I recently wrote a post about the upheaval regarding the Muslim Cultural Center in New York. Despite the fact that the post was long and even, at times, inflammatory, it illustrated a point.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get around to making the point that I wanted to make.

I’m a writer, and in the world of the modern web, my long, essay-like style is sometimes inappropriate. When I sat down to write that post, the purpose was to illustrate a specific point about prejudice. I wanted to use the issue of the Muslim Cultural Center as an aid in illustrating that point. However, because I write in a lengthy style, it became, well, the point.

I still think that post is valid, but now I want to take the time to use that to return to my original point, which is a somewhat more subtle argument than saying “people who denounce the Muslim center are bigots.” This point is quite different than that. The point I really want to make is this:

You are a bigot.

Yes, you.

Prejudice is maybe not good, but it’s natural

Here’s the basic fact. We are humans, and whether you want to believe that we we are God’s Angels Version 2.0, spawn from a cow licking an ice cube, or actually a monkey’s uncle (or… nephew, rather), it all amounts to the same thing:

Human minds like their stupid little boxes.

Are you a human? Yes?

Then you have stupid little boxes…

and you will put other humans inside those stupid little boxes…

whether you like it or not.

Yes, you.

We need to categorize the world, we need to think in packages of information. It’s one reason that we still have this stupid concept of “race” even though race doesn’t actually exist.¹ We need to quickly be able to say “Ahh! Tiger! It’s gonna eat me!” and “Ahh, fruit tree, I’m hungry.”

We need to have ways to not say things like “Ahh! Fruit tree! It’s gonna eat me!”

So we lump all the fruit trees into “not gonna eat me” boxes, and we lump all the tigers into “probably gonna eat me” boxes.

This is A Good Thing™.

It helps us. We’ve survived and adapted as people partially because of this ability. The problem is that we sometimes see things like “poisonous fruit tree” or “small, tiger looking thing that really just wants to sit on my lap.” When we see these things, we have to adjust our boxes. Sometimes we adjust them, and sometimes we just say “Okay, not eating fruit anymore- it’s poison.”

Basically, sometimes, we leave things in boxes even when we shouldn’t– usually because we’re too afraid to take them out.

The boxes still exist, even if you lie about them

Here’s the fact. You are going to put everything into boxes. Full stop.

Let me say that again:

You are going to put everything into a box.

At least one box. It’s just a fact of being a human. You should be okay with that. You need to accept that. Because here’s another fact:

If you’re not okay with something– if you don’t accept that something is should exist– then you’re going to pretend that it doesn’t exist.

That is the problem.

The problem is saying things like “Boxes aren’t good, so I don’t use them,” or “other people have all these boxes, but they don’t need them.”

The problem is that it’s bullshit.

Here’s what you should be saying: “I have all these boxes, so I should probably be aware of them.”

I am a mixed bigot

It’s a subtle argument that I wanted to make. The argument is this: If we simply admit to the fact that yes, we are prejudiced, then maybe we can get somewhere.

I’m a mixed person. I come from what amounts to three different ethnic backgrounds. Because of this, I’ve heard white friends tell me, basically, that I’m lucky that I could never be prejudiced. Nice thing to say, the problem is that it’s wrong.

The older I get, the more I realize the possibility that I’m probably more prejudiced, not less. I’m in the lucky position that I can be prejudiced even about an ethnicity that I am! I’ve got prejudices about how Black folk act… and I’m Black! I’ve got all kinds of stupid ways to generalize white people… and I’m freakin’ white!

Mixed people have just as many, if not more, prejudices as “full-blooded” people.² I think the key to mixed people and prejudices is that we know we have them. I know I have prejudices, I have to think about them all the time. I also have to see the prejudices of others all the time.

I know prejudice exists, I know that I carry prejudices.

I’m just forced to manage my prejudices better.

Manage your prejudices, don’t pretend

Look, you have prejudices. You are a prejudiced person.

Yes, you.

Stop being some stupid, brainless, new age, everyone is the same, I’m colorblind hippie and admit it for pete’s sake. You take groups of people and put them into sweeping boxes that would do really well on the stage of Over-generalization Theater.

The great people in the world who seem like they don’t have prejudice are just the ones who manage their prejudices better. They are the ones who force themselves to think about things. They are the ones who make a conscious effort to question whether something they think is because of those prejudices that they know are present. They are the ones that know that treating all people equally is a hell of a lot harder than it looks, because they know that it mostly involves conquering your own fears.

They know they have prejudices, so they question themselves constantly about whether a thought might be just based on fear, or misunderstanding– a prejudice– and, being a prejudice, they try to remove it.

And they fail.

There’s a key point: They fail.

No-one removes all of their prejudices. No-one. But by acknowledging that they are there, by accepting the fact, and by trying to remove them, we can accept that failure. We can say something like “I know I have these prejudices, and I know I’m never going to get rid of them all, because I’m a human– but I can at least be aware of them… and I can try.”

We can even say something like “This is a prejudice that I can’t get over- I don’t know why, but that’s the truth.”

If we pretend that we don’t have prejudice, then we can’t accept failure. If we pretend they don’t exist then we have to find reasons– un-prejudiced reasons– for all of the prejudiced actions. We have to say things like “They should understand our pain,” or “They shouldn’t want that because they know it’s wrong.” If we pretend that we don’t have prejudices, we have to paint over all of our bigoted thoughts- but all we have to paint with is bullshit.

Not a really good paint.

We need to acknowledge that we have prejudices- we have to accept that it’s not only a possibility, but a reality. Then, accepting that, we can allow ourselves to question ourselves.

Embrace your inner bigot

Here’s the point. Here’s the subtle argument that I’ve spent two blog posts trying to illustrate:

Open bigotry is better than lies.

At least open bigotry is something that can be addressed directly.

You can never go face to face with a lie– especially when you’re lying to yourself.

And that’s the major problem, I think. We lie to ourselves about it– because we’re afraid that we are prejudiced. For so long, any kind of prejudice was immediately and irreversibly equated with the Aryan Nation or Nazi Hitler or the Black Panther movement- whatever. Much of the problem, I think, is caused by the fact that prejudice is such a negative thing in this country.

The very idea of prejudice is so hated and feared that everyone wants to pretend they don’t have any prejudices. I can’t tell you how many times I will talk to someone who justifies inherently racist comments by ensuring me that they are not prejudice but that <insert whatever bullshit, non-prejudiced reason here>.

They end up lying to me– or trying to– and worse, they end up lying to themselves.

I’d love it if my mother in law would just admit to being prejudice instead of saying things like “That Black family has every right to buy the house next door, but I just don’t think they’d be happy in this neighborhood.”

Faceless, lying bullshit.

Imagine her just admitting it. “I’m unsure and a little afraid because I don’t know how to relate to Black people, I hope I can get past that prejudice of mine.”

Everyone needs to embrace their inner bigot.

Yes, you.

Open it up to the world– at least admit it to yourself. Accept your prejudices and acknowledge them- don’t hide behind bullshit like some fucking coward.

You don’t want Muslims to build a community center in New York? Just admit that you don’t want Muslims there because– what? I don’t actually know.

It’s not until you admit that you have prejudice that you can a face it. You don’t have to change your mind, but at least be honest with yourself.

Until we accept prejudice and stop trying to remove it from the conversation, we won’t have any dialog.

Until we all acknowledge the fact that every one of us has prejudices, we’re just going to be lying to ourselves and to each other.

So embrace your inner bigot. Love your inner bigot. Look your inner bigot in the eye and say “I accept you.”

And then strangle the fucker with a piece of mental piano wire, cover his body with lime, and dump him in a goddamn storm sewer.

Because we don’t need any more of that shit than we already have.

1. here’s an interesting thought, there’s much more genetic variability within the people of central Africa than there is within all the other people of the world. Any given African will likely have more genetically in common with a European or an Asian than with another African. Race my ass.
2. a dubious term at best- who’s full blooded anything anymore? British hemophiliacs who are descended from The King?

I’ve been really angry lately because of the muslims trying to take over New York City, especially after they killed so many innocent Americans.

And there’s the key issue: this argument is completely stupid.

They attacked us

This is the major argument against the mosque. “They attacked us, and now they want to build a suicide bomber training camp right at ground zero.”¹

“If they had any sensitivity, they would understand that they shouldn’t build a mosque there because it would cause us more pain.”

Really? They? Who the hell are they?

Here’s an interesting thought:

We’re thinking about having a baby, and there’s a proposed site two blocks away from our house where a Catholic church might be built. Catholics, as far as I’m concerned, shouldn’t be here because I don’t want my child raped, and if they had any sensitivity, the Catholics would spare us that pain.

Or what about a proposed Christian church two blocks away from a park in Oklahoma City? Remember a certain US Army veteran and devout Christian named Timothy James McVeigh?

Nice guy, that one.

Do the actions of Timothy McVeigh stand as testament to the desires of Christians as a whole? Is he an acceptable ambassador to all Christians?

Or, is he just a crazy guy.

Over-generalization Theater

Interesting that if a guy is crazy and white, he’s just crazy, but if he’s crazy and not-white, then he’s pretty much proof that non-white people are crazy.

I guess I shouldn’t expect too much from the U.S., the home of Over-generalization Theater

Don’t you just love the news?

Sensitivity to our pain

The most common argument against the mosque is the whole “they should be sensitive to our pain” argument.

I call it bullshit.

Why would “we” have any more pain than “they” would? Why would “our” pain be any different. I could be way wrong on this, but my recollection is that the entire Muslim community didn’t make sure that there were no Muslims in the World Trade Center before they got together and decided to attack us.²

From my recollection, a number of Muslims were killed in that attack as well– and that number was likely one that was statistically accurate given the normalized Muslim population of New York and number who worked in those buildings.

In other words, plenty of “us” are, in fact, Muslim Americans (as opposed to, say, Irish Americans or– heaven forbid– German Americans!).

So, what about the pain of our fellow Americans?

Here’s a thought, maybe building an open spiritual center that welcomes dialog and understanding, that brings us together and makes us realize that we are not so different, is a good way to help ease pain.

Last time I checked, separating yourself from someone and learning about them only through sensationalized mis-representations of their evil desires was not a very useful way to grow closer to them.

The Quoran preaches murder!

Okay, here’s a thought. Stop watching Fox News and actually read the fucking thing.

I have.

Like any spiritual book, it provides a roadmap for how to get along in peace with other people.

Still, it’s a pretty weird read. There’s a lot of wacked out shit in that book that I just don’t understa–*cough*cough*The Bible*cough*cough*

Sorry, something in my throat…

Anyway, there is a bunch of stuff in there that could be construed as inciting violence and I’m sure that the religion as a whole even promotes conversion by–*cough*cough*Christianity*cough*cough*

Sorry, must be a frog…

Anyway, either you get my point, or– hey Fox News is on!

Who we are

It seems to me that it boils down to this: Keep those colored people out of our country.

Which is fairly ironic, because there are a bunch of Black and Latino people making the anti-mosque argument too. Maybe it’s this:

Keep those non-Christians out of our country!

Ahh, now we’re getting somewhere. We’ve come around to the beginning. Don’t build a mosque. A Christian church would be fine, though– whatever the situation.

A kind of lie

Here’s an interesting definition:

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. –Wikipedia

What interests me about this definition is that I wonder if it pertains to pretending to have beliefs that one does not actually have, but honestly thinks they do.

To wit: We, as Americans, are the holders of the torch of freedom, and as such, we welcome all people, of all creeds and colors, of all religions, accept them into our country as Americans, and treat them all equally.

We can’t make this statement and deny a mosque in New York, because it means a number of things. It means we don’t accept Muslims the way we do Christians. It means we don’t want “them” in our country, and if we do let them in, we want them to be separated from “us.” It means that “we” are, and will always be, vastly different and that “they” will never understand “our” pain.

It means we’re hypocrites, full stop.

We’re either lying to them or to ourselves

Look, I’ll accept it if you just openly state that you don’t like Muslims, that you don’t want them in our country, that you maybe even think they should leave.

I won’t agree with it, but I’ll accept that you have a right to that thought. That’s what America is. You have that right.

What’s harder to accept is trying to cover up that thought by draping it with a flag and saying that you accept them but that they should “honor our pain,” or some other bullshit statement that places you on a moral highground.

Either “they” are “us,” or they are not. Call a bigot a bigot and be done with it.

Either these Muslim Americans are Americans the same as Christian Americans, or we should openly admit that they are not and we want them to leave.³

Call a bigot a bigot and be done with it.

Or, maybe we’re lying to ourselves, and we actually believe all this bullshit.

We’re still lying, one way or another.

Truth, Honesty, and Hard Work

We’re not being honest with ourselves, because if we were, we’d admit that rational thought is hard work.

Here are two options:

• Option #1: There are good Muslims, there are bastard Muslims. There are Muslims who I’d hang out with, and there are Muslims who are bat-shit crazy. There are Muslims who are Southern Spanish and there are Muslims who are Chinese. Heck, there are even Muslims who want to kill other Muslims! It pretty much spans the gamut with them, just like it does with Christians, and I could never assume that one Muslim’s actions would be agreed upon by all Muslims in the world. So that means that every interaction I have with a Muslim is going to have to be based on them as an individual and I would be stupid and wrong to lump them together as one big “them.” In fact, it’d be just as stupid as saying something like “all White people are…” And it’d be equally racist.
• Option #2: All Muslims are the same.

One is a statement that means that you need to really work hard at thinking about everything that is said and even everything that you think, and the other is an option that means tha– Hey, Fox News is on!

There’s one thing that I respect about the Aryan Nation: At least they’re open about which side they are on. They come right out and say they want only White Christians in this country– they don’t give some bullshit reasons about “understanding our pain” and “wanting to accept people.” For them, it’s Option #2 all the way, and they come right out and say it.

But I have to make sure that I choose Option #1 when I think about them.

Otherwise I’m liable to think that every white person I ever meet is just bat-shit crazy.

1. Ahh, the temperance of Yahoo! Buzz readers
2. Of course, this is mostly because “the entire Muslim community” didn’t actually attack us, a group of crazies– who are not unlike certain white people that plan attacks on “us”– did
3. By the way, did I mention that a poll just announced that the number of people who think Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian has increased? Did I also mention the fact that such a poll would never be taken about a White president? Or that it just charges the whole Muslim v. Christian debate even further? What the fuck is this, the Crusades?

Alright, I tried, but I can’t let this one go. Apparently, someone wants to use The Last Airbender as a way to “explain the difference between Buddhist and Christian worldviews,” and specifically to discuss “how Christians should respond to Buddist philosophy.” (and by “respond” the article obviously means “reject” or even “condemn”)

The full article is: The Last Airbender: How Should Christians Respond to Buddhist Philosophy? It’s short and not particularly deep, so it’s easy enough to read real quick. Though I present most of the article here, it’s not in the original order, and so it’s best to read the source.

The Last Airbender is the newest movie directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Based on a popular Nickelodeon cartoon, the movie is filled with references to Buddhist philosophy. With the increasing popularity of Buddhism in America, what should be the Christian response?

First of all: Really? We’re going to enter a theological argument on the “response” to Buddhism by Christians (specifically Americans) based on the simplistic view of Buddhism that is presented in an action movie? There’s approximately the same amount of Buddhist philosophy presented in The Star Wars trilogy- which was a better show anyway, so why not use that?

It’s ignorant to assume that you can distill another worldview into such simplistic terms for argument unless you are going to accept that your own worldview can– and should– be so distilled. How would Christians feel if I responded to this argument with an argument on Christianity that was based on the Keanu Reeves movie Constantine? They’d say I was stupid. And I would be.

Furthermore, setting up a straw-man argument on Christianity vs. Buddhism is rather inane anyway, unless you are coming from it solely from the perspective of “How can we prove that Christianity is better than everything else” or the subtly different, and much more bigoted “how can we destroy everything else so that Christianity is all that remains.” In that case, no argument is necessary because you and Christianity have already won– simply because “everything else” is fundamentally flawed, or even evil.

But I’ll stop there, since it’s not really evident that this is a bigoted “destroy all people not like us” article.

Daniel King is a missionary who thinks he has an answer to this question. He has ministered in over fifty nations around the world and led over 1,000,000 people to Jesus, many of them Buddhists.

Oh, wait. I take that back. Yes it is.

He explains, “The basic problem that Buddha confronted was suffering. In The Last Airbender we see a young Buddhist monk attempt to deal with the suffering caused by an evil dictator. Jesus also encountered suffering, but His solution was completely different from Buddha.

The article continues to postulate the ways that Buddha dealt with suffering, and the ways that Jesus did, ending with the line:

Buddha dwelt [sic] with suffering by trying to deny its existence. Jesus dwelt [sic] with suffering by relieving it.

Honestly, this was what made me want to respond. Again, really?

If you’re actually postulating how a Buddhist, versus a Christian, would deal with suffering, which you indeed seem to be in that line, you have contradicted yourself. Saying The Buddha dealt with suffering “by trying to denying its existence” is a lazy strawman argument. Especially given your previous paragraphs:

Buddha was deeply impacted by the suffering he saw four thousand years ago. Buddha was born as a prince and raised in protected luxury until one day he saw a poor leper. This confrontation with reality shook him and he began searching for a solution to the problems of this world.

Buddha revealed the four noble truths of Buddhism. The first truth was “Life is Suffering.” The second noble truth Buddha articulated is that “This suffering is because of our desire.” The third truth of Buddha’s enlightenment is that “When desire is eliminated, suffering is eliminated.” Buddha’s fourth truth revealed the “Eight-Fold Path” to removing desire from your life.

How can you state that The Buddha’s first truth is that “life is suffering” and then state that he denies suffering’s existence? How can you state that “Buddha was deeply impacted by the suffering he saw” and then state that he dealt with it by trying to deny it’s existence?

Think.

Everything The Buddha taught was based on the very existence of suffering, but it was also fundamentally driven by the desire to find a reason for that suffering, the cause. Finding the reason for a thing, you are thereby able to address that cause so that the path to suffering needn’t be followed. That’s not denying it’s existence, and it’s rather lazy of you to suggest that it is simply to promote your apparent argument that Christianity is better.

However, Jesus dwelt with suffering in a different way. When Jesus saw a man who was crippled for thirty-eight years, Jesus healed him by saying, “Take up your bed and walk.” When Jesus found a dead twelve-year-old girl, he brought her back to life. When a blind man approached Jesus, He restored his sight. When five thousand men plus woman and children were hungry, Jesus multiplied five loaves of bread and two fishes to feed the entire crowd. Jesus performed many miracles to set people free from their suffering.

Regarding your support of the Christian path, you’re suggestion that Christianity is better because “Jesus dealt with suffering by relieving it” does not address your central question. You ask the question about Christians as a whole, but answer it by stating what Jesus did as an individual. Buddha tried to teach of a way for all people to avoid suffering. The only description you have of Jesus is one of miracles. Are you suggesting that the principles of Jesus are simply to “bring dead girls back to life?” Sadly, Jesus did not give everyone else the power to heal the lame, and to bring dead girls back to life.

Is your suggestion that Buddhism is an inferior spiritual tradition because Buddhists don’t have the ability (or desire) to “relieve” all suffering, and that Christians do, in fact, relieve all suffering? We’ve a bit of history to discuss on that front, unfortunately.

Your description of a Christian path of simply “relieving” suffering is not an answer to “how Christians respond to Buddhist philosophy.” In fact, you’ve not actually addressed that question at all. You’ve merely set up an easily argued position about why Buddhism is inferior to Christianity.

Sadly, I don’t even think the discussion has merit at all. Why should a Christian need to “respond” to Buddhism at all. They are two non-exclusive spiritual traditions, each trying to find peace, beauty, and even God in different- often overlapping- ways?

Is Christianity so weak and questionable that it would have suffered if you’d stated something like “Buddhism tries to teach that suffering is avoidable, Christianity tries to teach that suffering is relivable?” Why is it not possible to say that both traditions try to deal with suffering in different, though not mutually exclusive– and in not at all competing– ways.

What response need there be by Christians to Buddhists? Setting up a Christianity vs. Buddhism debate doesn’t build a place for each to learn from each other and live together in peace, it only builds a place for each to argue against each other’s search for spiritual meaning. It builds a place that houses only conflict and destruction.

I can’t believe that Jesus himself, with his focus on love and acceptance, would have have come at something from such an aggressive, if not outright bigoted, position.

According to Daniel King, the movie The Last Airbender provides believers with an opportunity to explain the difference between Buddhist and Christian worldviews.

This is the clincher. You’ve turned two incredibly ancient and complex spiritual traditions, one which you seem to hold dear, into silly soundbites for the sole purpose of creating a simplistic spiritual smackdown. Are you seven?

The final line should read:

According to Daniel King, the movie The Last Airbender provides a way to simplify both Buddhism and Christianity into inane soundbites so that Buddhism can be easily proven to be inferior to the more righteously sounding Christianity.

Buddhism, neither the religion nor the philosophy, doesn’t deserve such a stupid argument, and neither does Christianity. The entire discussion turns Christianity into a sophomoric debate topic, and I think it deserves better treatment than that.

I’m neither a Buddhist nor a Christian, so your argument merely annoys me. If I were a Buddhist, I assume it would simply amuse me. If I were a Christian, however, I’m pretty sure it would offend me.

As a child, I thought the movie Ben Hur was a story about how rockin’ cool it would be to row in a Roman ship, then become an awesome gladiator, and be able to kill people by running them over in a chariot!

Sure, there were boring parts to the movie where people talked to each other about weird political stuff, but mostly it was about throwing spears, riding horses, and killing people.

It’s a somewhat different movie when you watch it as an adult.

The first thing I noticed is that Ben Hur was actually subtitled “The Story Of The Christ,” which was a bit strange because it’s a story about Judah Ben Hur and his interaction with Rome through the Roman occupation of Judea. Jesus pops up once to give Judah a drink of water, and then reappears at the end, but that’s about it. At best, it seems like the subtitle should be “The Story of the Roman Occupation of Judea.”¹

Anyway, to the point:

I was pretty disappointed about the portrayal of Jesus in Ben Hur. In all, I felt the movie, and this type of portrayal in general, devalues Jesus both as a man and as a great prophet.²

Jesus was Black, Fool!

Firstly, Jesus was played in the movie by a blond white guy. You only saw the back of his head, but when you saw it you were like “whoa, did that dude just step off a Viking ship?”

Were we really so stuck on the “War of the Crusades, we can’t equate Jesus with those damn non-Europeans” view? Really people? They couldn’t have casted him as a dark, scraggly haired man from The Levant? Is it really so wrong to say that Jesus Christ probably looked a hell of a lot more like Saddam Hussein than like Tony Blair?³

Just once I want to see Jesus played by a Black guy. Like a full on, “big ass nosed, nappy haired, Nubian Prince dude” black guy.

“Lawrence Fishburn plays Jesus!” That would so rock!

Yeah, I know people would freak out, but if it’s okay to cast him as a blonde, white guy, aren’t we saying that it’s pretty much okay to cast him “any random thing that we are pretty much 99% certain he was not?”

There’s at least a strong history of Nubians in that area at the time, so whose to say Jesus wasn’t Black? There’s a hell of a lot greater chance that Jesus was Black than Blonde.

Value and Validity

Doesn’t this devalue the man? Doesn’t it send a message that equates to “Look, we’re just not going to accept that he wasn’t white, so we’re going to reshape him into what we want him to be, and that’s going to be white… like us?”

Sure, it’s all been said before, but it’s important to say it again because it also sends another message that you may have missed. That message, sent to everyone who is unfortunate enough to not look this way is this: Even if God himself looks like you, you still don’t look right.

It also sends the conflicted message that, basically “what he actually was is completely unimportant, except that it’s completely important.”⁴

Again, I’m likely misunderstanding the Christian viewpoint of this issue, and I acknowledge that I have a lot to learn about Christianity. It just seems that it would be so much more powerful to say “Jesus wasn’t at all anything like our dominant Western cultural idea of normal or beautiful. In fact, he was someone that our dominant culture would probably marginalize, but his message was so clear, so powerful and so True that we believe it anyway. The Message of Jesus is so important that I will follow him even though he looks like the images we see on TV of suspected terrorists.”

Now that would be powerful.

I firmly believe that the “H” in “Jesus H. Christ!” stands for “Hussein.”

Jesus… simplified

The other aspect of the portrayal that stymied me (and which incidentally proved that I will never understand) is the reaction of people to Jesus in the movie. People were awestruck simply by his presence, which I just don’t buy.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying he wasn’t a powerful figure. Everything that I’ve read about what Jesus actually said is beautiful– the Gospel of Thomas particularly touches me. I’m sure that I would love to be around him as a man and a teacher. That said, I’m also sure that if he simply walked past me down the street and I didn’t know who he was, I… well… wouldn’t know who he was.

In the movie, people who didn’t know anything about him instantly fell to their knees when they saw him walk by. Judah Ben Hur himself was blown away just by being next to him. I asked Jessica (a Catholic) about this and her voice noticeably quivered when she said “That is who Jesus was, just seeing him walk by changed your life.”

Really?

This sort of exemplifies why I will never understand, and could never be a Christian. Because, while I have no doubt that listening to the teachings of Jesus would likely touch me dearly, I just don’t buy the whole “just seeing him is enough” rubbish. I’m sure many would disagree with me when I say this, but I just respect the man too damn much for that.

It’s hard to explain, but if I were Jesus– trying to bring a deep, complex and difficult message to people– I’d get pretty damn grumpy if people ran around falling at their knees just seeing me. I’d start yelling “Stop freaking out you idiots and listen to me!”

Beauty in The Complexity Of Truth

By all accounts, Jesus had a pretty rockin’ great message, by all accounts he was an amazing person. It seems devaluing to allow ourselves to distill this entire person, message, god and all down into “just seeing him is enough.”

Spirituality, morality, politics, humanism. Everything I read about Jesus tells me that these were the topics he was wrestling with. Anyone wrestling with these topics would appreciate their complexity. Anyone wrestling with these topics would encourage argument and discussion. Such a person would not be happy with “just seeing me is enough,” if only because anyone who believed that wouldn’t have been worth talking to about complex issues like spirituality, morality, politics and humanism.

Religion is complex, spirituality is complex. Jesus had to be a complex man. I can’t believe otherwise.

I find it very easy to believe that the people of his time listened to Jesus, thought about what he said, and decided that his message touched them. I find it exceeding hard to believe that the people of this time saw Jesus walk by and suddenly decided to throw away their entire spiritual foundation without even hearing him speak.

People are more complex than that. I like to think that no-one would think so little of their religion that they would just toss it aside at the first sign of a hot blonde guy walking by. I want to believe that Jesus wouldn’t want people to so easily toss aside their religion just because he walked by.

Because really, wouldn’t it devalue him if all the people who followed his message were those that cared so little about messages and meanings that they’d toss aside such ancient truths so easily?

And Jesus Said: “Don’t Follow Me”

It comes down to this: I respect Jesus too damn much to become a Christian.

Seriously. He’s in my top 10 “Amazing people with whom I’d love to share a bottle of wine and talk all night” list.⁵ But I have to believe he’d actually want to talk, and not have me just fall to my knees and fawn.

I want to believe that Jesus would say something like “If you would follow me, then don’t follow me.”

Even better: I want to believe that Jesus would say something like “If you hear my message, and believe in these words, then I don’t ever want you to become a Christian.”

Sound crazy? Maybe to you. It’s a beautiful thought to me.

The Dalai Lama once said “Don’t study Buddhism to become a Buddhist, study Buddhism to become a better ‘whatever you already are’.”

I have to believe that Jesus thought the same thing.

I have to believe that Jesus didn’t say “you are evil unless you obey (select parts) of what I say.”

I have to believe that Jesus said “There are truths that transcend any one religion– that transcend even the concept of religion. There are truths which touch us all, together, as cousins, as humans, as the god that we are. Don’t follow me, don’t be a Christian. Honor your religion, honor your culture, honor your ancestors. Walk their path, not my path, and be the god that you are.”

If Jesus said that, I’d sure as hell be a Christian… and that’s a beautiful paradox, because if he said that, then I wouldn’t be a Christian.

That’s why I’ll never be a Christian.

1. Well, actually, there’s a “little boy” part of me that thinks it should be subtitled “The story of how rockin cool it would be to be to row in a Roman ship, then become an awesome gladiator and be able to kill people by running them over in a chariot!” but that’s a bit long for a subtitle, at least a subtitle that’s not on a loquacious Victorian novel.
2. It also seems to devalue him as a god figure to those who worship him, but that’s coming from someone who doesn’t, so I’m probably misunderstanding that part of the portrayal.
3. To be fair, pretty much everyone in Ben Hur was white– even the great Arab king. It was the early 60s, so unless you were playing a cook or a shoeshine boy, you were white. Hell, most of the Puerto Ricans in West Side Story were white too, so I guess that’s to be expected from a movie from that age, but it seems like we still have a long way to go.
4. Now the argument has been made to me by many Christians that what he was, the color of his skin and hair, was completely unimportant. It’s the message that Christ sent to us that is important. My Christian friends, I really want to believe you that this is the case, but it strikes me that if the color of Jesus’ skin and hair is truly unimportant, we wouldn’t be holding on to the Northern European image we have of him. It seems that the color of his skin and hair is actually pretty important to us in reality if we’re honest with ourselves.
5. Actually that’s a lie, I don’t have a list, it’s pretty much just Jesus that falls in that category. Maybe The Buddha too, but I’m fairly certain that I get what he was saying– there’s been a lot less fucking around with his message. I really want to drink with Jesus so I can figure out what’s true and what’s just Post-Roman religio-political bullshit.

A post from my friend Anne Key:

Today is the Spring Equinox, and we are at the height of the season, at Mid-Spring. The first half of Spring, from the beginning of February until today, has been a time of clearing out the dry leaves and twigs from last year and preparing the ground for this year’s sprouts. And now comes the surge of the robust and relentless energy of growth.

The growth energy of Spring breaks over me in waves. Each day a new set of daffodils unfold their brilliant yellow leaves, a bright reminder that the time is nigh. I find myself in these last few days rushing about gathering up bits of detritus, pieces I do not want to bring into this year’s growth. But that moment is quickly eclipsing, replaced with the keen surge of growth.

Today at the equinox we experience the brief moment of balance on the earth, when day and night are virtually equal. At this brief moment of balance, consider your direction, in a personal and global sense, both the individual you and the you that is one of the beautiful threads in the tapestry of our cosmos. Breathe in the revitalizing growth energy of Spring, nourishing your individual self. Then reach out and join in this moment of global balance, and breathe out your love and compassion.

And get ready to be swept into the heady and glorious flood of new life.

A bit about the Spring Equinox

The Spring Equinox is the height of Spring. Equinox means “balance”, and this is the point when the dark and light of the day are most at balance. On a global scale, the equinoxes are at the points of the year when the entire world is in balance, with both Southern and Northern hemispheres receive almost the same amount of light. The equinox has another important feature as well: it is the only point during the year that the Sun rises in exact east and sets in exact west. For while the Sun “stands still” at the solstices, the Sun moves very rapidly across the horizon at the equinoxes leaving only one day to calibrate to the directions (see http://www.archaeoastronomy.com/seasons.html for an animated demonstration of the Sun moving across the horizon). The Mid-Spring festival is also called Ostara (Germanic in origin). Astrologically, the Spring Equinox may be calculated as the date the Sun is at 0° Aries, which currently Falls around March 19-20. This is the beginning of the astrological year in the Tropical system.

Some Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door today. After a discussion that lasted nearly an hour, they told me that “this has been a fascinating conversation. Would it be okay for us to come back and learn more about what you’re saying.” I said certainly, but I know they won’t come back. They’ve said that before, and they never return. Probably because by the time they say “fascinating conversation,” they are starting to question their beliefs and see that it may be possible to believe more than one truth, rather than only “The Truth.”

Or, maybe it’s just because they see someone with a strong, unshakable, and well-rounded spirituality as a less than likely convert. Either way, about the time I start explaining what it means to be god, they bugger off to greener pastures. It’s a shame really. Because I truly believe that fundamentalist religious adherents could learn a great deal by believing in other religions.

Theological Nitwits

My father used to have a saying- at least he use to loudly say this after making people who came to his door disappeared, often in tears: “I will not have a theological discussion with nitwits!”

When he said that, it was a pronouncement, as if the entire world was looking at him and wondering why he would not play as expected. To be fair, I know a bit of why he would think that. For a Black Indian who told me that “Christianity is the White man’s religion,” it probably did seem like the whole world was wondering why we wouldn’t play as expected. I mean, Christianity is an evangelical religion, and many people around him were Christian, and thus many people around him would probably have liked it if he were Christian too.

Christianity == Truth

I know what my father felt because I have felt it too, even from members of my own family.  It’s as if the world is looking at you askance. Waiting for you to grow out of “a phase.” It’s the strong believe– no, the knowledge– that Christianity is The Way. It’s not even a choice between religions, it’s a choice between Christianity and, well, Hell, I guess.

But this is America. And America is a Christian land, and so you either are a Christian, or should be a Christian.

At issue is the often made a priori assumption that Christianity is The religion, and that if you are not Christian, it is because you either used to be Christian and have fallen, or you haven’t yet heard about this great thing called Christianity. It’s the belief that if you just start going to church, or going to church again, that you’ll see The Truth, and that you’ve been living a lie.

Oh, sure, there are The Jews- those wacky people who think Jesus was just some regular dude. Sure there are the Muslims who are just a bunch of weird people who don’t even understand– with or get along with– themselves. Sure, there are some people in Asia who paint elephants or have tea ceremonies and fall on swords. There’s all kinds of strange Oriental practices around the world.¹ But this is America. And America is a Christian land, and so you either are a Christian, or you should be a Christian.

Humanity, Truth & Choices

Never, (well, rarely) in this view, is there an appreciation that another religion is as true as Christianity. Because Christianity teaches The Truth, the duality of thought that is “Good” and “Bad.” Christianity is a “my way or the highway” religion that doesn’t have the spiritual or intellectual space for the honest truth of other ways.

Or, at least, that’s how my dad saw it. Honestly, that’s how I saw it too for a long time. More and more, however, I find that, there are individual Christians who see, appreciate, and respect that truth exists in many words, and The Word is one of them.

While a fundamental mandate of Christianity does seem to be “convert those heathen bastards into Christians,” I know an increasing number of Christians who don’t want to convert me– rather, they want to honestly learn about other ways. I know one Christian who studied Buddism– devoutly… for years– solely because, he said, it made him a better Christian.

Now that’s a cool thought!

My dad looked at all Christians as “theological nitwits” who did not have brains large enough to have any space for more than one truth, for more than a simplistic “good/bad” duality. I used to think that to, but somewhere in my early adulthood I started wanting to see people more positively, and with a more complex eye.

I mean, let’s be honest, calling all Christians “Stupid, simplistic people” is, well, pretty stupid and simplistic, isn’t it?

There are smart people and there are dumb people. There are people who make good choices and people who make bad choices. Then there are smart people who do dumb things and dumb people who do smart things.

Some of those dumb people make choices that I see as dumb because, well, I’m too dumb to know they’re actually smart.

But really, there are just people. Sure, there are people who make choices that I think are dumb. But some of those dumb choices I see as dumb simply because I don’t have all the facts– I don’t know what they know.

And, horrible thought, some of those dumb people make choices that I see as dumb because, well, I’m too dumb to know they’re actually smart.

At some point, I wanted to stop seeing the world as good vs. bad, or as Christian vs. smart. At some point, I started looking at the world simply as a series of choices and consequences. Christians made choices, some had positive consequences for themselves and/or the people around them, and some had negative consequences. That’s the same that can be said for any person, for any individual.

It’s hard to explain, but at some point, it became less a question of “religion” and more a question of “humanity.”

Theological Nitwits, Revisited

At some point, I wanted to stop having the knee-jerk, culturally-wounded reaction that all Christians were “Theological Nitwits.” I started engaging them in conversation, mostly on the concept of divinity, but often on the concepts of evangelism, cultural and spiritual respect, humanism, unity, etc.

For the most part, these conversations have not gone horribly badly. Honestly, there are not many that go very well, but there are enough to make me find many Christians who, rather than believing in the trappings of righteousness and Truth, believe in the fundamental spiritual core which all religions find valid. There are those who view Christianity as one interpretation of a spiritual truth, one in a beautiful field of many. Those are good Christians. Those are the ones I enjoy talking to. Those are the ones I want to learn about Jesus from.

When those kinds of Christians talk to me, they never try to convert. They talk about Jesus as a guy with a really good idea. He stops being some strange separated God figure and starts to be more a really cool guy who basically said things like “hey, try being kind to people for a change,” and “Uh, heaven ain’t ‘up there,’ it’s right here, so start living it, man.”

In those interactions, I start to see more of the universal spiritual core that we all have as a human family. Those interactions are the ones that I find the most culturally fullfilling.

Unto These Witnesses Of Jehovah

Some Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door today. After a discussion that lasted nearly an hour, they told me that “this has been a fascinating conversation. Would it be okay for us to come back and learn more about what you’re saying.” I said certainly, but I know they won’t come back. They’ve said that before, and they never return. Probably because by the time they say “fascinating conversation,” they are starting to question their beliefs and see that it may be possible to believe more than one truth, rather than only “The Truth.”

After they left, I started thinking about how much I write, and how much I have– but not  in recent years– written on the subject of spirituality and religion. More appropriately, on the subject of divinity and humanity.

I started writing a blog post that summarized our conversation. That became so long that I broke it up into a series of posts. But that wasn’t really right either.

So, I’ll introduce a category.

I’ve written on missing meditation- that’s about as spiritual as I’ve gotten so far. This is a new category about missing, and discussing, my spirituality. It’s about why I am not, and never will be Christian, but it’s not about “why Christianity sucks.” Honestly, the more I learn about Christianity by good, non-converty Christians, the more I really like the religion.²

I hope that, at least to some extent, it’s about what’s true in Christianity that is also true in other religions. Or what’s true for me that may also agree with The Truth of Christianity and the truth of Judaism and the truth of Ásatrú and the truth of…

And ye, unto these Jehovah’s Witnesses who never come back, I bestow this new category, for they whom shall never read the stupid thing anyway shall be written for! And ye, those who shall read the words, and think henceforth that I am a very silly person, they will have wastedeth their time with the bloggings of the wicked and the profane!

Or something like that.

1. we have missions to take care of that problem
2. I also learn more of the reasons why I will never be a Christian, but that’s alright with me. I love Buddhism too, but am not a Buddhist. Respect doesn’t need to mean conversion.