Evolution and Creation

Knowledge of our natural world seems to expand every day. As scientists discover new things about ourselves and the universe there are some who argue the relevance of religion. They say that the stories we tell of our origins have less meaning. I want to look back at what our tradition says.

As far back as the 11th century, Rashi, the great Torah commentator, spoke of creation not as a story of six defined days but rather that God created all the potential on the first day. What came later grew out of that primordial soup. Rashi was writing 700 years before Darwin; he wasn’t responding to a scientific attack on religion. Instead, he was presenting an interpretation of the story in Bereshit, a story that teaches many things including the interconnectiveness of us and the environment in which we live. Rashi seemed to know on some level that the story did not lend itself to the observations of how the laws of nature truly work. Instead of rejecting the story he looked for deeper meaning. It is not the six twenty-four hour days that are important; it is the fact that the earth and all it contains can be made sacred by how we manage it.


February marked the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Many religious institutions around the country took time to acknowledge that evolution is not a threat to religion with Evolution Weekend, an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic - to move beyond sound bites. A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith. The founder of Evolution Weekend is Michael Zimmerman, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University, The Torah is a story of the Jewish people with many things to teach us; however, it was never meant to prevent us from asking questions about our universe. The two go hand in hand.

GAZA and the Israelis

I have a lot to say here, but this speech from the Israeli UN envoy is perfect:



Members of the United Nations, Democracies, dictatorships,
republics, and the honorable secretary-general:

Within a few hours, media outlets in your countries shall present
horrific photos of blood, fire, and rubble from the Gaza Strip. The
Palestinians will be screaming, in front of the cameras, about the
massacre undertaken by the State of Israel. Initially, you may show
understanding for our operations in the Strip, yet once the photos
of wounded civilians reach you, you shall press us, as is your
custom, to stop defending ourselves.

The first signs of this phenomenon can already be seen.
Calls to "end the violence" from across the world are being
heard
loud and clear - yet they are only being heard now, after years of
violence, and after Israel finally decided to respond. The European
Union already rushed to declare that it condemns Israel's
"disproportional use of force." Several news networks have
brought
together panels whose members are scrutinizing the law books at this
very moment in order to ascertain whether the Jewish State violated
some international law.

I do not intend to deal with the question of where were these
condemners and critics for the past seven years, when Hamas'
murderers set the timers of their rockets to coincidence with the
end of the school day in Israel, because of a declared aim to kill
as many children as possible.

The question we should be discussing at this time is as
follows: Why do the countries of the world and global media outlets
obsessively engage in strict criticism that is only directed at
Israel? After all, there is not even one country out there that is
required to adhere to the moral criteria which the world demands of
us - of us of all people, the ones who as opposed to the rest of the
world face threats of extermination.

Our Arab neighbors are well familiar with this double standard
vulnerability. On their part, they are not bound by any kind of
moral code.

And so, they learned to exploit the international strictness towards
Israel..

A long time ago, they already understood that they cannot face the
State of Israel on the battlefield. Indeed, when it comes to
photographs and videos, they boast uniforms and weapons, yet once
the fighting gets underway, they are quick to take off their
uniforms and assimilate among women and children used as human
shields. They also make sure to place their arms depots in hospital
basements and to fire rockets at population centers out of
schoolyards.

Their great hope is to elicit an Israeli response that would
unintentionally hurt a few children. Once that happens, they will
wave their bodies before the cameras and cry out to the world for
help.

This was the case in Lebanon, and this may happen tomorrow in the
Gaza Strip.

Easing Europe's conscience the states demanding that Israel
adhere
to certain moral standards do not even dream of asking the same of
her enemies..

After all, we are dealing with theocracies and dictatorships, where
homosexuals are publicly hanged, where women are regularly stoned
for undermining their "family's honor," and where
children suspected
of theft have their arms severed.
What do these states have to do with the value of human life?

We should therefore ask representatives of global opinion:
Be honest with yourselves - Do the lives of humans being butchered
daily in Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur arouse you into similar
action?

Reality indicates this is not the case. My answer to the question
regarding the obsessive preoccupation with the actions of the Jews
is purely sociological.

Many of you, the shapers of public opinion, and mostly the Europeans
amongst you, are interested in easing your
conscience: If only can only show that the Israelis-Jews are not so
moral or innocent, perhaps they deserve everything you did to them
before they were able to establish their state?

After all, here they are, occupying and butchering the poor
Palestinians; they are certainly no better than us!
To that end, you are willing to help out the lowliest terrorists.
Therefore, you bought into their slanderous Mohammed al-Dura tale,
and therefore you will rush to buy into various blood libels in the
coming days.

Those who launch missiles and mortar shells into kindergartens know
that they will always enjoy a protective umbrella from you. They
draw their self-confidence from the intolerable ease with which they
enlist your public opinion in their favor.
Therefore, you would do well to think twice before you move to stop
the punishment they lawfully deserve.
After all, you are the only lifesaver that can spare this radical
terror group the measure of justice hovering above it.

WAR on Christmas

I ran across this recently:
War on Christmas

I am always troubled by being told some how I am fighting a war on someone else's holiday by encouraging inclusion in my approach to December. As a kid there was a season, starting with Thanksgiving and going through New Year's Day that was simply called The Holidays. On Thanksgiving Day WPIX showed March of the Wooden Soldiers and that marked the start of a time when everyone seemed to enjoy the spirit of the holiday. Season's Greetings, Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas filled the community and all seemed to have the same power for sharing joy. The few Jews in my hometown would celebrate Hanukah in the proper time and people respected and enjoyed the moment.

But today when someone says Happy Holidays there are those right wing nuts who think it is an assault on American values. There are those who think it is an affront to all that is good. Inclusion is what this country is about, but not to the right wing. They fear the ideas of others. It is a challenge to their weak minded faith, much like the existence of Jews in the Middle Ages was a challenge to the corrupt church, so they killed the Jews whenever they could. Today it is more about marginalizing the anyone who doesn't think like they do, making them some how Anti-American. That is comical to me.

I believe the true war on Christmas comes from consumerism. Christmas to Christians is about the birth of Jesus, the savior, the changer of destiny. How could a religious tradition that holds that so dear allow it to become about 1/2 off sales at Target?

I think the fictional war on Christmas is being fought only from those of little faith trying to cover their ears and sing when anyone brings up the rich diversity of our nation. Sad, because in a highly homogeneous society in 1973 we understood that while there were those who were "other", they had a place at the table. Too bad someone is trying to pull away the chair.

Noise

So the election is over and now the noise changes but doesn't end. Attacks on President-elect Obama for choosing Rahm Emanuel is the beginning of what I fear will be a dissection of every appointment he makes. Larry Summers will have to revisit his horror of the things he said about women at Harvard, though the right wingers who are bringing it up already defended him back then. I see the mud Obama would have to fight against. Even Glenn Beck, a person who I believe is a hypocrite, was fighting his own listeners who say that the President is not their President. That he had no authority. There is even a movement to impeach the President-elect. I am not sure of the standing they are using. But deep down I wish the noise would stop, but it won't. Look out, I feel bad that there will be no honeymoon for this President. Let's hope that he is as good as we think he can be and rise above this.

A landslide possible?

Senator Obama stopped in Indianapolis today, election day, to rally voters, supporters and to maybe ignite some undecideds. What is remarkable is that has no time in the last several elections has Indiana been in play. It is a contested state this year. That to me is amazing. I hear stories of long lines, I hear families arguing over who to vote for and a friend gave me a glimpse of why there are still 7% who have not made up their minds. I find it amazing that at this time, as I actually vote for someone and not against the other one, that so many Americans are becoming part of the process and taking it seriously. Who ever is declared the winner tonight, this country has won, if for no other reason than we have had a election that people paid attention to and learned how to pick leaders. Maybe this will be the start of an engaged electorate.

Bill Maher

I watched Bill Maher's attempt at a documentary on Religion called Religulous. He spends most of the movie interviewing people to better understand or perhaps to skewer faith. He argues that he is going after the people who are absolutely certain, and also tries to juxtapose mythologies of different religion to ask why one set of myths (for western culture The Bible) is better than other sets of myths (including other ancient near-East text) that influenced the writers of the Bible. Maher fails miserably at what could have been a wonderful opportunity to point out how religion itself has become boiled down to a set of stories that most adherents feel deeply did not occur. Yet it is all they have and it is this simplistic view of religion that has Maher at times angry and provides great comical fodder. Yet he can't seem to go beyond the ridicule of the most elementary kind of religious expression.

At one point he visits an institute in Israel where Rabbis try to invent ways to allow traditional Jews to use technology that would be normally be forbidden on the Sabbath. It was clear to me that this was a grand opportunity to discuss the idea that perhaps religion is not about getting around the rules, but understanding the meaning of some rules. And perhaps how they might change with each generation. But Maher laughed it off, not digging deep he simply poked fun.

I think Maher is looking at religion like most in Western culture, the religion they remember from elementary school religion classes. Heaven and Hell, Baby Jesus, Moses on the mountain, Apples and Honey, Easter Eggs. A religion where incredible stories of miracles and fun holiday traditions feed a childhood imagination that as we age we begin to question but rarely find a good answer. Some faith traditions have interpreted over time what the stories mean and how they can be teaching tools for how to live our lives. Certainly, sitting in the center of the Hebrew Bible is a cornerstone of building a society. Albeit a religious society based around sacrifice, but even that changed over time, including being argued against by the prophets later in the history of the faith. What Maher and most of his belief system fail to understand is that you can take a faith tradition seriously and yet not believe that the stories that were created to explain the unexplainable were true stories. As one teacher of mine once said "The stories in the Bible are true, they just didn't happen that way". We mine the meaning and create a way of living, a culture, that grows out of what the ancient wisdom tries to teach us. We don't have to believe in a celestial hall monitor that watches over us looking for us to screw up. But we can believe that an attempt to understand our existence, that faith in something greater than ourselves can have value, as long as we examine it from what we know about the universe. I think there are rich religious traditions that understand that God may not be the God of the Bible, or the theologians of old, but something that is understood differently as we unlock the knowledge of the world. Too often people don't want to explore the deeper meaning so they either disconnect from the reality they see or simply hold two mutually exclusive thoughts in their head. I believe both set one up for failure to thrive as a human and leads Maher to so easily attack religion as if it were monolithic.

One point Maher complains that more people have been killed for religion and uses Christianity and Islam as an example. The problem with this is that it isn't simply religion. In both cases and in many others in the past when religion and government combine and a sin against God is a crime against the state violence can only be the solution. That, connected with a government supporting the idea that they have the one true answer, zealotry leads to persecution and forced conversions and events like the Holocaust. Governments that have religion as the driving force of the society can not be wrong. Killing the "infidel" is not murder, it is keeping the society safe. It is a government holding on to power in most cases using religion as a club. Often distorting the faith.

I believe intellectually honest religion is a good thing for people personally and for society as a whole. But Maher doesn't want to look that deep, no comedy in nuance. So laugh with Bill at Scientology and zealots but I encourage you to examine your own thoughts. What do you believe? Why? How do you reconcile it with the world you live in? Look deep, there is a lot of good in a faith tradition, but bring out the wheat and leave the chafe. You will be better for it.

Bailout Needed? YES

There is a rumor going around the internet that we should take the $700 Billion and invest in the people giving them all a check. Leave Wall Street to hang and companies to die. The thinking if that giving money to the people will make them start paying their bills. This is laughable.
Giving it to the people will do absolutely nothing. If you divide the money by every American, it comes to about $2300, how does this help someone who is 3 months behind in an $1100 mortgage payment they can't afford anyway? It won't stimulate the economy and yes it is our money that we are borrowing. I have no idea where an earlier poster came up with the $400 K scenario. What this does is to support the collapse of a banking system that for good or bad holds up the rest of the economy. With out loans, small business doesn't thrive, big business can't function, and people can't operate in a world that many live month to month. Yes stupid loans were given out when money was plentiful and there was insurance on risky loans. But the holders of that insurance didn't put away enough money to cover them, banks didn't want to continuously foreclose and there is a housing glut in many parts of the country so the structures themselves are not worth what is owed on them. This bailout will create a whole new way of our economics working. At least I hope in the end it does. The government should take over failing companies, hold the boards and management responsible for negligence and seize all assets to avoid anyone walking out with any severance. Investigations should be done on any illegality and it should all be done in the light of day. The gov't should have a plan for reselling assets at fair value as quickly as possible and using that money pay off the price tag. When the economy is strong again, and it will be, there should be significant tax reductions across the board. As for programs to help people buy a home, in the future there should be far more oversight in how those loans are processed and how much money is given away. The government should have strict controls to avoid predatory lending and frankly ridiculous lending. I don't see this package as simply throwing money at the problem. Giving every American $2300 would in fact put money in people's pockets but will they pay their past due loans or buy a flat screen? I don't know. What I do know is that if we do nothing we risk a total collapse of monetary systems around the world and frankly I don't want to learn Chinese.