Over the past few weeks critics of global warming and environmental concerns have taken to the airwaves and unloosed a barrage of letters to the editor, many of which repeat the same theme—that the whole global warming debate is a fiction created by Al Gore to make money, and that his books and movies are intended to create a public scare so that governments will take actions that will facilitate the need for green products. That seemed a strange argument, and implies that Al Gore is in some grand conspiracy with hundreds of environmental scientists around the world to promote a grand hoax, a concept that makes no sense and shows no understanding of how science actually works.

 Nevertheless those letters led me to research the topic a bit.  Until recently I had been unaware of the extent and scope of the right wing criticism of Al Gore.  The substance of the criticism seems to be that [a] he made a movie about damage to our environment and made a profit; [b] he wrote a book on the same topic and made a profit; [c] he makes money with his speeches on environmental concerns including global warming and charges a lot of money for them (sometimes); [d] he is a minority partner at a venture capital firm that has invested in “green” technologies including “smart meters” for homes and in strategies for buying and selling carbon credits—and that as a result of these things he may make a lot of money.

A few observations: [a] last I knew conservatives did not object to making a lot of money through new technologies; [b] he is putting his money where his mouth is and willing to take the risk that these technologies will work and will be profitable; [c] everyone in the country could invest in these new technologies if they wanted to, so it seems hypocritical for his critics to object, particularly because they don’t believe there is a problem that warrants new technologies; [d] oil, gas and coal companies, electric utilities, chemical companies and other companies whose businesses damage the economy advocate for their causes, seek favorable regulations and seek subsidies for clean energy technologies like smokestack scrubbers, and I don’t hear the same sort of complaints about their advocacy for their cause.

If I was cynical (not like me, of course) I would suspect that the right wing is upset because a liberal might actually make money off of environmental concerns, and was smart enough to beat them to it.

http://www.christianhumanist.net

If it is true, as I asserted in an earlier post, that being a follower of Jesus and his teachings does not require a belief in god but implies the duty to honor truth and show compassion, to stand with the victims against their oppressors, to take the side of the weak and powerless against the abusers and the comfortably powerful, and to maintain one’s integrity no matter the cost, then we must conclude that being a Christian is not a matter of belief but of concrete actions that are faithful to the spirit of Jesus and his teachings. If one wishes also to carry the baggage of mythology and theology as an additional burden, that is of course one’s choice, but it does not remove the obligation of following Jesus’ teachings and the example of his life.

It is that timeless challenge to take Christian discipleship seriously that continues to captivate and motivate us. It is the challenge accepted by the Peace Corps volunteer, the builder of homes for Habitat for Humanity, the volunteer in the homeless shelters and prisons, those who bring joy to a young child or adopt an orphan from Haiti, and the Mother Theresas of the world who bring comfort and peace seeking nothing in return. There is nothing in that challenge that requires us to believe in any particular notion of a divine being in order to be a Christian.

That basic meaning of Christian discipleship seems to have escaped the notice of much of contemporary Christianity, particularly the so-called “mainline Christian churches” that muddle along with a comfortable conformist Christianity that challenges no beliefs, raises no issues and makes no demands serious enough to change one’s life. This is the fundamental issue over which I part company with those traditional Christians who argue unconvincingly that being a Christian essentially means having the right theology, that is, believing a particular set of theological propositions. My argument with them is not with their beliefs or with their confusion between mythology and history, but rather with their premise that affirming a particular set of orthodox doctrinal beliefs rather than striving to emulate the life of Jesus is what essentially defines what it means to be a Christian.

Those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be measured against the ultimate test of faithfulness to Christian values, which is whether their words and their actions hold up to the standard of Jesus’ words and actions (so far as we can know what they are) rather than whether they hold correct theology. If their claim is to be understood as more than a claim to believe particular propositions about Jesus that may or may not be true and that cannot in any case be verified, their claim is subject to the litmus test of their decisions and actions.

We’ve now come full circle on this issue of whether it is possible to be a Christian without a concept of God; and if so, what that Christianity would look like. I believe that the test is a simple one: anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus should be seen standing with the weak against the powerful, feeding the hungry, comforting the sick, bandaging the wounded, holding the hand of a child, standing with the oppressed against the oppressor. It means humility rather than arrogance and pride.

This is a view of Christianity that makes sense to me for the 21^st Century. It is a de-mythologized Christianity, a Christianity without the necessity for god and freed from the theological baggage of the centuries preceding us, a Christianity that challenges us regardless of our view of god to model our lives after that of Jesus. Being a Christian is not any more complicated than that.

In the aftermath of the Haitian tragedy we have seen the basic goodness of most Americans come to the fore with an outpouring of humanitarian concern and aid. Except, I might add, from some who consider themselves Christians and leaders of radical right wing groups that can resist no opportunity to try to score political points and simultaneously make fools of themselves.

Pat Robertson had the insensitivity to blame the tragedy on the Haitians themselves for entering into a pact with the devil 200 years ago.  Rush Limbaugh, the poster child for stupid on-air comments, blamed the Haitian people for living off handouts from foreign governments rather than getting jobs, for being immoral, for having AIDS, for being poor, and for tolerating an inefficient and dishonest series of public leaders.  A local letter to the editor from a self-identified Christian minister spoke about the people of Haiti’s sins catching up with them, that you cannot live a decadent life of promiscuity and sin without facing god’s judgment, and that this should be a lesson to America to repent before it is too late.  One blogger added, “Humans even on their best days, are sinners and that is why bad things happen.”  Another, thinking that he was taking a more compassionate defense of god, commented that god lets tragedies happen “so that the good people of the world will have reason to show compassion and aid to those in need.”

I wrote an on-line rejoinder tongue in cheek and so obviously an over-the-top caricature poking fun at what these folks were saying [such as, god dislikes poor people because they are lazy and rewards the good people with riches, and that the innocent victims of the tragedy were just collateral damage in god’s war on sin, etc.] that I could not believe that it would be taken seriously—but it was, and it had to be taken down, and I learned that fundamentalists have no sense of humor.

So I tried another approach.  I asked a series of questions that I think those who believe in some concept of god need to consider:  Where was god when the earthquake struck? Why does god cause tragedy for people who are already poor and suffering?  Did the Haitians deserve this tragedy?  If they did not deserve it, why did it happen?  Is god less caring than we who would have stopped this tragedy if we could have done so?  How is god relevant if she cares so little about people that either she cannot help the people of Haiti or chooses not to help and lets people suffer?  Would praying to god have made any difference?  Is god in control of events that happen? Can god prevent tragedies from happening and just chooses not to? Is god evil or callous? Is god not powerful enough to prevent tragedy from happening? Did she really cause one person to escape the collapse of his home by arranging a propitious phone call? Are god’s actions arbitrary or random, or are they purposeful?  Do you believe that god cares about one person that was rescued but does not care about the rest? Did the injured and dead really deserve to be crushed?  If you say that the few were saved as an act of god, then I wonder why he did not bother with 150,000-200,000 others who were not saved.  If you believe that the few who were saved is evidence for god or for the power of prayer, then don’t you have to concede that the thousands who were not saved are evidence on the other side?

I got no answers, but I was attacked for the oxymoron of being a Christian Humanist.

Albert Camus (through a character in The Plague) said to a priest who tried to justify tragedy that when faced with the calamitous death of innocent children he would rather curse god and join in the struggle against evil wherever he found it.

     It is apparent that many Americans do not understand the Palestinian issue. There are many reasons for this.   The events that started this conflict occurred at the end of World War 2 and most Americans were not yet alive or not old enough to remember the early history, and that includes most reporters who cover the continuing story.  Religious Israelis argue that the land of Israel is the same as biblical Israel and that god has given them this land, an argument that resonates with Christian fundamentalists but fails to acknowledge the Muslim interest in Jerusalem as sacred to its past just as it is to Jews and Christians.  The frustration of the Palestinians at their treatment by Israel and their inability to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, the failure to understand the root issues of Palestinian anger, the attacks on the Palestinians by Israel that are characterized without challenge as “defensive strategies,” and the unwillingness of the U.S. to criticize Israel and end funding for Israel, are the root causes of the Palestinian acts of terrorism and hatred by Muslims throughout the world.

     A quick refresher on what happened–Palestinians who owned homes and businesses in Palestine were forcibly uprooted into refugee camps to make a place for the Jews of Europe. They were supposed to be compensated, but they weren’t. A series of wars occurred between Israel and displaced Palestinians supported by the neighboring Muslim states. The Israelis won the war and decided to keep the land they took from their neighbors. Israel controlled land surrounding their country and began to put their settlers there forcing more Palestinians to lose their homes. In Jerusalem the Israelis keep forcing more and more Muslims from their homes ALTHOUGH THIS IS ILLEGAL UNDER UN RESOLUTIONS that are officially recognized by the US. Israel ignores the rest of the world. The Palestinians are trying to get their lands and homes back and they are doing it in the only way they can–by fighting the Israelis. They see themselves as freedom fighters. But Israel is very vicious in its offensives against Palestinians and thinks they can get away with revenge attacks by calling what they are doing defending Israel.

     Without recognizing the root cause of Palestinian and Muslim anger and frustration and finding a way to resolve those underlying issues it will not be possible to resolve the Arab-Palestinian problem.  This is NOT an anti-Israel or pro-Arab statement; it is merely a statement of the underlying issues that seem to have become lost in the Israeli attempts to characterize the standoff as Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism.  There is a reason for the terrorism that the current discussions ignore.

     Because humanists do not have a religious bias that is for or against the parties on underlying religious grounds, they may be able to see the issues more clearly.  Unfortunately that may not help resolve the problem.

There is no serious doubt among contemporary historians regardless of their religious faith that Jesus was a real person who lived in Palestine in the First Century. Historians agree that Jesus was an itinerant Jewish teacher who traveled and taught throughout Palestine, gathering disciples around him through the force of his personality and the compelling nature of his message. There is general agreement that Jesus was perceived by the Roman occupiers of Palestine as a dangerous religious radical and a disturber of the peace in consequence of which he was arrested by the local authorities and summarily executed by the Romans by public crucifixion, the standard method used by the Romans to deal with political troublemakers.

There is considerable disagreement among historians about how much of the New Testament record can be relied upon as history in the ordinary sense in which we understand history, given the fact that a fairly long time passed from the days in which Jesus lived and taught in Palestine until the traditional stories about him and his teachings began to be collected from the oral tradition and eventually acquired their present form as the gospels of the New Testament.

It is clear from the surviving historical record that something happened following the crucifixion of Jesus that led his followers to continue his message and teachings. When their leader was arrested and executed by the Roman authorities Jesus’ followers were discouraged, disappointed and frightened. They feared for their safety as they contemplated the fact that they too might be arrested and executed. They abandoned Jesus to his fate and ran. However sometime after his arrest and crucifixion, the crushing sense of disappointment, frustration and defeat the disciples experienced at the death of their leader suddenly gave way in the face of what is called “the Easter Event.”

That “something” that “happened” after the crucifixion is described in the Gospels in mythological terms as Resurrection. We have learned to demythologize these accounts so that we can understand and interpret their significance to us. Once we get beyond the mythological language, it is clear that the disciples had a life-transforming experience that resulted in a re-ordering of their priorities and a new way of thinking about what was seriously important that led to their commitment to carry on with Jesus’ teachings.

They interpreted this life-transforming experience to mean that the spirit of Jesus did not die with him but was alive in them challenging them to continue what he had started. It was a life-transforming awareness. They understood this to mean two things: they were to model their lives after his life and they were to carry on his teaching.

Once we have worked our way through the mythological and theological baggage that has accumulated through the ages, we are left with a fundamentally important truth that those who met this itinerant teacher and who heard his teaching were sufficiently captivated by his personality and his message that they were compelled to follow him and his teaching. At its core, being a “Christian” means exactly the same thing for us as it meant to his first disciples: consciously choosing to be a follower of Jesus and his teachings. It does not necessarily involve a belief in gods so much as it involves commitment to the values of Jesus. It means to live as Jesus lived and to teach as he taught, to honor truth and show compassion, to stand with the victims of this world against their oppressors, to stand with the weak and the powerless against the abusers and the comfortably powerful, and to maintain one’s integrity no matter the cost. In short being a follower of Jesus meant then and now to be faithful to the spirit of Jesus and his teachings.

It may be a truism but is worth repeating, that the farther to the right (religiously and politically) an individual or group is, the less tolerant they are of the views of others. Tolerance doesn’t mean agreement. It means respect for others and their right to hold views different than your own. Liberals are often accused of being soft when they are merely tolerant. They are willing to accept differences in viewpoint, in lifestyle, in conduct, in outlook, without a need to try to force others to accept their beliefs or live by their rules. That is as it should be.

The most obvious example of intolerance is the Taliban, the right wing fundamentalist extremists of Afghanistan and Pakistan, who believe (to take a particularly ugly example) that women have no place in public life and should remain uneducated and subservient to the rule of men. Their extremism on this issue leads them to conclude that girls not only should not go to school with boys, they should not go to school at all. That seems to us an anachronistic social attitude that is unhelpful to their society, but the Taliban go well beyond believing that their views of education and the place of women and girls in society should apply to Muslims who believe as they do, they want it to be a rule that applies to everyone in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and even beyond their own country to Muslim nations generally, and if they could get away with it, to everyone else) regardless of anyone else’s view on the matter.

To enforce their rigid antiquarian view they demand that no child above the age of 7 attend school and they bomb schools and kill teachers and children in the name of their religion. They are the extreme example of an intolerance that demands that the larger society conform its beliefs and actions to their particular religion-based values. In a similar but less extreme way radical fundamentalist Christians are like the Taliban, ignorant and arrogant but insistent that their views on religion and values must be written into law and other citizens must be compelled to live by their rules.

In a pluralistic and democratic society tolerance of the views of others is essential to peaceful and harmonious social order. One of the implications and preconditions of tolerance (and democracy!) is maximum personal freedom both of ideas and of actions.

Maximum freedom does not mean freedom without any limits. A wheel may be free to rotate on its axis (axle) but it is not free to wander off in any direction because it is constrained by its axle. Any social order has limits essential to preserve that order. Freedom is never absolute. Societies have laws against stealing from other members of their society because stealing is disruptive of the social order and laws are necessary to preserve that social order. The same rationale applies to the prohibition against killing (murder) or any number of other social restrictions that disrupt society. Apart from those particular restrictions necessary by general agreement to avoid conflict and preserve social order, freedom of action and belief are the norm. Private beliefs about what conduct is desirable or appropriate for members of a group are tolerated so long as those beliefs do not disrupt the social order or impinge upon the rights of others.

The necessary corollary of freedom in a democracy is that private beliefs about what is right, desirable, or good are not written into law and those holding those private beliefs do not try to compel others to take certain actions or refrain from certain conduct. That is the way it must be in a democracy.

Christian fundamentalists have argued with me that “Christian Humanism” is an oxymoron, I guess like military intelligence, or compassionate conservative or liberal Republican, and while we joke about these, there really is military intelligence, there really are compassionate conservatives, and there used to be liberal Republicans (known as Ripon Republicans, for the old timers; I used to be one before the Republicans were taken over by the right wing nut jobs concerned with ideological purity). And there really are Christian Humanists, lots of them, as a Google search will clearly demonstrate. So saying Christian Humanists don’t really exist is either ignorance or wishful thinking.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus. I do not have an operating belief in god (for reasons fully explained on my website). I am impressed by the life and teachings of Jesus and I have opted to be a “follower” of his teachings. So I am a Christian. Unconventional perhaps, but I think I meet the test. I am a Christian without a lot of unnecessary theological baggage.

A humanist focuses on ethical behavior towards one neighbor, “do unto others as you would like to be treated in the same circumstances.” This should be the ethical duty of all Christians. [Humanist also has a narrower meaning, referring to a view that disregards gods and heavenly beings as no longer relevant to man's life.] Humanists, whether they are religious humanists or secular humanists, tend to support human rights, reproductive rights, racial and gender equality, social justice, and the separation of church and state. Humanism is the basis of the “humanities” which are essential to a “liberal” or classical education.

Some fundamentalist or evangelical Christians want to limit the term “Christian” to those who believe as they do, but that is a myopic and silly view that conflicts with reality. Christian Humanists are a small but growing minority among those who consider themselves Christians. We’re here. We’re Christian. We’re liberal. We’re not going away. So get over it.

In an earlier post I said that Christians are divided on the subject of abortion. Actually there are three different positions among the various Christian denominations.

The anti-abortion Christians largely consist of the Roman Catholic Church and the extreme right of Protestant Christianity (the fundamentalists and the evangelicals), including Southern Baptists.

The middle group consists of some denominations that take a “nuanced” stance, neither supporting nor opposing abortion but stressing the duty of Christians to recognize that there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue and that each Christian must make his own decision on the specific facts and circumstances and in the light of his or her faith conviction. This middle group includes most Lutheran denominations, the American Baptist Association, and southern Presbyterians.

The third group supports abortion rights. This latter group consists of the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Lutheran Women’s Caucus.

A check with the web sites of these various denominations and groups will provide the specifics of each group’s position. However, individual Christians within each of these denominations often differ from their denomination’s position. For instance, there are pro choice Catholics.

When I was a student in theological school in the late 1950s abortion was not an issue. Curiously until 1980 the Southern Baptists, an evangelical denomination. supported abortion rights. Everything changed with the culture wars that began in the 1980s when the Republicans wanted a foothold among southern conservative Democrats and allied themselves with religious conservatives, using abortion as a wedge issue. It worked. The South is now largely Republican and anti-abortion rights.

I grew up in an evangelical (Southern Baptist) church in VA a long time ago in the 1950s. The minister was a very serious, very honest, very pious man. He believed that it was wrong to do any work on the sabbath (which he did not know was Saturday), wrong to gamble or play cards, wrong to dance (because it could lead to closeness of bodies and ultimately to sex), wrong to wear makeup (because women of ill repute wore makeup and one should not create the impression of being like them), going to movies was wrong (for reasons I never understood). He did not talk about abortion, because it was not an issue then. He simply stated his beliefs, but he did not harangue the congregation about them and he did not try to impose his views on the community by writing them into law. He knew they were his beliefs. He believed it would be a better society if everyone followed his beliefs. But he respected the rights of others to believe differently. He respected our democracy and he respected the rights of others.

We seem to have lost that respect for others today and the abortion wars are a prime example. Fundamentalist Christians try to impose their view of right and wrong on those who believe differently than they do. Fundamentalist Muslims try to impose their views and their harsh Sharia law on other Muslims who believe differently than they believe. Fundamentalist Jews try to impose their views on Israeli society, much of which is secular and is not interested in religious rules.

Fundamentalists have become a danger to whatever society they are in because they attempt to subvert that society by imposing their religious views (which they mistakenly believe are ULTIMATE TRUTH) into laws that others have to follow. They make the mistake of assuming their own views are the only ones that matter. They believe they see things through the eyes of their god, which is not only arrogant but unacceptable in a modern pluralistic society. This attitude of disrespect and disregard for the values of others has to be opposed wherever it appears.

I take a nuanced stand on life issues. I am pro life, as much as anyone. I don’t think many people other than the morally depraved oppose life, so I don’t think that the “pro life” slogan used by anti-abortion advocates makes much sense.

I am generally against the death penalty because I don’t think society comes off very well if it thinks that the taking of human life is justified as revenge or to make an example, but I am willing to concede that there are circumstances, exceptional ones, that may justify the death penalty.

I am generally against war and armed conflict. I am not a pacifist. I think that some wars may be necessary in order to defend civilization and democracy. I think WW2 was justified, because it was a united front of western democracies against tyranny [both Nazi and Japanese Imperialism) that would have destroyed it. I think most wars are unnecessary, a waste of resources and manpower, and do not accomplish what their supporters promise.

I support the right of abortion. That does not mean that I agree that it is always the best solution to an individual circumstance. Often it is the choice as the lesser of evils. Over the past 40 years when the issue has come up in my extended family there was one time when I advised against it, and other times that I supported it as the best solution in particular circumstances.

It is because there are morally complex issues surrounding the question of abortion that the right of abortion must be maintained. Then people are free to choose in particular circumstances what is morally right for them. We do not need the morality police telling us as adults what is best for us.