Common Sense Religion

When Positive Thinking Becomes Religion: How “The Secret” and Law of Attraction Poison Spirituality

By Be Scofield - Crossposted from Tikkun Magazine

We must understand that the founder of a cult or new religion has no room for compromise: absolutes are necessary. True believers in mystical psychotherapy will not embrace a gospel with modest claims: it must be all or nothing. – Martin Larson

“He could go to school and daydream.” That was the advice given by positive thinking guru, law of attraction teacher and “channel” Esther Hicks aka “Abraham” to a black woman who asked how her son should approach learning about the difficult history of slavery in school. After telling the curious mother “none of that [slavery] has anything to do with him,” and that “he won’t have to deal with it” Abraham-Hicks proceeded to equate the teaching of African-American history with a family legacy of passing down “bad” feelings. But this is nothing compared to what she said about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. When the woman asked her about a way to interpret his life in an empowering way for her son Esther-Hicks launched into something that can be best described as an ignorant stream of psychobabble. She described his vision in the vaguest of terms and then said, “He lost sight of his dream momentarily…he began to push against. And when one pushes against in a very fast moving stream abrupt things happened…It’s trying to get others to agree with us about our dreams that causes backlash. But when we just dream them ourselves…the resources of the universe come into alignment with us.” Blaming Dr. King for his own death was paired with her instruction to the woman to not tell her son about the unjust things that Dr. King had to struggle against. Her point was that slavery, racism and segregation are all “negative” and so therefore we aren’t supposed to think about them. And if all of this wasn’t bad enough, when responding to a question on Oprah’s radio show about how the law of attraction would lead to a young girl attracting her own rape and murder, Esther-Hicks responded by saying parents don’t teach their children how to think properly and they are influenced by the negative thinking of the adults around them. She told Oprah, “if they are listening to the guidance within they could not comfortably ever settle on the thoughts that would lead them to attract something unwanted.”

Does Religion Cause Bad Behavior? Hitchens Can't Decide

By Be Scofield - Crossposted from Tikkun Daily and Alternet

Christopher Hitchens’s book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is a lengthy and detailed description of what happens when religious people behave badly. And this apparent correlation between religion and bad behavior is perhaps one of the most common reasons cited by the new atheists as to why all religion should be abandoned. But does Hitchens really believe religion causes people to do bad things? As I illustrate his position is unclear.

An interview with Jian Ghomeshi on QTV reveals the double standard that Hitchens has about the cause/effect relationship of religion and human behavior.

Jian Ghomeshi: I think you would be hard pressed to find a religious person to claim that there’s never been any negative implications or violence or wicked deeds that have been done in the name of religion.

Hitchens: They say in the name of. It’s not in the name of. That’s their get out clause. You echo it yourself. It’s explicit; it’s part of the religion. The most celebrated action of the Abrahamic is the willingness of someone to gut and murder his own son because he thinks it will please God…It’s not in the name of. It’s in the word of God himself. The commandments and instructions. These are warrants for genocide, rape, slavery, infant mutilation and worse.

What Christopher Hitchens and the New Atheists Can Learn From Malcolm X

By Be Scofield - Crossposted from Tikkun Daily and Alternet

As one of the most prominent public voices resisting the culture of Christian and religious dominance Christopher Hitchens earns himself a comparison to the freedom fighter who nearly fifty years ago urged the civil rights movement to "stop singing and start swinging." Responding to a culture of white supremacy, the vicious legacy of colonialism and the hypocrisy of American democracy Malcolm X became one of the strongest voices for black resistance and identity. For much of his life, before his break with the Nation of Islam and his shift toward racial inclusiveness he framed the race problem in an absolutist manner claiming that all white people are devils. He believed that white people could never do any good. Malcolm X publicly made his case by deconstructing the white mindset, analyzing the white power structure and describing the vicious history that has accompanied the Euro-American legacy. It was this fierce resistance against assimilation into white culture that set him apart from the strategy of integration pursued by Dr. King and many others. Despite their shift towards each others positions near the end of their lives it is still accurate to describe them as James Cone did: Malcolm X saw America as a nightmare while Dr. King saw it as a dream.

Christopher Hitchens is perhaps the most well known voice amongst the new atheists; Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet. With books like "The God Delusion," "The End of Faith," and "God is Not Great" and with bold personalities they have a reputation for being fierce critics of all things religious. For them religion is most certainly a nightmare. But even amongst a group of vigilant, passionate and hardcore atheists, Hitchens stands out. Perhaps this is because of his prolific career as a journalist, author and popular media commentator on a variety of subjects. But he is also known for being a contrarian; taking unpopular positions and defending them against anyone who will put up a fight. And he claims he has never refused to debate anyone. His "God is Not Great" book tour presented the opportunity for numerous media appearances, lectures and debates with religious defenders. He even ventured into the Christian Book Expo and debated four well-known evangelical and conservative Christian apologists at the same time. Like X, Hitchens systematically deconstructs the logic of that which he is resisting by pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisies within many religious institutions and their texts. He also does a brilliant job of describing the inevitable and disturbing conclusions that must be reached if many of the religious doctrines are taken to be as literally true.

Are the New Atheists Wrong to Suggest Religious Moderates Justify the Extremes?

By Be Scofield - Crossposted from Tikkun Magazine and Alternet

I want your opinion about something. I’m a liberal religious person who doesn’t believe in doctrines, dogma or a supernatural God. 19% of members in my tradition identify as atheist, 30% as agnostic and the rest Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Pagan or otherwise. Many of us have been wounded by the bigotry, homophobia and dogma in the religions we grew up in and find refuge, support and community in my tradition. We come together on Sunday mornings to enjoy music and hear sermons about social justice, the power of community and how to live inspiring and meaningful lives. Some ministers may use the word God in an all-inclusive way but most choose to avoid the term because of its troubled history. Here’s my question for you: Should I abandon my tradition because liberal and moderate religion serves to justify the extremes? Is my participation in this religious institution providing legitimacy and credibility for fundamentalism, violence, oppression and bigotry done in the name of religion? I’m studying to be a minister in this tradition. It’s called Unitarian Universalism. Am I guilty by association? Should I jump ship? What do you think?

I know what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would tell me. They are two of the new atheists most responsible for spreading this idea about liberal and moderate religion justifying the extremes. Liberals are “aiding and abetting” the most dangerous religions because they give them credibility by participating in the institution of religion itself. Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “Religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of “moderate” religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” And when asked about why he lumps liberal religions like Unitarianism in with fundamentalism Hitchens responded with a reference to Camus stating that he believes all religion is comparable to rats and vermin.

God Doesn't Play Favorites: A Religious Person Rethinks Prayer

By Be Scofield - Crossposted from Tikkun Magazine

God does not answer prayer.

There, I've said it. I know for some my assertion is scandalous, while for others it is mere common sense. But before you summon the inquisitor to prepare the rack or brand me a heretic or rush to my defense, hear me out.

I used to believe that God answered prayer. Being raised a Christian I was taught that I had an invisible, magical and wish-granting friend named Jesus who cared about all of my problems, however big or small. All I had to do was pray in his name. And if I didn't get what I asked for there was a good chance it was because I wasn't praying hard enough. This idea was so central to the Christian faith I was taught that never was I allowed to question the presupposition that God played favorites via a divine competition for "his" attention.

It took many years before I began wondering about the implications of God intervening in the world to answer prayer. I must admit, however, that in my youth I never had made an earnest effort to understand the logic behind prayer. Like many Christians I had a superficial understanding of my religion. I never read the Bible or studied the history of my tradition. And in high school I was too busy skipping Sunday school and getting high behind the Church to care about theology. One of the few times I did attend I remember listening to former WWF wrestler Jake the Snake Roberts with boa constrictor in hand give his testimony about Jesus saved him. With an old spandex clad wrestler as a primary source of my understanding about the Christian faith I definitely had some learning to do.

God is Not Only Great A Response to Henry Augustine

By Be Scofield - Crossposted from IntegralWorld

I'm not sure which is more surprising to me; that Henry Augustine wrote an article which contained in the title "the only feasible proof of God" or that he claimed to have done this in 400 words. If all it were to take is someone to assert a few propositions and statements about the nature and existence of God to prove God real I'm quite certain this would have been accomplished by this day and age. The ontological argument has failed to convince people of God's existence ever since it was coined by Anselm in the 1070's. Merging it with vague and meaningless integral terms such as Kosmos and holonic connection doesn't change the nature of the argument one bit.  Thus, the new atheists, Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins will not be packing their bags or retiring as a result of Henry Augustine's overly simplistic and myopic attempt to prove God.

Simone Weil’s Critique of Marxism

By Be Scofield

            Simone Weil was concerned. In the name of liberation and revolution power was being abused. Ideological orthodoxy and state bureaucracy were crippling the freedom of the individual to critically engage with the world. New social forces both sacred and secular were promising salvation but delivering oppression. Weil's response was to do what she knew how to do best: think. To think however meant a radical departure from the norm, a fiercely independent critical analysis and most significantly the capability to pause. And it was with this spirit that she critiqued Marxism; one of the fastest growing and powerful political ideologies of her day. Neither her youth nor the religious fervor surrounding this new doctrine prevented her from delivering an unrelenting rebuke, "That is why it is possible to say, without fear or exaggeration, that as a theory of the workers' revolution Marxism is a nullity. The rest of his theory of social transformation is based on a number of foolish misapprehensions."[i] Weil disagreed with almost every element of Marx’s theory, whether it was his theory of productive forces or the revolutionary potential of the proletariat.  Her critique was fuelled by both an intellectual and experiential dimension as she rigorously deconstructed Marx’s theory as well as worked in the factory and participated in labor struggles. Despite her sweeping critique of Marx she still appreciated his contribution and reserved the word “genius” for him.  What of Marx did Weil believe was worthy of retaining? How did Weil understand Marx and his theory? What role did power as a source of social examination play for Weil?

Unitarian Universalist Eschatology

By Be Scofield

With the merger of the Unitarian and Universalist churches in 1961 a new theology was born. Drawing from their unique liberal interpretations of Christianity each tradition brought wisdom and insights to the newly founded Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). Like many other religious organizations Unitarian Universalism sought to establish a tradition that could engage with life’s most pressing existential questions such as, What is God? What is the role of our church? How do we relate to our neighbors? Who will be saved? Is there a loving spirit or presence? In the study of theology one of these areas of questioning is known as eschatology and can be broadly understood as “where we came from and where we are going.” Unitarian Universalism addresses eschatology in a way that honors both the Unitarian and Universalist roots of the organization. It contains theologies that can be both optimistic about the future and inspired by the sacredness of the divine in the present moment.  This eschatology is rooted in early Unitarian and Universalist liberal interpretations of Christian theology, critical examinations of history and philosophy and the combination of the religious life with a firm commitment to social justice.

Hosea Ballou: Saved by Love

By Be Scofield

 Writing in the early 19^th century, Hosea Ballou argued for a version of Christianity that offered salvation to all people. As an early Universalist, Ballou stood against the Calvinist teachings that dominated his era. Universal salvation was a heresy at the time (and still is to many) but Ballou offered a thoughtful and careful analysis of his positions. He used both armchair philosophy and reason to counter some of the most basic doctrines of dominant Christianity. He built his argument on scripture, citing Biblical passages and quoting Jesus. And he offered new interpretations of sin, God, the meaning of the atonement and what we need to be saved from. Speaking to the common people of his day, Ballou hoped to liberate them from their “carnal mind.” This fear-based mentality was, according to Ballou, the main culprit for the creation of a vengeful and angry God. Ballou contrasted the gospel of hellfire and damnation with an ultra-universalism that promised salvation for all regardless of denomination, religion or location.

The Disturbing but Common Christian Morality Of Pat Robertson

By Be Scofield. Crossposted from Tikkun Magazine

Pat Robertson’s latest claim that God punished Haiti for making a pact with the devil was rightly condemned by religious and political leaders across the spectrum. However, there is an irony here in that many of those leaders or religious laypeople who saw the cruelty in Robertson’s remark actually share his same underlying theology which is as equally disturbing. The disagreement lies in the timing and particular expression of the theology, but the essence of Robertson’s cruel statement is shared by many of those religious people who condemned it. The problem for many was not Robertson’s God–one that is insensitive, cruel and sadistic but rather it was the specific reason he posited for God allowing or commanding what “he” did. But let’s be clear–many people believe that God did have a reason for allowing the quake–albeit different than Robertson’s.

Anyone who believes in an omnipotent God who could have intervened to stop the Haiti earthquake is making the same moral claim about God as Robertson did. He gave his reason as to why God allowed the earthquake while others simply say that God is too awesome for us to know “his” true reasons. But ultimately the premise is the same–God makes conscious choices on a daily basis and allows (for whatever reason) people to suffer and die but has the power to save them if “he” wanted. Additionally as in the recent case of the man who was pulled from the rubble 11 days after the quake, some believe that this was a “miracle” of God as one of French rescue workers claimed. It is mind boggling to me to imagine how a God could have allowed perhaps over 100,000 people to suffer and die–in some cases being buried alive but yet choose to use “his” power to save a few people a week or so after. It is even more troubling to me how this God could be in any way, shape or form be considered good. It would seem more ethically consistent to posit a God that makes choices to allow people to die but to be able to accurately name this as bad. If a man allowed his child to be buried alive in a building no one in their right mind would excuse this by saying “he is too awesome for us to understand his reasons.” And this person certainly wouldn’t be called good, yet this is what many claim about God. Our sense of morality must apply to God because it is the only one that we have. We don’t have some extra worldly, supernatural way to say that in some cases the act of allowing someone to be buried alive is good. But yet this is the foundational theology of many religious people. God is good even if “he” is killing people or allowing others to die.