Pages

Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts

April 13, 2009

Imagine

Imagine all the people, sharing all the world.

Today is Easter Monday. Last Wednesday marked the beginning of Passover. A week ago today was the fifteenth anniversary of the death of Juvénal Habyarimana, which was swiftly followed with the Rwandan Genocide. Ninety-two years ago yesterday, Canadian efforts culminated in victory at Vimy Ridge. Forty-one years and nine days ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. In the midst off this, I thought I’d share my reflections on the world.

As the world learned too late, over 100 days in 1994, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were butchered at the hands of Hutus in Rwanda. However, the difference between the Tutsis and Hutus is difficult to pin down, and may be as simple as artificial divisions remaining from European colonial times dependant on the size of your nose, or possible your heard of cattle. And yet both ethnic groups have taken turns mercilessly slaughtering each other. In 2001, terrified school girls were subject to taunts and projectiles hurled at them by angry Loyalists in Belfast, because the Loyalists believed that the Bible is the only infallible authority on Christianity, while the children believed that the episcopacy is also a valid power. Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been mean to each other ever since their religion was twenty-two years old when a disagreement broke out about who the legitimate successor to the Prophet Muhammad was. These and all arbitrary differences are creating an ‘other’ to blame for our own deficiencies, and dividing humanity.

In many cases religious or ethnic differences are simply used as a smokescreen to hide other cultural challenges, but the fact is that divisions created sometimes thousands of years ago to suit the needs of a horny king or a discarded heir or a colonial power are continuing to drive a giant wedge between humans today. What we need now is a complete separation of church and state, and a greater global harmony going forward. While visiting in Turkey, Barack Obama recently boldly reinforced that the United States was not a Christian nation. Canada has, to a large degree, exemplified that notion quite well, and continues to be a beacon of multiculturalism and acceptance.

‘Cause tonight; we can be as one tonight.

I was listening to CBC radio a while back, and they were interviewing a Muslim scholar. I can’t remember who it was, or the context of the discussion, but what they were talking about was their notion that what their organization was striving for and envisioned was a world in which everybody was Muslim. This made me stop and think for a moment, because the concept of the entire world following the same religion, and the idea of organizations striving for this, was a concept that had never really occurred to me. Sure it makes sense that people would generally desire others to agree with them on such topics, but for an organization to actually foresee this as an eventuality, let alone a possibility, really struck me. Perhaps because the only way I can see that ever happening is as a secular world, rather than any one religion over all the others.

That’s because it seems somewhat presumptuous to me to assume that your religion, or race, or ethnicity, or group is solely correct and only your people will be chosen or saved (I'm afraid it was 'the Mormons.' Yes, 'the Mormons' was the correct answer). Since most religions are for the most part mutually exclusive, it follows that only one can be totally correct, or, quite possibly, that none are correct. Some may accuse me of taking too literal an approach to this matter, but I believe a literal approach is a valid way to consider such an issue, especially when one group involved can raise almost $40 million in California to see to it that homosexuals cannot be married, because over two-thousand years ago, Leviticus said: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Something that always gets me, and gives me hope, is the Christmas truce of 1914, in which enemy soldiers dug into trenches in the Great War joined each other in No Man’s Land to sing, exchange gifts, bury their dead, and play soccer. The war would last almost five more years, but on that day everybody was a human being.

Imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too. Imagine all the people; living life in peace.

Russ

November 07, 2008

To the Glory of...Reason? Response to "To Reason"

Interesting post Russ. I have now read Ms. Lakritz's original article and agree with your assessment. It is a one-sided article that simply breaths of reactionaryism.

Her attack on reason is of course laugable. Ironically it is her own reason (even if one disagrees with this reason) that motivates her to respond to the athiest students of the University of Alberta. The way she tries to make her point would be unacceptable in an elementary school.

All knee-jerk reactions aside, I think the place where she truly went wrong was where she decided to seperate God and reason from one another (despite her misinformed attempt to reference him, St. Thomas Aquinas would be spinning in his grave.)

In fact her characterization of reason as 'malleable' and a source of entitlement is a claim that, if taken seriously, would set the world of philosophy back somewhere in the neighbourhood of several thousand years.God is a concept that, despite what Christians, Jews, Hinduists or probably even the Scientologists would say, is itself malleable. The word God is merely a word and depending on who is doing the defining, it could mean any number of things. To one person God could be the creator of all things but to another it could be a less definable concept, something more abstract such as a code of morals the idea of perfection. Even the athiest must admit they have some sort of concept of God; after all, how could an athiest deny God without first having some sort of idea of what they are denying?

As a final note, I went to the University of Alberta website and stumbled across the university's motto which is proudly displayed on the university's crest. The Latin reads 'Quaecumque Vera' or 'whatsoever things true.' Personal beliefs aside, truth is the main goal. Reason is the tool we have to reach this goal. No matter what truths we come to as individuals, reason is the road there. Lakritz undermines the truth of her own article by ripping up this road.

Will Grassby

To Reason

A controversy has been brewing at the secular University of Alberta regarding their convocation speech, in which graduates were urged to use their degrees "for the glory of God and country."

This, of course, worked the university's Atheists and Agnostics society into a tizzy (what those Atheists are doing hanging out with the wishy-washy Agnostics in the first place I'm not sure). Rightly or wrongly, that debate has raged on.

This prompted input for Calgary Herald writer Naomi Lakritz, which was reprinted in today's Ottawa Citizen. [Oct 29] She defends the institution's inclusion of God by asking how atheists would prefer the line be rewritten, mockingly suggesting 'for the glory of reason.' (How about 'for the betterment of humanity', or some other relatively inclusive, happy-Utopian phrase?)

Ms. Lakritz goes on to mock reason (I kid you not), saying: "Reason is the altar on which (atheists) worship -- a narcissistic, no-stress, do-it-yourself approach, since everyone is free to put his or her own spin on how reason is defined. Reason is, in fact, so malleable that it's the ideal religion for these members of the Entitlement Generation who think the world ought to be rewritten in their own images."I may be wrong, but doesn't Christianity teach us that God created humans in His own self-image? That in the entire Universe, amongst all the stars and planets and lifeforms, human beings are the chosen ones by the Supreme Creator?

That to me seems more narcissistic than worshiping at the altar of Reason (Reason, I know! "The ability to think and understand and draw conclusions;" "Sanity;" "Good sense or judgement; what is right, practical, or possible!")I realize and fully appreciate that none of you may share Ms. Lakritz's views on narcissistic atheists or the Entitlement Generation, or her disregard for Reason (does that make her unreasonable?), regardless of your varying religious leanings, and for that I am grateful. I don't mean for this to be an attack on any one religion or expression thereof, or even the University of Alberta's speech, but rather just me venting about one individual's inflammatory bigotry, which I thought I'd share. Thanks for reading.

Russ MacDonald