Religion on The Huffington Post

Peter Clothier: Breathing in the Buddha

2009-12-23T13:14:08Z

Here's a fine new publication by the documentary photographer Alan Brigish. Breathing in the Buddha is "a photographic exploration of Buddhist life in Indochina," and it documents a journey that takes Brigish through thee major cities in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia, and at greater length through city and countryside in that elusive country, Burma. (The old name has a resonance for me personally that the new one, Myanmar, seems to lack. Perhaps it's the bad old British Empire genes, but I go with Burma.)

Brigish sets out with his camera, "curious about how Buddhist daily life works" in these four Indochinese countries. His lens is then appropriately directed toward two points of interest: the faces and activities of the people--most of them living in states of economic deprivation--and the serene beauty of the Buddhist temples and the stunning artifacts that grace their often opulent interiors.

It is, frankly, at once a compelling and an uncomfortable contrast. The photographs are absolutely gorgeous, reflecting the beauty of their subjects--first and foremost the faces, young and old. The young are fresh-faced, bright-eyed, their emotions close to the surface, whether in child-like joy or, sometimes, pain, suffering and sadness. The old reflect the hardness of lives lived in circumstances far less comfortable that those in which we live here in the West; and, in the case of Burma, in a society repressed by a tyrannical regime. In this context, the aesthetic opulence of the temples reminds me inevitably of the disparity between the architectural grandeur of the medieval church and the real lives of people living in the shadow of the great cathedrals. The monks, saffron-robed and smiling, seem a bit removed from the social circumstance, protected in their spiritual cocoon; and yet their omnipresence clearly provides solace, along with their reminder of values that transcend the suffering of the daily grind.

What Brigish is anxious for us to see, I think, is that human beings can find fulfillment and contentment in their lives, a kind of happiness, without those things that have come to seem essential to the Western mind; property, convenience, comfort--material well-being. The text of his book is the narrative of his journey and his observations along the way. Its subtext, importantly, included at intervals throughout the book in font that mimics the handwritten word, is the Buddha's fundamental teaching of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. It's a point-counterpoint strategy, image and text, narrative and teaching, that creates the rhythm that moves the reader through the book.

Brigish is wise to have hewed to the photo-documentary format here, and to have insisted as much on text as on image to convey his story, as well as on a modesty of scale. I'm sure it could have been tempting to go for a large-format, coffee table book replete with the kind of full-page, sumptuous images his photographs could have lent themselves to; but that would have been to introduce another, more damaging contradiction--the condescending Romanticization of hardship, the beautifying of the deprivation and suffering of others. Brigish has managed to avoid this trap with the commendable restraint of his presentation, a desire to share his observations without fanfare or eclat.

In the same context, I was happy that Brigish kept his story personal. It reads like a journal, the intimate record of a journey and of the meanings he himself discovered. His inclusion of the Buddhist teachings feels more like an act of personal realization than a need to preach some pre-established dogma or illustrate a point. Rhyming with his images, they offer themselves for reflection and establish a perspective through which the reader/viewer is invited to share the experience in a meaningful way, to "breathe in" the pages as they turn.

Not having visited any of the countries through which Brigish leads us, I am grateful for the opportunity of this glimpse into a world that was previously unknown to me--which is, after all, the familiar pleasure of all good books.

Byron Williams: How Should we View the Christmas Holiday?

2009-12-23T12:36:20Z

In our politically correct society one could be offended by a cheerful greeting of "Merry Christmas" without any real knowledge of how the individual in question meant it.

Regardless of what one chooses to commemorate in this season of holidays, be it Christmas, Epiphany, Yule, Hanukkah, Kwanza, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, or Black Friday, this festive season in our culture is still dominated by Dec. 25.

Ironically, the definition of Christmas really depends on whom you ask.

Is Christmas a pagan ritual? Is it a vital cog in our economic system? Or is it a religious holiday? If you responded to my series of questions with "all the above," you probably gave the best answer.

We actually get our Christmas tradition from several sources. The history of Christmas dates back more than 4,000 years. Many of the Christmas traditions that we celebrate today can be traced back centuries before the birth of Jesus.

Our contemporary traditions of bright lights, the yule log, the giving of gifts, parades, carolers who sing while going from house to house, and the holiday feasts can all be traced back to the early Mesopotamian culture.

While there are other influences such as the early Europeans celebration of the winter solstice, Christmas is obviously connected to the birth of Jesus. For many Christians, Dec. 25 is one of the holiest days of the year.

Christmas is indeed a religious holiday for some, but many atheists freely participate in Christmas without the slightest hint of contradiction.

But no one can actually pinpoint the exact date of Jesus' birth. Most likely, it was not Dec. 25. In 350 AD the Bishop of Rome, Julius I, chose Dec. 25 as the observance of Christmas, in part to coincide with the pagan tradition of Winter Solstice (Yule).

And let us not forget Black Friday, which has become an American tradition on par with "Opening Day" in baseball. If Congress introduced legislation to do away Christmas, the most ardent opposition would most likely come from the retail industry.

Part of the Christmas definition includes a neo-pagan tradition that worships at the altar of consumerism. But it is that consumerism between Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve that account for roughly one-third of the annual retail spending in this country.

Moreover, of the primary definitions of Christmas in our society, many of us, including yours truly, freely participate in aspects of all the above.

However one defines Christmas, the definitions that I've offered tend to fall short because they are based on external expressions. But our current holiday season is unique because it is unquestionably the longest sustained time period that appeals to the better angels of our nature.

Each year, the church where I serve as pastor puts together packages for the homeless that include socks, sweaters, water, gloves, non perishable food and blankets. One of the church members was standing in line recently with roughly 30 blankets as part of her contribution to the project; several people in line with her inquired why she had so many blankets.

After she informed them of the purpose, several individuals volunteered to pay for some of the blankets as a small way of contributing toward peace on Earth and goodwill to all.

Mere strangers connected only by standing in the same retail line to pay for their items realized an internal definition of the holiday season.

They did not stop to debate whether they had a shared definition of Christmas. Nor did they know if they possessed a similar political philosophy. Those who gave did so based on an intrinsic feeling that too often lies dormant in the soul.

The result of that kind gesture is the gift of memory that reminds all involved though they may be bombarded by the cacophony of war, global warming, the economy, or Tiger Woods' marital status, there is indeed good in the world.

My neo-pagan ritual, consumer-driven, quasi-religious external definition of Christmas notwithstanding, my internal definition is one of hope, peace, joy, and love. It is in the spirit the latter definition that I offer a Merry Christmas to all. I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor, a syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his Web site: byronspeaks.com.

Sebastian Siegel: Sweaty Sex and Alan Watts

2009-12-23T11:06:21Z

In a conversation about the world's major religions, and contextually then about Zen - we were discussing Alan Watts and a friend said, "You know, Watts was just making this stuff up." I couldn't help but sense a fragment of disenchantment with this author who was one of few that could inject radical humor into the subject matter in a way that captured many minds including that of the critic.

I was thinking that many authors and scholars feel Watts doesn't deserve the following and adoration because of his narrowly specified writings on Zen - or that he's a whiskey slinging relative contemporary, or perhaps because he so enjoys paradoxically twisting complexity into deliciously sweet and tangible insight - as if only things both serious and looooong dead and gone should be romanticized. But, I thought, hasn't the deep truth and message of spirituality remained the same and so isn't it gorgeous to bring humor, eccentricity and a delicious expression to it all.

And then I thought about how hierarchically obsessed intellectuals jilt Kahlil Gibran for being pop and fundamental i.e., for young students. But would you jilt the rudimentary and widely observed feelings of loud laughter, sweaty sex, the adoration of a wide-eyed child, or quenched thirst?

Indeed the message IS the same, and it's beautiful, and it's coming out of every one of us - or rather, we're coming out of it. And I think I'll continue to pay attention to those voracious lovers and darers of life, the risk takers, and the committed, like Watts. The voice, the rhythm that rocks my soul to the core and impregnates me with the will to be a messenger of this music in my own ridiculous way - and even if only for a few juvenile ears. If they'll watch the neck of the bull, then let them "see the eye of the angel". Born out of this world and into this magic, and so with wild fun - let it play, let it play, let it play.

60 second film teaser
Documentary film, Love, Sex & Religion
IMDB
The Sweat

Paul Raushenbush: The Religious Decade: 2000 To 2010

2009-12-23T08:30:54Z

The first decade of the new millennium was marked by rapid economic and technological globalization. As the original superpower, religion reasserted its perennial influence in both national and international affairs. The following 10 stories show the breadth of religious actors and events and how deeply they affected the last 10 years of American and world history.

Who Is Jewish? British Court Weighs In

2009-12-22T20:51:50Z

This week, I'd like to ask whether our identity is determined fundamentally by what we do or by our blood.

Yeah, I know. That's heady, metaphysical stuff for snowy days late in December. But it's a question directly raised in a landmark decision by Britain's Supreme Court, which ruled last Wednesday that it was illegal for a state-funded Jewish school to base its admissions policy on whether or not the applicant's mother was Jewish.

Chade-Meng Tan: Cultivating Compassion: Meditation For Better Relationships

2009-12-22T17:09:41Z

A long time ago, I came across this joke:

Once, a disciple asked, "Master, is associating with people half the holy life?"

The Master replied, "No, associating with people is the whole of holy life".

This joke probably started as a misreading of the famous Upaddah Sutta in Buddhism, where the Buddha told Ananda that friendships with "admirable people" is not half of holy life, but the whole of holy life. Over time, however, I found the humorous apocryphal version to be deeply insightful. There are at least two components to one's spiritual practice, Wisdom and Compassion, and associating with people, especially in difficult situations, helps us grow Compassion. Therefore, you probably cannot live a holy life without associating with people.

I have found three practices to be extremely useful in helping me deal with people.

The first practice is a combination of "Just Like Me" meditation and Loving-Kindness meditation. There are three premises behind this practice. The first is that when we perceive somebody as being similar to ourselves ("just like me"), we become much more likely to feel and act positively towards that person. The second is that kind and loving thoughts towards another can be generated volitionally. The third premise is that mental habits can be formed with practice, so if we spend time and effort creating thoughts of similarity-to-others and loving kindness, over time, these thoughts get generated habitually and effortlessly, and once you equipped yourself with that mental disposition, people start liking you even more, and you become more likely to have satisfying relationships that contribute greatly to everybody's happiness.

The practice itself is very simple. In formal meditation, I would ask my fellow meditators to sit in pairs and I would guide with this script:

Become aware that there is a person in front of me. A fellow human being, just like me.

Let us now consider a few things:

This person has a body and a mind, just like me.
This person has feelings, emotions and thoughts, just like me.
This person has at some point been sad, disappointed, angry, hurt or confused, just like me.
This person has in his or her life, experienced physical and emotional pain and suffering, just like me.
This person wishes to be free from pain and suffering, just like me.
This person wishes to be safe, healthy and loved, just like me.
This person wishes to be happy, just like me.

Now, let's allow some wishes to arise:

I wish for this person to have the strength, resources, and social support to navigate the difficulties in life.
I wish for this person to be free from pain and suffering
I wish for this person to be happy.
Because this person is a fellow human being, just like me.

In real life, I have found this practice to be tremendously powerful in healing relationships. Whenever I have a major conflict with somebody, I would find an excuse to leave the room and after I'm sufficiently calmed, I would recollect that person in my mind and do the above exercise. By the time I'm done, at least half my anger would be gone. It's a very useful practice, both at home and at work.

The second practice is something I call "Multiplying Goodness". It is an adaptation of the Tibetan tonglen practice. In tonglen, you breathe in suffering (of self and others), transform it within your heart, and breathe out relief (to self and others). We found tonglen too difficult for our students, so I made a change to it. Instead of breathing in suffering, you breathe in goodness (of self and others), multiply it in your heart by 10 times, and then breathe out all that goodness to the world. The idea is to use mental visualization to create these three mental habits:

1. Instinctively see goodness in self and others.
2. Become confident in multiplying goodness.
3. Create desire to give goodness to the world.

In formal meditation, I would guide with this script:

Connect with the goodness within ourselves, our capacity for love, compassion, altruism, and inner joy. If you wish, you may visualize your goodness radiating out of your body as a faint white light.

When you breathe in, breathe in all your goodness into your heart. Use your heart to multiply that goodness by a factor of 10. And when you breathe out, give all that goodness out to the whole world. If you wish, you may visualize yourself breathing out a brilliant white light representing this abundance of goodness.

Now, let us connect with the goodness within everybody in this room. Everybody in the room is a good person, possessing some goodness. (Repeat above)....
Finally, let us connect with the goodness within everybody in the world. Everybody in the world possesses at least a hint of goodness. (Repeat above)....

This practice helps us gain confidence in our own inner goodness and equips us with the mental disposition to see goodness in others. The ability to perceive underlying goodness in all even in difficult situations affords us the inner resources to calm ourselves and others in those situations.
The final practice is a mantra I created for myself that summarizes many of my practices. The mantra is, "Love them, understand them, forgive them, grow with them". Whenever I find myself in a difficult situation involving other people, I would silently repeat the mantra to myself. I found that it works especially well with children and bosses.

My friend, Rigel, suggested that my mantra may also apply to magic mushrooms. Very funny, Rigel.

Mitch Albom's "Have A Little Faith" Fixes Hole In Church Roof (VIDEO)

2009-12-22T11:51:09Z

Mitch Albom's newest book, "Have a Little Faith" focuses in part on a struggling Detroit church that didn't have enough money to repair the hole in its roof. Below is the story of the organization Albom founded to help this church and others around the country, and of how he brought strangers from the community and outside of it together to help out and revive the church.

WATCH:

Nancy Ruhling: Astoria Characters: The Serious Smiler

2009-12-22T10:34:14Z

It doesn't matter where he goes - the corner deli, the N train, the organic market - Todd Killian stands out in the crowd.

It's not the way he looks - closely cropped brown hair, dark-chocolate eyes and slender build - it's what he does. Todd, aka the meet-and-greet guy, smiles a toothy grin and stops to talk to strangers.

It works, perhaps because in a way, Todd, too, is a stranger. He has only called Astoria his home for a dozen years, and he was raised in a tiny town - ever hear of a one-stoplight dot on the map called Fleetwood, Pa.? - so he isn't familiar with big-city, mind-your-own-business manners.

"My philosophy is that if you give, you get back," Todd says. "And if you care, people care back."

Photo by Nancy A. Ruhling
Todd's goal is to get the whole world to smile with him.

In the last six months, ever since he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, Todd has been practicing his goodwill ambassador routine in earnest because now, more than ever, he wants to share his joy of life with every human being on the planet.

"I'm in a very fortunate time of my life," he says. "I'm lucky because I get to appreciate every day. The cancer has made my life even more fantastic because it has allowed me to look more inside myself."

What he has seen has astounded him. He's in the fashion business, and ever since he was a teenager, he has been concerned with what people wear not who they are. "I'm getting more serious about the practice of looking inward," he says. "I've discovered that I prefer to be alone; I'm content spending the weekend in my apartment meditating, reading and calling my family."

The diagnosis changed his life and his lifestyle. In lieu of surgery and/or radiation, he's chosen a holistic approach. He's switched to a healthier diet - nothing with meat, nothing with sugar, everything that's organic - and has added cardiovascular workouts to his yoga practice and Buddhism and philosophy studies.

"I've always liked meeting people," he says. "It gives me a chance to work off the anger and bitterness I felt in my childhood because my mother and father couldn't be there for me."

Todd, his brother and three sisters grew up in a Victorian house. His father, a doctor, divorced his mother, a nurse, when Todd was 14. "My mom had Parkinson's, and she was left with five kids to take care of," he says.

It was after that that Todd got interested in fashion. The 16-year-old saw it as a way to call attention to himself in his fatally fractured family. At 19, he signed up for a two-year hitch in the Army. "I didn't want my father to have to pay for my education," he says. "I never saw any military action, and I spent my free time designing clothing for my girlfriend."

When he got out, he took his Army college fund and headed to Manhattan's Fashion Institute of Technology. After graduating and working in the fashion industry for three years, he started his own label. "In 10 years, I never made any money," he says, adding that he waited tables at night for three years straight. "For a while, I lived with my girlfriend and then with a friend."

It wasn't until he licensed his name to Nepenthes America, the Japanese company that subsequently hired him full time, that he finally had enough money to make the rent. "I lived with three people in a one-bedroom apartment for four years in Manhattan," he says. "It was very, very challenging."

He moved to Astoria, where the rents are lower, and he's been in the same apartment ever since.

Although his spiritual journey has supplanted his passion for fashion, Todd loves his job. "I get to interact with people, and I help the designers bring their creations to fruition," he says, adding that as production overseer, he travels to Japan and Italy. "They are so creative that it humbles me."

Todd sees his cancer as a positive sign. "It helps me hone in and open my heart to others," he says. "It's made me slow down even more so that I take time to enjoy my family and friends more."

Saying hello to a stranger, giving someone a hug - these are the important things in Todd's life. "If you want to love people, you have to love yourself first," he says. "I'm working on loving myself every day."

He stops. The smile fades briefly as he contemplates his future. "I don't have a fear of dying," he says. "I believe I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing in this life. If I have to have surgery, I'll do it."

Todd's hoping that his happiness will rub off on his family and everyone he's fortunate enough to meet.

"I'm trying to evolve as a human being," he says. "I want to become a better person and become more in tune with myself. I want people to see me as I really am. Who is that? I don't know yet."

Nancy A. Ruhling may be reached at Nruhling@gmail.com.
Copyright 2009 by Nancy A. Ruhling

Lama Surya Das: The Big Question

2009-12-22T10:31:23Z

Should humanity have been created? This has long been a debate among learned Jews.

In fact, long ago in the holy land, several centuries after Jesus' time, the most learned rabbis of the two rival schools of philosophy, Hillel and Shammai, met together to discuss this critical issue.

After two years of intense debate, they decided by majority vote -- in true Jew fashion, pessimistic realists to the end, that... It would've been better if it hadn't ever happened!

But then, again true to Jewish form, they decided that given the obvious fact that we have been created -- shit happens! -- We must always examine and evaluate our deeds vigilantly and candidly. This I read in the New York Times on the last day of Channukah, attributed to Professor Jack Spiro of Virginia.

Doesn't this sort of sum up our condition? Or is it mere sophistry?
Did God create humanity, or humans create God -- or do we co-emerge together, as I'm beginning to think?

Whether you're a theist or not, isn't the real existential issue here whether it was worth we ourselves being born into this evanescent world, and what to do about it? In other words, the big question, evergreen: How shall I live? Why are we here, for what purpose; why am I here, and how do I fit in?

Now that we are here, what kind of world shall we co-create?

This I contemplate today as snow blankets the East Coast, looking like a brightly shining field of gravestones, all apparent differences resolved.

Irene Monroe: The Right's Bogus War on Christmas

2009-12-22T08:13:01Z

What's in a greeting?

With Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice and Christmas all going on this time of year, one would think that an all-inclusive seasonal greeting emblematic of our nation's religious diversity would be embraced by us all with two simple words -- Happy Holidays!

However, the season's greeting is the ongoing chapter in the culture war spearheaded in 2005 by what the Christian Right calls the "War on Christmas."

Last month the American Family Association (AFA) boycotted Gap, Inc. about the censorship of their use of the term "Christmas." But Gap's television advertising campaign actually acknowledged all celebrations this time of year with a song that said, "Go Christmas, Go Hanukkah, Go Kwanzaa, Go solstice... go Christmas, go Hanukkah, go whatever holiday you Wannakuh."

In October 2008 AFA criticized hardware retailer The Home Depot for using terms such as "holiday" and "Hanukkah" but not "Christmas."

AFA is one of the nation's watchdog organizations critiquing the censorship of the use of the term "Christmas" in media advertising. A conservative Christian organization headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi AFA proudly boasts "promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media."

But AFA isn't the only watchdog critiquing the censorship of the use of the term "Christmas."

Owner of Boss Creations, Martha Boss, is doing her part when it comes to trees.

Not liking the use of the term "holiday trees" Martha's attempt to put "Christ back into Christmas " is a simple matter of how you decorate your tree.

"We at Boss Creations believe that one way to do this is to decorate with more Christian-themed holiday decorations including The CHRIST-mas Tree. We have figured a way to enhance the tradition of decorating a tree for Jesus at Christmas by adding a cross that acts as a reminder of Him. By changing our tree to include a cross, we are making a statement that we want to keep our Christmas holiday!"

The decorated evergreen coniferous tree that has come to be known as the Christmas tree began in 16th century Northern Germany. And Martin Luther, the 16th-century Protestant reformer, is the first to add lighted candles to the tree.

But traditions are hard to let go of or to modify or even to expand to include our present-day religious landscape. For example, in 2005 when Nova Scotian tree farmer Donnie Hatt gave Boston its tree, Hatt told the Boston Globe that he "would rather have put the tree in a wood chipper than have it named a 'holiday' tree... Ever since I was born, a tree was put up for Christmas, not for holidays, because if you're going to do that you might as well put a tree up for Easter."

Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News anchor, would agree with Hatt. And on his show O'Reilly has talked up boycotts of retailers for not using the words "Merry Christmas."

In the 1970s, evangelical Christians were so outraged by the secularization and commercialism of Christmas that they were protesting to "put Christ back into Christmas." But now members of the Religious Right has flipped the script and want more commercialism for Christ, thus extolling materialism as piety.

These boycotts have little to do with the reverence for Christ's birth, but are rather a backlash against the religious multiculturalism of the holiday season. These attacks by the Right on stores like Gap and Home Depot use their economic clout to cripple stores for not showing commercial deference to Christmas.

And truth be told, Christian conservation organizations like AFA and businesses like Boss Creations are on the hunt for whomever they perceive to be "Christian haters" and "professional atheists" and will boycott all stores for using "Happy Holidays" in their advertising.

With the Right's "war on Christmas" against perceived "Christian haters" and "professional atheists" they view as the folks trying to abolish Christmas, the Right don't know of the folks who did. History, however, shows there was once an extreme group of Protestants who did-- the Puritans. With the date of December 25 deriving from the Saturnalia, the Roman heathen's wintertime celebration, and with the date found nowhere in the Bible stating it as the birthday of Jesus, the Puritan Parliament banned Christmas from 1659 until 1681.

As a Christian, I know that the central message of the birth of Christ for those like me who celebrate it is to embrace the celebration of human differences and diversity. And it is with this message that I know all people -- religious and non-religious, straight and queer, black and white -- can be included to enjoy and to celebrate and to acknowledge this season with one simple greeting.

Happy Holidays!

Jamsheed K. Choksy: Montazeri's Limited Tolerance of Non-Muslims

2009-12-21T17:15:06Z

Much has been written recently about the fundamentalist revolutionary low points and gradual democratic highlights of Iran's late Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri (1922-2009). Little needs to be added for now about his religiopolitical career.

But attention should be drawn to his viewpoint on the religious minorities in Iran - Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Bahais - which was not very different from those of other Shiite mullahs. Members of these faiths have been frequently persecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Following long-standing Shiite attitudes toward non-Muslims, Iran's revolutionary leader Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini once declared that "the following eleven are unclean: first urine, second feces, third semen, fourth corpses, fifth blood, sixth dogs, seventh pigs, eighth non-Muslims, ninth wine, tenth beer, and eleventh the sweat of a camel which has consumed impure food." Khomeini had gone on to add, "every aspect of a non-Muslim is unclean."

Yes Montazeri, once cast aside by the revolutionary elites, did become a fierce critic of the theocratic regime. As the years went by, he also was more open to extending additional rights beyond those of medieval-like dhimmi or protected status to non-Muslims in Iran. However, he did not sway from the orthodox Shiite perception that non-Muslims are impure. He merely suggested that any non-Muslim could make himself or herself "pure through chaste, Muslim-like, behavior."

Montazeri's comments on members of other faiths may seem more tolerant than ones by Khomeini or other ayatollahs like Ahmad Jannati who compared non-Muslims to "animals roaming the Earth and engaging in corruption." Yet the religious minorities in Iran see little theological difference and only a marginal pragmatism among the various Shiite views. Montazeri's opinion was characterized by one Iranian Christian clergyman as "rubbing salt into our wounds."

Ultimately, Montazeri's tolerance of differences, especially religious ones, was far from acceptance.

Kiri Westby: The Magic Of Winter Solstice: Celebrating A Different Holiday

2009-12-21T15:42:00Z

It's not easy to ignore Christmas.

Whether you like it or not, Christmas is everywhere. Propagated by the mass media and often conjuring up such a frenzy of need and expectation that many people end up disappointed and stressed-out. I often wonder how many people still feel like Christmas is a delightful time of year that they look forward to, rather than are obligated to?

I was raised in a Christmas-less household, which was a bit complicated in the US, especially as a child. Though our extended family would send X-mas gifts and I knew about Santa and his reindeer, the real magic for me came during the Winter Solstice.

Dec. 21st has been celebrated since ancient times in the Northern Hemisphere, long before the rise of modern-day Christmas. Roman, Scandinavian and other pagan traditions feasted and celebrated the darkest night of the year and the return of the sun. In fact, many of the traditions associated with Christmas today were adopted from earlier solstice customs and woven in to what we now know as Christmas.

In the Buddhist-American tradition of my youth, around the time of the Winter Solstice we celebrated Children's Day, a holiday created in 1978 by the late Chö gyam Trungpa Rinpoche. The great bloggist Waylon Lewis has done an excellent job of recounting the history of Children's Day for those who are interested.

But the evening of the Solstice itself was where the enchantment happened, a very important time for self-reflection and marking the changing of the season. Our house was lit only with candles, as friends and neighbors gathered to be together on the longest night of the year. During the gathering, people spoke about the year past and the year ahead, everyone lost in contemplation.

Little scraps of paper were provided for everyone to write on. Each person would take two. On one we would write the aspect of the year past that we needed to let go of. For many, this was about grudges they were holding, loss they had experienced or negativity that they were carrying around and needing to shed. On the other piece of paper we would write our aspirations for the coming year, our wishes that we hoped to fulfill.

A fire was lit in the yard and near the end of the evening we would all bundle up and head outside to encircle the flame. One by one we would read our notes aloud (or sometimes just to ourselves) and throw them into the fire ... first letting go of the past, then looking to the brightness of the future.

I still do this each year and look forward to the time it provides to take stock of my life ... what I need to cast off and what I hope to achieve. Anyone can do it, as it is not rooted in any religion or creed, but in taking a moment to recognize the wonder of our spinning planet, our powerful sun and the changes we wish to make in our lives.

I hope that by sharing this tradition with my readers it will inspire you to create your own solstice traditions and bring back some magic to a time of year that has become all too focused on material gain.

Happy Winter Solstice everyone, may all your wishes come true!

Kiri Westby
Change-Maker/Ruler-Breaker/Story-Teller

Kiri Westby is a featured contributor to Ed and Deb Shapiro's new book, BE THE CHANGE, How Meditation Can Transform You And The World, with forewords by HH Dalai Lama and Robert Thurman.

James Campion: The Ghost of Free Market Past

2009-12-21T14:15:03Z

How Any Rand's Individualist Orthodoxy Spirits The New Right

The worst of all crimes is the acceptance of the opinions of others.
- Ayn Rand, as quoted in Goddess Of The Market:Ayn Rand And The American Right by Jennifer Burns

Ultimately, it was the controversy surrounding my third book, Trailing Jesus which helped drive its modest sales, but none of it has consistently equaled the response to what some labeled my brazen inclusion in a list of like-minded philosophers of the historical Jesus a quote by world-class atheist, Ayn Rand. To which I often retorted that if Jesus and Ayn had ever spent any time together in a locked room, neither could decide which of them was indeed God. And in my estimation after six years of research, beyond Friedrich Nietzsche, Rand's first and lasting philosophical hero, only the icon of Christianity could equal Rand's unyielding defense of the individual as moral arbiter of his/her fate. And just as the figure and scope of a Jesus can be all things to all people, so thus is the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

It is hard to find anyone, whether philosopher, psychologist or pop culture icon, which has filled more socio-political voids than Ayn Rand. Her wildly consumed novels have spawned millions of dedicated followers, sparked historic movements, and launched varied institutions, remaining as influential today as any of their contemporaries. And now that many of these same contemporaries, both disciples and detractors, begin to slip into history, and her legend grows with queer abandon, a renaissance in Rand's pristine moral imperative of hallowed selfishness over evil altruism dawns a new age in America's lasting ideological battle; the progressive collective rationality versus rugged American free-market individualism.

To that end, talk show hosts, columnists, protesters and political pundits routinely resurrect the nearly eighty year-old writings, teachings, and rants of Rand to plug their personal ideals, however disparate. From Tea Party enthusiasts to Don't Tread On Me fanatics, Right Wing showman and fiscally conservative economists, there is always plenty of the Randian spirit readily available to be co-opted. Never has this been more evident than in the fallout of today's crumbling economic implosion born of rapacious malfeasance and individual irresponsibility leading to the inevitable expansion of federal regulation and government intervention.

Nearly thirty years after her death, Rand strikes a figure that can remarkably embody the basic tenets of anarchy while also espousing a strong sense of patriotic duty -- a dedication to personal responsibility in the perpetuation of capitalist ideals. And once again, as the new century hits its second decade and the winds of change shift dramatically, the timing of author Jennifer Burns's biography, Goddess Of The Market -- Ayn Rand And The American Right is almost eerie.

"There is an infinite attraction to Rand and her philosophy because it is so unattainable," Ms. Burns told me this week. "She spent a lifetime trying to create individualists out of human beings, who are social creatures at base, but because we are social creatures we struggle against our destinies and wish we could be what one reviewer said of Howard Roark (Rand's practical idealist hero from The Fountainhead), that he is the superman -- completely free, independent without a care for others, thus never feeling pain or disappointment, super-human."

Rand's superhero protagonists, specifically in her spectacularly popular novels, her relentlessly structured essays and the cult of her personal philosophy called Objectivism, wherein the mystical Disneyification of an entire generation is obliterated in a torrent of cold reasoning and self-reliant myopia, speak to the vastness of the American schizophrenia; a relentless pursuit of individual gratification basked in a noble reach to empower the whole.

Goddess Of The Market is the first book authored by a non-Randian disciple nor an ardent Objectivist, who was not only allowed access to Rand's personal papers but places this schizophrenia into modern context.

"Rand is unique because she has clarified what is really a Christian theme of a charitable redistribution of wealth as immoral," Burns says. "She's able to dramatically strengthen the argument against the expanse of the state over the individual in less practical and more emotional terms."

Like the America Rand envisioned and was to forever worship as the triumph of science and progress over the mystical imprisonment of a Czarist and later a Communist Russia, her personal contradictions (Burns describes her as tempestuous and moody and in her book Rand appears spiteful, vengeful and randomly petty) were ignored for the greater "truth" in the glorious "pursuit of happiness".

"The grand paradox that powered Rand's career is the offshoot of a philosophical system she constructed as an absolute truth, which is if one was to reason properly one would come to a universal conclusion, " Burns notes. "Yet the people most strongly attracted to the message of individualism aren't as strongly developed as individuals and perhaps the most susceptible to this type of orthodoxy."

This explains The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as key contributors to youthful literary exuberance, as Kerouac's On The Road or Plath's The Bell Jar seems to resonate among the impressionable.

"I always laugh when people pass Rand off as some kind of joke, like 'Only teenagers read her', Burns says. "Yeah, teenagers do come to her, and since that is when many of us form our beliefs for a lifetime, I think that's pretty important."

At the root of Rand's influence and orthodoxy are the harsh realities of Objectivism. Even for the most zealous supporters, no matter how loyal, all are not included. Those not worthy of its distinctions are left without the slightest empathy. The "blessed" ones are most cherished for their art of invention, artistic brilliance, ingenuity and progress and may then reap the rightful rewards. Unlike the religious parameters of those "chosen" or "saved" in a specific faith gaining ultimate spiritual emancipation, Rand's exalted few are merited by action, production and success.

However, unflinching philosophical orthodoxy aside, Rand is most potent as a political juggernaut, with pen and verbal assault, which she deftly used during her lifetime and left behind in her volumes of work. They were rendered as body blows to both the modern Conservative movement (Building a Christian Right edict in the war against Communism, William F. Buckley spent decades trying to discredit Rand's hard-line materialism and staunch atheism) and her favorite whipping post, Liberalism.

From the days of the New Deal to the Great Society, Rand stood in firm opposition of any government intervention for any purpose, including "just" foreign wars and the conscription that accompanied them. And although appalled by Southern racism, she supported Barry Goldwater's stance for state rights and against a Civil Rights bill. Moreover, Rand, while being a beacon for the rights of women and anti-censorship, in which she fought both battles to the teeth during her professional life, thought feminism asinine while also managing to support abortion and wrote vehement screeds against Hollywood propaganda for the Left, going as far as speaking on behalf of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

In the end, though, it is Rand's insistence, almost a passionate demand for the individual over almost any collective that places her neatly in the messiah line-up. Libertarians, anarchists and anti-government fist-pumpers and sign-wavers look to her as their shining example, perhaps today more than ever.

"Objectivism, whether you agree with it or not, is part of the American intellectual experience," Burns concludes. "Ayn Rand has had a profound impact on so many Americans, defining how they think about capitalism, markets, and the question of morality."

In the weirdest of evolutions, the idea of trusting the human intellect and its lust for greed and expanding the limits of true freedom has led to some of the most ignominious failures of this democracy, as has its subsequent remedy, an expanding government clampdown, whether Trust Busters, The New Deal or The Big Bank Bailout. It speaks ultimately of Rand's fatal flaw -- the fatal flaw in the human spirit, to be our own worst enemy and as Twain once coined, getting the government "of the people and by the people" we deserve.

As Goddess Of The Market so intriguingly points out, Rand stands as a figure of absolute truth against so many American contradictions, not the least of which is what the new Right today must face if it is to gain a foothold to power again, a sense that at the core of the true American spirit lies the dollar sign and not the crucifix.

Robyn O'Brien: Be The Change

2009-12-21T13:14:08Z

When we look at the world,
Do we like what we see?
Do we think about others
Or think about "me"?

Do we take without giving
And consume what we must,
Ever heeding the motto:
"In consumption we trust"?

If we stopped for a moment
And thought about 'how'
We could make our world better
Beginning with 'now'.

We might realize we share
So much more than divides us:
Letting hope, faith and love
Be the gifts that inspire us.

Religion And Politics: Chicago Archdiocese Joins Health Care Debate

2009-12-21T11:35:46Z

As he tangles with Democratic Party leaders over the direction of health care reform, particularly relating to abortion, Cardinal Francis George can sound an awful lot like a Republican.

Robert Lanza, M.D.: No BS Theory of Life: Pain And Holiday Blues Are Money In The Bank

2009-12-21T11:05:00Z

Forget the self-help books. No book or person can promise you happiness.

Christmas time is the mostly likely time of the year to experience depression. We share our love with friends and family, and get lots of gifts. So why aren't we all joyous? What the hell is going on?

Did you ever wonder why people like Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson didn't fare any better than you or I despite all their money, fame, and access to people of wisdom?

The answer lies in your own backyard. Look at the shrubs, tangled with vines, with here and there a sumac jutting out from the maze. Look at the pines pressed against the shingles for want of more sunlight, their roots reaching under the house to the length of 20 feet. In an effort to maintain themselves, I have known willows near the foundation to break into the cellar pipes for want of water.

What is a tree, after all, but a trunk with so many roots and leaves bringing food and water to the organism? After billions of years of evolution, it was inevitable that life would acquire the ability to locomote, to hunt and see, to protect itself from competitors. Observe the ants in the woodpile. They can engage in combat just as resolutely as any human. Our guns and ICBMs are merely the jaws of a more clever ant.

The goal of life is life. Every impulse and thought is a device developed towards that end. Consider our own species. We hunt and gather, do the dishes, and have sex. By day and night, we are serenaded by the notes of Beethoven modulating over the trump of the bullfrogs and the songs of the mating bird. Even poetry and art reflect our humanity and are impelled by instincts - by forms of fear and powerlessness, of pugnacity and mastery, of association and love.

To many creatures there are but a few necessities of life: food, water, shelter. To a bumblebee, these are a few flowers full of nectar. Even humankind is led by these primary drives, although we have invented not only the house and clothing but fire to cook our food. What pains we take during the holidays, with our mincemeat pies and rum cakes. The poor are wont to complain that they have no food for their families, and we devote a great deal of our economy to agriculture and housing.

Of course, the effort for self-preservation is vague and varied. There is, for instance, the need for understanding and knowledge to guide our emotions, to tame the beast in our animal nature. What shameless and chaotic lives many of us would live if we were not awakened by better desires from within.

Our behavior is motivated by needs and wants. Pleasure and pain consist in the extent to which these desires are satisfied or hindered. "Pleasure" according to Spinoza, one of the greatest philosophers of all time "is man's transition from a lesser state of perfection to a greater. Pain is man's transition from a greater state of perfection to a lesser."

Here is a goal -completeness and power - that is wonderfully attractive to us at a time of recession, and when many lack the means to feed and clothe themselves. And when we have found all power, we may not be happier for it. When we have overcome our struggles and have no ambitions and no defeats, what do we do next? Build taller and more splendid houses, weave finer clothing? Where does the power to act come from when desire has been quieted?

Have you ever wondered why every TV show, movie, and book has villains? Every writer knows that the good guy has to be threatened somehow, perhaps chased by someone with a gun or an ax. Even Cinderella had an evil stepmother and had to sit in the cinders after she finished her work. Meeting the Prince just wouldn't have been the same if she had been a spoiled little rich girl.

The keenest pleasures are for those who experience the keenest pain.

You can't change the equation of life. And remember, while the world is celebrating the holiday season, if you're depressed and have the blues it's just money in the bank. And when your turn comes, spend it on something that you will be proud of.

Robert Lanza, MD worked with (and published a series of scientific papers with) the late Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner, the father of modern behaviorism. His new book - Biocentrism - lays out his theory of everything.

Jackson Williams: Garrison Keillor, Uncensored for Christmas

2009-12-21T10:10:15Z

Some in the rightwing blogosphere, who can't stand Garrison Keillor for his liberal politics, are taking shots at him for his recent pro-Christmas piece at Salon.com, syndicated in various newspapers around the country.

What seems to offend is a brief and benign swipe at Jewish songwriters who appropriated Christmas for commercial purposes with shallow, meaningless songs about Rudolph, etc. Needless to say, some Jewish blogs are overly self-righteous, too: "Garrison Keillor Doesn't Like Jews Writing Christmas Songs."

I'm no theologian, but I don't know what red-nosed reindeer have to do with celebrating the birth of Christ, either.

In truth, the "Prairie Home Companion" host's essay seems simply a defense of Christmas as a religious holiday, starting with his title, "Don't mess with Christmas."

One would hope that would be a clue for people who share the Christian faith, but apparently the religious right can't even take a compliment.

See what you think: Here's Keillor's commentary.

POSTSCRIPT: Andrew Silow-Carroll, editor-in-chief of New Jersey Jewish News, posted a Dec. 21 blog entry on his website, writing in part:

I suspect he was joking, and after listening to Keillor's Prairie Home Companion every Saturday night for like 20 years, I'm pretty sure he thinks he was joking. That being said, he did a piss-poor job of it, and if you're not attuned to his sensibility it sounded not amusingly curmudgeonly, but churlish and nasty.

(Keillor, who often books the Klezmatics during his December shows, tends to incorporate gentle religious stereotypes in his humor, ribbing Lutherans, Catholics and Unitarians. I once heard him joke, more successfully: "To my Jewish friends who volunteer to cover our shifts on Christmas and Easter? Butt out -- some of us don't want to be with our families in the first place.")

Unless the guy is a closet bigot or off his meds, I think his offense here is not anti-Semitism, but awful execution of a joke.

(For an antidote to Keillor, read Michael Feinstein's sweet oped on ecumenism and the Jews who penned Christmas carols.)

David Fiderer: Holocaust Deniers, Global Warming Deniers, Chris Wallace: Any Difference?

2009-12-20T21:31:27Z

Oftentimes that phrase is used -- Holocaust deniers. But the Holocaust was a historical fact. We're talking here about science, and science usually welcomes opposing views.
- Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, December 13, 2009

Chris Wallace acts very much like the Holocaust deniers he derides, working hard to confuse any distinction between fact and fraud, opinion and lies. He and his Fox News cohorts have relentlessly touted the journalistic travesty known as "climategate," the 2009 equivalent of the notorious Leuchter report. Just over 20 years ago, Fred Leuchter took some chemical samples from the Auschwitz gas chambers, noted the absence of an iron compound, Prussian Blue, and argued the absence of that chemical proved the absence of cyanide, ergo the Jews must have died of disease, not gassing. Real scientists provided the evidence that discredited Leuchter's findings; they showed that cyanide could exist without Prussian Blue. In other words, Leuchter's irrelevant data point, taken in isolation from a mountain of scientific data, proved nothing. The Holocaust deniers retorted that Leuchter's critics were not conducting a free and open scientific debate. We've heard this kind of dishonest sophistry before, from people who question whether smoking causes cancer, or that HIV causes AIDS.

And on Sunday December 13, we heard it from Chris Wallace, who said science usually welcomes opposing views. Not quite. Science doesn't welcome crackpots who persist in pushing discredited falsehoods, or those who deceitfully conceal facts that refute their own agenda. It does not welcome someone like Wallace, who concealed from viewers any reference to the Associated Press story exposing "climategate" for what it was -- a few irrelevant data points, taken in isolation from a mountain of scientific data, that proved nothing. The AP does fact checking. Fox News does not, which is why it had no qualms about touting a sham story for three weeks.

Wallace suggested those who berate the global warming deniers must be driven by some kind of religious fervor. As he told Don Imus:

Well, look, the climate warming thing is pretty interesting. One of the things I love is that people who don't believe it, and look, I'm not smart enough to know whether it's true or it isn't true, but are called deniers, like this is a religion. And they're denying a fact.

I mean, science is science. And supposedly strong science accepts the idea of skeptics and particularly a science like this that is not -- that is not -- well, I suppose that the Al Gores of the world would say it is totally proven, but it doesn't seem to be proven. And, you know, climate- gate is an example of how this has become kind of a religion. And people who are skeptics about it, I think it's fair to call them skeptics, but to call them deniers ascribes a certainty and a kind of religious certainty to climate change that I don't think exists.

Global warming "doesn't seem proven" to charlatans like Wallace, who artfully twisted the concepts of "science" and "religion." He wants viewers to think oxymoronically, because he wants them to think that Al Gore's criticisms are irrational and unfounded. Science is based on observable phenomena that are repeated with mathematical reliability. The reliability may be 100% -- the sun always sets in the West -- or it may be less than 100%, as with the efficacy of certain cancer medications. But it's something that everyone can observe and agree upon. Religion is about what cannot be seen or mathematically tested. It goes far beyond the scope of science, which could never prove or disprove the existence of a just and loving God. Global warming deniers are like the people who deny that bacteria causes disease, not like those who deny the Papal infallibility. They are the opposite of "skeptics," because they refuse to make an honest effort to consider and weigh evidence.

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of physics knows that the case for global warming is as certain as death and taxes. The December issue of National Geographic illustrated this point beautifully. It said, "It's simple, really: As long as we pour CO2 into the atmosphere faster than nature drains it out, the planet warms. And that extra carbon takes a long time to drain out of the tub." Specifically, most of the CO2 generated in the 20th century was absorbed neither by plant life nor the oceans; and it will remain in the environment for over a century, and continue to absorb the sun's heat, driving up atmospheric temperatures even if we dramatically cut back on carbon consumption.

Wallace's false insinuations dovetailed with Fox News' Climate Quiz: How Much Do You Know?, which intersplices science with right wing propaganda. Each question is prefaced by the famous slogan, "You Decide," as if, you decide whether humans walked the earth with dinosaurs.

As you would expect, a lot of the answers to the quiz are dishonest: "Are global temperatures rising?" Answer: "Coin toss." A coin toss means the probability is 50%, i.e. no more likely to true than to be false. That's the pseudoscientific approach of Fox News. If there's any small variation in the long-term trend, no matter how insignificant, then it's not a trend; it's a coin toss. Winston Churchill smoked and drank and lived till 90? Your neighbor never smoked and died at 48 of lung cancer? Then, in the bizzaro world of Fox News, the connection between cigarettes and longevity is no more than a coin toss.

That particular answer is pretty compelling evidence that Fox News wants to brainwash its audience. As Scientific American explains, almost none of the global warming deniers actually challenge the notion that the earth's temperatures are rising; they only dispute the notion that the cause of the rising temperature is man-made. A coin toss?

"Is climate change man-made?"  Answer:"Coin toss." Again, Scientific American explains that no one has ever presented scientific evidence backing up any of the alternative theories that global warming is not man made. And an abundance of peer-reviewed scientific studies confirm our understanding that the causes for climate change are man-made.

Then there's that old right-wing canard: "Is CO2 a pollutant?" Answer: "No. "

This goes to the heart of the scientific case of global warming, and to the heart of the propaganda campaign to brainwash people into thinking that the danger is neither real nor serious. Though CO2 is not toxic, it traps the sun's heat. The fact that CO2 is not a pollutant is irrelevant to the issue of climate change. It is the right wing's Prussian Blue.

On Wallace's program last Sunday, Bill Kristol used this irrelevancy to further misinform the audience. Mara Liasson played along:

KRISTOL: Look, the one thing that happened that we're going to remember is not the Copenhagen meeting. It's the Environmental Protection Agency ruling issued on December 7th, a day that will live in infamy and that will live in infamy for the EPA, which is an attempt -- a huge regulatory scheme. This is binding. This is real, unlike Copenhagen. And this will be a huge regulatory burden on the U.S. economy. I believe Congress -- next year Congress isn't going to be debating Copenhagen.

They're going to be debating overriding this EPA regulation, which -- I think when people see the extent of it, and its intrusiveness, and the cost to the U.S. economy, people are going to be shocked. And I think Congress can really override it.

WALLACE: Well, let me just pick up on that with you, Mara, for a minute, because let's remind people that the Supreme Court...said that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide...

LIASSON: That's right.

WALLACE: ... and other greenhouse gas emissions, and the EPA has now gone with this and has had an endangerment finding, saying it's a danger to people's health and that they're going to regulate it unless Congress...

LIASSON: Yeah.

WALLACE: ... legislates. But there's some blowback and pushback in Congress where they're saying, "You know, we may override the EPA..."

LIASSON: Yes.

WALLACE: "... and prevent them from doing that."

LIASSON: Well, that might happen. I mean, I think right now the ball is in the Senate's court, and they have to figure out what they want to do about the EPA, what they want to do about cap and trade, and when they want to do it. And yeah, I think that's what's going to happen.

Liasson is not stupid. She knows that any talk of the Senate overriding the EPA is pure nonsense. No committee chair would ever allow any such bill to come up for a vote. No such bill could withstand a Senate filibuster, nor could it ever attain a veto-proof majority for passage. But she also knows the drill. Since the global warming deniers must have the same stature and legitimacy as those who believe in science, then the rantings of the global warming deniers on Congress must have the same stature and legitimacy as those who wish to craft a cap and trade bill in the Senate.

Some are slicker than others, but all global warming deniers, and their apologists, rely on some kind of dishonest conflation or distortion. Jonah Goldberg claims that climate scientist Judith Curry agrees with his claim that "the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink." Except that Curry has no doubt whatsoever about the growing human influence on climate change. Newt Gingrich says that a guide to the UN negotiations on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), is "purposefully modeled after the Chinese mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung's 'Little Red Book of Communism.'" The words "global warming" were banished from the Fox News hour-long documentary on the water shortage in California. Sean Hannity said the blame lay with the environmentalists.

Currently, about 300 thousand people die every year from the effects of climate change, with another 325 million seriously affected, primarily because of reduced access to fresh and safe drinking water. At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency.

Addendum 7:00 pm, December 21, 2009: Pat Buchanan backed up my point on MSNBC this morning, when he claimed that climate change is "a fraud, and a scam, and a hoax." In a 1990 New York Post column, he also disputed the well-documented history that Jews at Treblinka were killed by carbon monoxide gassing from diesel generators. "The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody," he wrote. For a definitive refutation, see Holocaust-History.org.

"Onward Christian Athletes": Tom Krattenmaker's Book Explores Evangelical Monopoly In Sports World

2009-12-19T09:52:00Z

BOSTON — A toss left, a quick break past the defense, and it was obvious Philadelphia Eagles running back Herb Lusk was headed to the end zone. The real surprise came when he arrived 70 yards later.

Lusk dropped to a knee in the NFL's first public end zone prayer.

Jeff Schweitzer: An Octopus Garden on 61 Virginis

2009-12-18T17:04:03Z

Humanity's greatest problem is hubris derived from religious arrogance in believing that mankind was made in god's image. For millennia, people of nearly all cultures have been taught that humans are special in the eyes of their god or gods, and that the world is made for their benefit and use. This is all made clear enough in Genesis 1:1. If the opening salvo in the bible were not enough to define mankind's supposedly special relationship with god, then all ambiguity is removed with the following passage:

Of all visible creatures only man is able to know and love his creator. He is the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity. (CCC #356)

But our arrogance does not end there. The bible teaches us that the earth is the very center of the universe. God tells us that the sun, and the planets and stars, orbit an immobile earth. While Copernicus and Galileo proved that conception to be incorrect, the idea that we somehow anchor all existence remains deeply embedded in our psyche. We are so damn special: sitting at the focal point of all that is, and looking just like the god we worship.

Such extraordinary self-importance is not only embarrassing in light of the realities of biology and astronomy; our species-centric hubris cultivates a dangerous attitude about humankind's proper role and place on earth. Paradoxically, this egoistic religious focus on our species will ultimately undermine all that is taught by religious doctrine. If the foundation is flawed so too is all that follows.

Cracks in the foundation were made more evident by the announcement from astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics that an earth-like planet has been found outside our solar system. The discovery of GJ1214b is significant as the first of a new class of "super earths" to be documented, an ocean-bearing planet orbiting a red dwarf 42 lights years from our own orb. As astronomers perfect tools of the trade, new planets akin to GJ1214b are popping up like paparazzi around Angelina Jolie. More are added to the rolls almost every day, with 11 just recently reported including one with the sci-fi name of 61 Virginis. With each discovery of another potentially habitable world the odds increase exponentially that millions or billions of other planets support life that would look familiar to us; and increase the odds that creatures more intelligent than us are looking for their next cup of morning Joe.

As Galileo forced the Church to backpedal from 1500 years of violently enforced geocentric dogma, so too will the discovery of intelligent life on other planets call into question the most fundamental biocentric claims of religion. I am not naïve: the Church will come up with some twisted post-hoc justification for the new discovery, pretending that biblical teachings are and have always been fully consistent with the existence of smart little green men. In fact, the Church is already setting the stage for such dissembling:

"Just as there is a multitude of creatures on Earth, there could be other beings, even intelligent ones, created by God. This does not contradict our faith, because we cannot put limits on God's creative freedom." Ah, the ultimate cop out: we cannot understand god. That little gem comes from the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.

But really the anticipated response is an act of desperation. The bible's insistent focus on how special and unique we are is fully undermined by the discovery of life elsewhere. What will we say when the green men claim that they were made in god's image? We only get away with our own bizarre claim now because we do not yet speak another animal's language, so don't know that octopi believe that they are made in god's image. What if the green men are stronger, smarter, wiser and without sin? Would they not have the superior claim to a proximity to god?

We need not, however, look to the heavens to undermine our arrogant claims of superiority. Animals here on earth are teaching us a lesson in humility. That fact was highlighted by the fortuitous juxtaposition of an article about octopus intelligence adjacent to the story about extraterrestrial life in the December 17 issue of USA Today. God works in mysterious ways. Or at least newspaper editors do. The octopus in question showed foresight, planning and tool use by searching out, gathering, and constructing a protective shelter from submerged coconut shells. All very human-like. But really this impressive feat does not deserve any press, because intelligence, self-awareness, culture, empathy, tool use, language and music are all commonly found in the animal kingdom. We do not need little green men to prove ridiculous the claim that humans are special; earth-bound life tells the same story. But intelligent life elsewhere that can clearly outsmart us would certainly be the final nail in the coffin of religious species-centric hubris. Yes, again, I understand the Church would weasel its way out of the dilemma with an appeal to god's mystery, but still... The Church will be like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar; no matter what story is told to explain away the obvious, nothing can overcome the fact of the hand buried in plain sight in the container. The weight of reality sometimes crushes any attempt at creative spinning.

Pending ET's discovery, however, many religious apologists still desperately want to find a single trait or capability that can be a defining characteristic, anything that can prove we are special. That search though is as futile as looking for a liberal Democrat at a Tea Party protest. No single trait, behavior or capability can ever define humanity. Even when we give ourselves a big handicap by creating self-serving definitions that we know beforehand will prove advantageous, the categories of "uniquely human" talents are shrinking rapidly as we learn more about other animals and their adaptive behaviors. Characteristics previously considered special to our species have eventually been found, at least to some degree elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Tool manufacturing and use are perfect examples because these talents were considered uniquely human until only very recently.

In fact non-human primates and birds commonly use tools, mainly to gather food. Chimpanzees, for example, regularly use stems as tools and can even pound stones with purpose, although they have never mastered flint-making. Chimps also use leaves as toilet paper. Egyptian vultures will search up to 50 yards for a rock to use to smash an ostrich egg. Green herons drop a small object onto the surface of the water to attract fish, which are fooled into thinking prey is nearby. The heron then turns the table and makes a meal of the unsuspecting fish. If an elephant is unable to reach some itching part of his body with his trunk, the nearest tree often serves to relieve the problem. Just as often, however, an itchy elephant will pick up a long stick and give himself a good scratch with that instead. If one stick is insufficiently long he will look for one better suited to the task.

With what appears to be clear intention, elephants have been observed to throw or drop large rocks and logs on the live wires of electric fences, either breaking the wire or loosening it such that it makes contact with the earth, thus shorting out the fence. Elephants are undoubtedly clueless about electron flow, but have mastered the use of a tool to avoid its unpleasant consequences.

Even more impressive is the learned use of a tool set. Chimpanzees in East and West Africa sequentially use four tools to obtain honey, all gathered together for that specific purpose. They start with a battering stick, then a use a chisel-like stick, followed by a hard-pointed stick, finally ending with a long slender flexible dip stick to pull out the honey. Each tool is used in a specific sequence, and sometimes made to order by clipping, peeling, stripping or splitting the wood to the desired specifications. New Caledonian crows are famous for their ingenious tool fabrication, both in the wild and in captivity. Betty, a female crow, was filmed taking a piece of wire and trying to use it to grab some food at the bottom of a narrow tube. After several unsuccessful attempts, she removed the wire, fashioned a hook on the end, and subsequently used her new weapon to grab the food with ease. In the wild, these crows make an impressive variety of tools using a wide range of materials for diverse purposes. These birds actually shape different hooks for different tasks. This is tool use by any definition. Still not convinced? Check out the video here.

We can show similar capabilities in the animal kingdom in every realm once considered uniquely human. Yet we still resist a humble understanding. Maybe we'll finally get the picture when we encounter beings clearly more intelligent than us, and we can finally stop the silly debate about humanity's unique relationship with god.

When we reject the hubris and conceit of religion, we will redefine our relationship with each other without calling upon god to smite our enemies. When we understand that true morality is independent of religious doctrine, we will create a path toward a just society. When we accept our humble role in the biosphere and universe, we will be free to live a full life in which we no longer accept the arbitrary and destructive constraints of divine interference. With less hubris maybe we will understand that dumping 70 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year might actually have an impact; or that destroying rain forests will affect biodiversity; or that killing off coral reefs will reduce available food supplies just as a growing human population needs the nutrition most. Perhaps with less collective hubris the world could come together at meetings like Copenhagen and actually take actions to save the planet instead of deadlocking in pathetic paralysis.

Those little green men will mock us for our belief in the supernatural and for our blatant disregard for the resources that sustain us. To them our belief in god will be nothing but an entertaining relic of past biology, much as we are amused by a dog vigorously shaking a rag doll as prey. To them watching us destroy our environment will be like us witnessing a bacterial colony depleting all available nutrients and then perishing in the face of unconstrained consumption. We could be primate research subjects, and our claim to be made in god's image as impotent and laughable as if a marmoset made the same claim today.

When we finally discover our green friends, or they us, the Church will spin the story like a whirling dervish, but the inevitable conclusions from that encounter cannot be suppressed.