for you maha, is to work up some sort of “defensive introduction” to your ideas – which you kind of have done, although not formally as such – so as to innoculate your audience whenever you go a’posting on other people’s blogs (or for that matter on your own). Present the introduction and then get on with the serious matter.

    Actually, I believe I did that. \I suspect some of the commenters didn’t get past the title.

    It’s a fascinating experiment, though. At the mere mention of the word “religion” some people charge with fangs bared and verbally tear your head off, but when pressed they’ll deny they hate you or religion or even feel particularly angry about anything. Let’s call it Zell Miller Syndrome.

  9. Boy it would be really easy to get all testy after some of that hostility over there. It seems like some of them got so angry that they even forgot how to read. Kinda paranoid, too. Stealth option? Stealth for who, exactly? Maha! Have you been up to something we don’t know about?

    Many of them were very adult and appreciative, though.

  10. It was nice to visit here, but I won’t again, sorry. Perhaps the protection by wp-hashcash is the reason that all of the sudden there are 10 comments to this little post — when I commented there were 5 (4) according to the home page. Now there are 10, some of which were submitted earlier than when it showed only 4.

    Perhaps I am not as smart as your readers. I have read Glenn from the beginning. While his policy regarding commenters is at times frustrating, it works. Yours is reminiscent of Alexandra’s over at ATB. Maybe that (purposely left ambiguous 🙂 explains something 🙂

    Thanks again

  11. daphne….sometimes reading requires the spiritual eyes..Read the title of the post!

  12. Have you been up to something we don’t know about?

    Perhaps I’ve been up to something I don’t even know about. I can be pretty damn stealthy, you know.

  13. Maha, I find great merit in what you have to say about Liberal religion (disclosure– I am an atheist but I have seen with my own eyes the good that liberal religion can do in the world). But I want you to notice one thing: BART, Glenn Greenwald’s most diligent GOP troll, wrote glowingly about your post while at the same time calling religious liberals liars and hypocrites because of their allegedly relativistic interpretion of the bible, in violation of the (presumably right-wing) TRUTH. In other words, he missed your point entirely, in ways that frankly support Richard’s assertion (#7 above) that you are in fact repeating Republican memes that will ultimately be used against all liberals, religious and secular alike, your intentions notwithstanding. Some of Glenn’s commenters didn’t get you and were unfair, but many understood exactly what you were saying and had well-founded disagreements. Right now we are in a war against the religious right. I hope the religious left joins our war. I hope you join our war. But if we lose this war and the Dobsons win, American democracy dies forever– the stakes ARE that high– and I don’t find unreasonable the proposition that your nuanced argument serves Bart better than it serves the people for whom you advocate. That’s why some of Glenn’s commenters were less than charitable with you. They may have a point. Don’t belittle or patronize them.

  14. Maha –

    I echo justme in that I’m right proud of you. Being outside the box can be cold all right. And being a sincere and tolerant moderate can invite unexpected anger and abuse. (I’ve been there) You wouldn’t think it would require bravery, but it does. Being a raving lunatic on either side is so much easier. I think you’re handling it masterfully, and I agree with Britwit, too!

  15. And I thought only munitions dealers would see war as an “opportunity”. So Christian of them.

    BTW, didn’t know it was you over at Glenn’s sight, but it sure seemed to me to be something I would find on Mahablog. You do have a distinctive voice.

  16. The problem is one of framing (if you guys haven’t read George Lakoff, I higly recommend him).

    The Religious Right claims that secularism is an “attack on Christianity.” That’s a frame that appeals to them because their view of Christianity is authoritarian dominance of society, and secular democracy stands in the way of them establishing a theocracy.

    The more accurate frame, and the one that reflects our pluralistic American values, is that secularism is what preserves religious liberty.

  17. Hume’s Ghost –
    Thanks for the reminder. It’s been awhile since I’ve read Lakoff. Very helpful to review his insights on the usefulness of framing.

    Also, I just found this:
    “Some conservatives are ideologues and you’re not going to sway them. But most conservatives are nice people. What you want to do is activate their nurturing model, engage their empathy. Ask them who they care about, what they care about, and why. Find out where their empathy lies. Connect with the part of them that shares your values, and get that to spread to other issues.”

    Maybe this is something most all gentle, humane people will do instinctively, if their anger does not distort their thinking.

  18. Whoa,

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but anyone who “read” Maha’s religious post on GG and disagreed either didn’t read, can’t read, can’t comprehend, immediately blackballs religion, or fears it?

    Talk about your religious dogma.

    Well, I have read your GG post twice, the second time after having read the comments on this sight.

    Now, I certainly can’t claim the religious erudition you have exhibited, nor the religious journey you have taken (after havnig been baptised a Catholic, raised and confirmed a Presbyterian, and read the Existentialists, I gave up on the matter), but I think I can flatter myself with a fairly good degree of reading comprehension.

    Stripped of its religious erudition and the personal journey you have chosen to take, your argument seems to be that liberals, Democrats, leftist should not hate religion, because religion itself is not at fault, merely its human practictioners. And I quote:

    “But the fault for this lies in the corruption of religion, not in religion itself.”

    “But the problem isn’t with religion. The problem is that, somehow, we’ve allowed religion to be defined by the stupid and the warped…”

    “Clearly, Mr. Seidman has a narrow and limited (and, may I say, dogmatic) understanding of what religion is.”

    My first question is: if you take the practictioners out of religion, then what is it, except some ivory-towered theory?

    Secondly, who is this “we” you allude to in the second quotation? Aren’t you part of that we? Where has your voice been during the time religion has been so ill-defined? More likely engaged in railing against your liberal Christian counterparts, than in correcting the image projected by the “religious” apostates.

    Thirdly, if “religion” itself is so pure, I wonder that you felt the need to reject your Christian roots, and seek other religions? Knowing as you do that religion is not at fault, why seek another religious path, another religion? The dogma you clearly eschew, the “literalness” you see as parable.So how did you decide Buddhism was the best for you? By your own admission, the Quran is the closest to an original text; I wonder you didn’t choose Islam.

    Finally, I don’t get this whole, oh the faults you liberals find in religion are merely a modern, Western, Christian thing and you shouldn’t worry yourselves about them. I’m sorry, but do I not live in the modern, western, Christian country known as the US of A? Where do you live?

    Quite frankly, your naivete scares the shit out of me.

  19. Please correct me if I am wrong, but anyone who “read” Maha’s religious post on GG and disagreed either didn’t read, can’t read, can’t comprehend, immediately blackballs religion, or fears it?

    No. It’s obvious to me that some of the people with strong negative reactions to the post didn’t read it at all. For example, several of the flamers assumed I was a Christian, even though I said explicitly at the top of the post that I was not a Christian. People saw the title, assumed I was a Jesus freak, and objected to anything about religion being posted on Glenn’s blog at all. (BTW, Glenn read the post before I published it and told me to go ahead and publish.)

    There were a few other people who disagreed with my points, but I could tell they had actually read what I wrote and thought about it and had specific objections to what I actually said. This doesn’t bother me. Some of them had valid criticisms that I’m thinking about.

    My first question is: if you take the practictioners out of religion, then what is it, except some ivory-towered theory?

    I’m saying that any idea, movement, or institution, no matter how good it is, can be corrupted. This is not limited to religion.

    Secondly, who is this “we” you allude to in the second quotation? Aren’t you part of that we?

    Of course. That’s why I said “we” instead of “you idiots.” I was talking about liberal Americans kind of collectively.

    Where has your voice been during the time religion has been so ill-defined?

    For several years I’ve been saying what I said in the post. Lots of other people have been saying similar things. However, we don’t get invited on TV all that often, so it’s easy to miss us.

    More likely engaged in railing against your liberal Christian counterparts, than in correcting the image projected by the “religious” apostates.

    Ooo, I must have pushed a button, huh? You’d better look to that.

    Thirdly, if “religion” itself is so pure, I wonder that you felt the need to reject your Christian roots, and seek other religions?

    Because there came a time when I became too skeptical of too many of the doctrines, especially the doctrine of Trinity, and my whole faith in Christian orthodoxy collapsed. However, subsequent study of the origins, development, and various traditions of Christianity persuaded me that it doesn’t have to be the dogma box I found it to be.

    Knowing as you do that religion is not at fault, why seek another religious path, another religion? The dogma you clearly eschew, the “literalness” you see as parable.So how did you decide Buddhism was the best for you?

    I see all religions as different paths up the same mountain. They’re all means to an end, not the end itself. I don’t think there is any one “true” religion. They’re all true in a way, but no dogma or doctrine is absolutely true. That said, I think some people drawn to religion (not everyone feels a need for religion) need doctrines — they’re like training wheels — and other people need to practice a religion based on devotion. Pure mysticism works for me. It’s not for everyone, but it works for me.

    By your own admission, the Quran is the closest to an original text; I wonder you didn’t choose Islam.

    I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I didn’t say anything about the Q’ran.

    Islam, except for the Sufi tradition, is just another dogma box, so it never interested me personally.

    Finally, I don’t get this whole, oh the faults you liberals find in religion are merely a modern, Western, Christian thing and you shouldn’t worry yourselves about them.

    Yes, I can see the whole argument went right over your head. I suggest Karen Armstrong’s book The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism to clarify the point.

    I’m sorry, but do I not live in the modern, western, Christian country known as the US of A?

    How should I know where you live? And for someone who says he read my post twice, you sure missed a lot of stuff. I made rather a large point of saying that most Christianity as practiced in the West, especially the U.S., has become dogma-bound and backward and is increasingly alarming and threatens democracy and possibly the planet itself. However, I said, it doesn’t have to be that way, and not all Christians are whackjobs, and you shouldn’t assume a person is a whackjob just because he is Christian.

    Those points don’t seem particularly difficult to understand. You must be very slow.

    Where do you live?

    New York.

    Quite frankly, your naivete scares the shit out of me.

    I find your lack of reading comprehension skill rather alarming, as well.

  20. I hope you join our war.

    I already did. Several years ago.

    But if we lose this war and the Dobsons win, American democracy dies forever– the stakes ARE that high– and I don’t find unreasonable the proposition that your nuanced argument serves Bart better than it serves the people for whom you advocate. That’s why some of Glenn’s commenters were less than charitable with you. They may have a point. Don’t belittle or patronize them.

    You don’t win a war by becoming everything you hate about your enemy. You don’t oppose tyranny with tyranny.

  21. Maha opened up some new ‘unclaimed territory’ over at UT and [as justme pointed out] that put commenters there beyond their comfort zone.

    I read the UT post and all comments, then read this post and all the comments. It seems to me that exile [#16, this post] inadvertently exposed the ground many folks respond from when the subject of religion arises, i.e., this is about ‘war’.

    While the commentor exile and many others go straight to a warring argumentative mentality, Maha does her usual patient work to bring those who can read and think back to the centering wisdom of her original points which comprise an overview of religion development.

    Maha, your ability to stay on topic is admirable and, I think, rare. It is no wonder you got some out of their comfort zone to the point they responded with attack comments. The desire of some to hijack [distort] your original UT post was futile in the instance of your own centeredness.

  22. You know, I just read your update… and I am so mad I can even write a clear reply that serves my anger…twisted is clearly the best word for them..

    The cruel injustice of it all makes my skin crawl…..I imagine hungry kids, who already watched their parents die now forced to pray to some God they don’t believe in for a sandwich and a piece of hard candy ; all so some dupe at home can read the “good news” in a fund raising letter and and the right can rake in the profits…..BLEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!That pisses me off!!!Unhinged even!

    Now I gotta go cut the shrubs mad..and I liked those shrubs ..crap!I may be back to comment on this update after I take some time to honor my anger..

  23. justme –

    I know! We’ve been so busy over at Glenn’s that I think we’ve overlooked it. Spiiderweb (Comment #20) noticed it, though.

    Ghoulish is right. Related to “We’re just glad we’re fighting the terrorists in Iraq, instead of over here.” Such self-centeredness is really disturbing to see.

    BTW, That picture of Jesus they have on their website is one of the blondest I’ve ever seen. Hmm. Assuming that he did exist, here is an interesting speculation. Should I send it over to them?

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcfa.htm

    Maha’s been awfully busy over there. Some good commenters among the dismaying. Redstatebluebird and Tenor were excellent.

  24. Maha and especially Donna (#27) I think YOU inadvertently prove ME right. The Right’s meme is that fighting the Dobsons is the same as fighting Christianity. Your response is not to openly attack this assertion, but to try to win back Dobson’s converts by agreeing in public that liberal anticlericalism is in fact a problem. This implicitly legitimates their lie (that liberals hate religion). I don’t advocate any war on religion, but I do advocate war on them– and by “war” I mean a militant unwillingness to accept their frame, an aggressive pointing out of their hypocrisy, corruption, and lack of genuine Christian faith (do you really think Ralph Reed sincerely believes in God and uses Jesus’s teachings as a guide to his life? Don’t make me laugh!!). By war I mean a no-holds-barred fight against political Christianism, just as moderate muslims must lead the fight against political Islamism and jews must lead the fight against political judaism. It may seem contradictory for me to call for a WAR for tolerance and for the preservation of the wall between Church and State, but those who oppose our values will not be defeated if we even APPEAR to validate their criticisms of the secular left.

  25. continued: Yes, we do need to reach out to religious liberals. No disagreement there, We not only need them; we have much to learn from them. But part of the reaching out to them involves having a no surrender, no compromise policy towards the corrupt Christianists who lie to them, about us and about so much more.

  26. But exile … the right’s frame is that The Left hates religion, and Liberals are all godless heathens … YOU are trying to reframe by saying NO ONE on The Left hates religion, and NO Liberals are godless heathens…

    It seems to me that you are still using the right’s frame … you are just pushing the mirror image of EXACTLY what the right is trying to push.

    Seems to me that to truly break thge frame, we have to acknowledge that yes, a small minority on The Left hate religion. Most, however, do not. Religion on The Left runs all the way from evangelical christian to, yes, godless heathens.

    In other words, no matter what your religious preference may be, you are still welcome here, you have a home if you want one. Just as long, of course, as you understand that while your religion may and in fact should inform your politics, your religion should on no account control your politics.

    In order to get to that place, in order to well and truly shatter the frame, however, we do need to have a dialog here on The Left about religion; we need to address those who hate all religion, to convince them to tolerate the religious, and we need to address the other side of that coin and be sure the religious among us can tolerate those of us who are not.

    Maha’s article is a good step in that direction, IMHO. Just taking the right’s frame and turning it around to be a mirror image does not even bend it, much less break it.

    -me

  27. Your response is not to openly attack this assertion, but to try to win back Dobson’s converts by agreeing in public that liberal anticlericalism is in fact a problem.

    Wow, are you ever off. I don’t even want to try to “win back Dobson’s converts.” And if you can’t see from the UT comments that some on the secular left really do harbor a serious hostility toward religion — we’ll, I can’t help you, either.

    It may seem contradictory for me to call for a WAR for tolerance and for the preservation of the wall between Church and State, but those who oppose our values will not be defeated if we even APPEAR to validate their criticisms of the secular left.

    You need to sit down and think this through a little longer. The “war,” as you say, is not between secularlism and religion but between tolerance and intolerance. But you can’t fight intolerance with more intolerance. Doesn’t work.

    I’m asking those on the secular left who are intolerant of religion — and, believe me, there are such people — to not assume all religious persons are their enemies, because they aren’t.

  28. to not assume all religious persons are their enemies, because they aren’t.

    Yeah, and especially if you’ve been married to them for 31 years.

  29. I read the post at Glenn’s and am proud to send more people over to GH’s at godolhador.blogspot.com. GH has a following because people do not want to hear that they should believe something because of authority or an appeal to emuna peshuta (simple faith).

  30. What is UP with all the atheist jihadists CAPITALIZING everything, AS IF that made their position SUDDENLY make SENSE?!

  31. #30 exile, I want to respond to that post of yours with a couple questions and a personal story betwixt the questions.

    If I stand for peace and tolerance, how can I enjoy my preferred stance if I engage myself in ‘fighting’?

    I learned a lot about this this the hard way. I was raised in a ‘blame and attack’ family…..all argument became a warlike scene in which the heat and bad feelings increased as either side escalated the rhetoric for the next ‘stronger’ attack of the other side….trying to outdo to ‘win’. As a child, I could perceive that some of what was said in these arguments was really inane and/or mean, but nevertheless, by adulthood, whenever I got into some conflict with another, I would repeat that very behavior like it was second nature for me to do so. For certain, I must have absorbed like a sponge those coping behavior patterns [rhetorical ‘weapons’] of my parents, aunts and uncles, and other adults in the extended family.

    Somewhere in my adult years, I was engaged in a heartrending splitting of ways among a professional group to which I belonged. Just as with religion being hijacked, this conflict reflected a twisting away from the the original founder’s life teachings, which issue was very important to me. While driving cross-country to take part in a gathering of those professionals, and knowing that the split was to be the hot agenda topic, my mind was very busy sharpening my accumulated weaponry.

    Seemingly out of the blue, it occurred to me in a flash of insight that I really was a good warrior [having honed my intellect to counter most any argument], BUT….. I hadn’t the foggiest notion of [or any skills for] ‘how to relate peacefully’ in response to conflict.. I remember weeping across most of Kansas as this realization hit deeply. The strong cleansing dose of humility that permeated me at that time stood me in good stead because I thereafter chose to notice and learn from others who did know how to handle conflict by responding with peace-promoting skills and behaviors as compared to warrior skills.

    My daily serenity is far too precious for me to ever agree to play ‘the other’ in someone else’s drama, in particular one of those ‘us vs them’ genre fantasies about ‘warring factions’ that always, always needs two sides to keep the ‘war’ going.

    I disagree with much of what organized religion stands for and does. But, one thing I know for certain is that I could care less how organized religiosity types perceive me.

    exile, here’s my second question: isn’t it a rather bizarre and futile concept to be concerned about ‘controlling’ what is outside one’s control, i.e., somebody else’s perception of what ‘appears’ to validate their position?

  32. The post at Glenn’s was excellent and thought provoking followed by some comments of the same ilk and some nasty ones. And so it goes…..

    As for me, I’m a devout Cafeterian and believe in 3 bland meals a day.

  33. One point: if a lot of people seems to misread what you’re writing, then usually the problem is not at their end.

  34. Kristjan Wager –

    It would be instructive if you could provide a specific example or two. Most of the positive responses over there were well reasoned.

    What does your name imply? Christian “wager” as in gambling? Wager as in “wager” of war? (Are you a Christian soldier?) Or are you a Christian “wag,” as in comedian?

  35. One point: if a lot of people seems to misread what you’re writing, then usually the problem is not at their end.

    Usually I’d agree with you, especially since the topic was difficult. But there weren’t a lot of near-misses. People either pretty much understood what I wrote (which doesn’t necessarily mean they agreed with it), or they didn’t get it at all and went ballistic over things they assumed I think, but don’t, and didn’t even address in the post.

    Weird.

  36. What does your name imply? Christian “wager” as in gambling? Wager as in “wager” of war? (Are you a Christian soldier?) Or are you a Christian “wag,” as in comedian?

    Or am I a person named Kristjan Wager? In general, one should not try to parse other peoples’ handles, unless it’s obvious that it’s not a real name.

Comments are closed.