The Mosque Debacle

Well I can hold off no longer. The amount of commentary in the mass media, focused upon the proposed building of an Islamic mosque within a few blocks of the former WTC location, has caused a number of reactions by me, from interest, to confusion, to boredom, to outrage, to perplexity, and I’m sure others as well. But despite the mountains of words spewed on both sides, I feel I still need to express my, slightly limited, view. But hopefully that will work to my advantage, because, as usual, I feel that people are discussing things at the already-confused, diffused surface of the topic. In true philosophical form, I want to discuss something that I take to be at the root of this (or at least only what I can infer must be there, based on the rhetoric people have been using).

Things I want to point out: 1) the logic implemented by the people who do not want the mosque to be built. 2) how Obama's religiousity is related.

This is just one video, but does give you an idea of the sorts of logic being used. Where’s the argument in that video? “The mosque is wrong, so wrong.” There it is; that’s the argument being put forth in that video. Well that’s fine as a conclusion, but it doesn’t work so well as an argument, which is something you won't find in that video. So let’s keep going.

Please, please watch this 10-minute Daily Show clip. It is, in my opinion, one of the best Daily Show pieces they've done, although they typically are pretty good at reporting on things like this. Hopefully, that'll give you a taste of some of the points being made, and what sort of logic they are attempting to use.

Most (but not all) people realize it is not a legal issue, as they have the right to build there. Its not illegal because the constitutions only mentions of religion are stated in the first amendment and are as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And that mentions nothing about prohibiting a religious center, based on its location.

So it is not illegal, but "wrong". So what is wrong about it? They want to build a Muslim religious site close to a place where terrorists, who are Muslim, killed thousands of people. What's the connection? Apparently, they are not being sensitive, or respectful, to those who were affected by the attack. This isn't exactly a horrible plea. Out of all the jargon, I can respect this point more than any other. But nonetheless, to believe that an entire religion can be represented by the actions of less than 20 of its members is ludicrous. What about recent Christian leaders such as Ted Haggard, George Alan Rekers, Tony Alamo, Joe Barron, as well as the slew of Catholic leaders who have been accused or convicted of having sexual relations with children. Does this prohibit the building of Christian churches near schools? Does it make it "wrong" to have Sunday School? It hasn't seemed to be a problem yet. We isolate those "bad characters" from the rest of Christianity in attempts to retain the pristine character of Christianity. But when it comes to Islam, one represents all.

So here is my contention, which is nothing original, pertaining to the logic behind prohibiting the building of the mosque: muslim = terrorist = non-american = non-christian = immoral = wrong

The same logic is being used simply by the fact that Obama's religion is being questioned and that that makes it somehow relevant to the U.S. political realm. This is an extremely well-researched op-ed piece in the NYT on Obama’s religion. My point, which is one of the ones mentioned in article, is that it should not matter. But, according to that logic, if Obama is a Muslim, then he becomes all those things in that equation above. And if you don't trust that equation, notice how his nationality (which in America, perplexingly remains tied to ethnicity) and religion are always brought up together, always. And why, even when Obama says he is a Christian, do people not believe he is a Christian? That's usually good enough for most other politicians, even when their actions say otherwise.

The Devil

"Readers are advised to remember that the devil is a liar." - C.S. Lewis

That line is conveniently situated in the preface to Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters”. The next line goes on to say that even the lines written by the fictitious spirit, Screwtape, should not be taken as necessarily true. (Of course, should we doubt Lewis too?)

I immediately was drawn to that initial quote. I’ve often thought about what it must be like to be the devil of Christianity. For instance, why and how is the devil an individual being? Why must the devil be a man? Well, I suppose all angels must be men, and have a phallus.

Now that is the fascinating part; the devil is (was?) an angel. It must be. It must be a (the) fallen one, an antagonist, an opponent. But is this a pure negation? If the Christian God is pure spirit, shouldn’t the devil be purely physical?

I suppose any negation of the Christian god is a complete negation, or at least of a completely different sort of nature. I take humans as also being some sort of negation, but this must surly be a different type of denial than that of ‘the eternally fallen one’. (Strangely, humans are physical, yet the devil is still a spirit.)

Questions:
Must the devil always lie? Are all lies ones of the devil? What truths would the devil espouse? In what way are those truths ‘true’? What truths could aid the devil’s cause? What type of cause can the devil have? What type of cause does the Christian God allow the devil to have? What does it mean for the Christian God to allow an antagonist an agenda? What does it mean for the Christian God to have an antagonist? Questions are easy. Answers are not.

My Two Cents:
What a worrisome world to live in for that person for whom the devil is behind every corner and every claim. How great the doubt! How great the fear! My issue with a statement like Lewis’ is that it makes the Christian’s life extremely individualistic: “I must doubt all things (all people), except my thoughts attached to my God, which I must take on faith.” That individual is scared for his or her life, trembling from a different sort of fear …

Christian Ritual

[Disclaimer: this post makes a lot of broad claims, sometimes even historical ones! My goal is not to lay out universal claims for Christianity, but rather to explain my experience of a select, remote Christian context. Feel free to correct, explain, denounce, or question, anything said hence forth. I see no reason why my un-cited statements would be insufficient or misleading in some way.]

Ritual is a part of most, if not all, religions; Christianity is no exception. From major events such as marriages, baptisms, and funerals, to daily and weekly actions such as prayer, meditation, fasting, communion, singing, etc., 21st century Christianity appears to retain its ritual. In fact, after mentioning all of those, it seems as if it is primarily ritualistic. And yet, I find more and more that there is a constant doing-away with it.

Through the commencement of the enlightenment era, where modern thought found a place outside of religion, religion faced decisions such as: should it take up the rationalism of the time, should it concern itself only with itself, its doctrine, faith, and its own construction and exemplification of morality, and many other questions similar to this. In some form or other, many of the Christian sects have incorporated modernal rationalism in some fashion or other.

Seeing that the “science and religion” game isn’t a very good one to play (explained below), Christianity has recently begun to attempt to refocus upon what it is good at: faith, community, the development of its own sort of morality through charity, and ritual. However, I do not think the recent heritage of rationalism and focus on cognition within the past few centuries has been shed so successfully.

I recently attended a church service of a northern Indiana missionary church and the “rituals” astounded me. Concerning almost every song, and in almost every prayer, there was a call to a thought of, reflection on, attention to, etc. (a constant reflection and consciousness concerning what the attendee was doing). No longer can one “do”; rather, one must always think, reason, explain, justify, his or her ritualistic actions: think about the words of the song; know and explain why you celebrate Christmas; understand what this prayer means; and countless others.

Christianity is becoming a mental, cognitive, and very conscious-oriented religion. Even in trying to do away with the rationalism of the last several centuries, the congregation is asked to “think” back to the roots of Christianity and the bible, and then reflect upon that.

Even in ritual, there is this reiteration of the reflection; a centrality of thought in a realm created in and for thoughtlessness, for doing. Further, thinking and reflection also have their place in religion; we should always be prepared to think about what things we chose to be a part of. But with contemporary Christianity, thought (cognition) has become central, and this centrality is displacing the efficacy of ritual.

The Results

First, there is the resultant guilt (and self-centeredness) of repeatedly focusing on failures. This constant visualization and contemplation of the lack, cannot but conclude with a failure to succeed. One cannot achieve a success; there is always a failure and always a thinking on that failure. In this self-ish repetition, the Divine almost never enters in to it and thus, there is no peace.

But more to the point, it leads to doubt. This is why I said the “science and religion” game is not a good one to play. It is always misleading. So while I do not feel that the tension is warranted, it is always present. Part of the sermon talked directly about this. When people are constantly shown scientific information which appears to “explain” things that the church cannot, it results in doubt. Again, this explanation should never displace religion, but nonetheless, there is a fight for who gets the position, the sole position, between science and religion (in my opinion, there are two realms, and neither should problematize the other). Thus, people doubt the rational side of religion, completely missing the equally relevant non-rational/cognitive sides, such as ritual.

Perhaps the more disconcerting effects are the following:
Prayer becomes a (self-centered) petition for forgiveness of sins and chance at improvement of the self, rather than an openness to the Divine. Song is no longer sung and participated in, but the lyrics are to be contemplated and thought out. In rituals such as marriage, communion, funerals, and baptism, there is a constant call to reflection on the reasoning for the event, rather than the experiencing of the event itself. The self must always be (self-)conscious and aware of what it is doing, rather than being a part of and taken up in the experience. It delimits the self and closes off the believer from his or her relations with the ritual, the community, and the Divine.

The experience of Christianity has become remarkably cognitive.