Sunday, January 17, 2010

Another beer

This morning, I came across a surprising (to me) online ad for a big Saddleback College MLK event: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration: Exploring Social Action Through Religious Diversity

“Uh-oh,” I thought. “Religion meets the New Age meets PC.”

The college evidently produced a promotional blurb that appeared in Friday’s OC Reg:

Saddleback College to celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

There, we were told:
To commemorate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Saddleback College will host a celebration entitled "Exploring Social Action Through Religious Diversity" on Saturday….

Topics will include social justice, women's roles in reconciliation, social change, and church and state issues. The event is a joint effort of the Saddleback College Associated Student Government, Diversity Student Council, and participating community groups.
The “keynote presentation” involves “Members of the Southern California Committee for a Parliament of the World's Religions,” who will “discuss the 2009 conference in Melbourne, Australia.”

This is followed by panel discussions:
Workshop on the Parliament of World Religions
What My Worldview Means to Me
Social Justice and Action From Multiple Perspectives
Interpreting the Words ‘Separation of Church and State’
The Woman's Role in Conflict Resolution
The Sacred Art of Listening: Hearing With the Heart
Interfaith Café
The Pillars of Peace: “Stephen Fiske will outline the Ten Pillars of Peace, and through spoken word, music and participatory process, lead us to a deeper commitment to building bridges across our differences and to peace, both within ourselves and in the world.”
Then there’s a closing ceremony with Fiske and Reverend Richard Rose.

Yesterday, the Reg reported the event:

Saddleback event honors King's legacy and activism
The Rev. Mark Whitlock sat near the back of the room … as the mini-conference honoring Martin Luther King Jr., "Exploring Social Action Through Religious Diversity," got going.
. . .
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," Whitlock said to himself, quoting the words King wrote in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"….

Monday is Martin Luther King Jr. Day…. Whitlock and the church where he is the senior minister, Christ Our Redeemer AME in Irvine – the county's only large predominantly black church – organized the Saturday program as part of a weeklong series of events dedicated to King's contributions.

The event brought together a roomful of people of many races, ethnicities and religions – and non-religions…. Many of them, in speeches and in seven different panel discussions, talked about the elemental need for peace and understanding across cultures and national borders....
. . .
"We have the benefit of what King lived and died for, but there is injustice in south Los Angeles, …there is injustice in Haiti, with buildings that were not built well enough to sustain an earthquake," [Whitlock] said. "While we may benefit from a peaceful environment for the most part in Orange County, we must not be lulled into apathy or a feeling that we have no responsibility to those places. So this week is a wake-up call."

Richard Rose, who's an associate minister at Christ Our Redeemer and whom Whitlock placed in charge of organizing the Saddleback College event, said the interfaith movement inevitably lost momentum after King was murdered in Memphis in April 1968. Much of his work on other issues besides race has been overlooked. Before his death, King was becoming increasingly outspoken against the Vietnam War, and addressing issues of poverty. He went to Memphis to help striking garbage workers – an issue of economics, which is, after all, what King spoke most about in his August 1963 March on Washington speech, before he got to the famous "I have a dream" part....
I happened to refer to MLK’s famous “letter” in class last week, illustrating a tradition in understanding law and its basis or legitimacy. I assumed that most students had read the letter—they had—and so it’s a convenient reference.

I'm happy to talk about King's actions and philosophy. If you're gonna have a hero, he'll do, I suppose.

But I have always wondered about this “interfaith” business. It has always seemed to me that different religions tell different stories, identify different creators, different ultimate truths. No doubt one can make a case for a certain amount of overlap among traditions, but surely, after that area has been identified, there will be contested zones, and not just about nits neither, but about the crucial, the really real. —Beyond all the bullshit. (I realize that some faiths are exceptional in this regard.)

I figure that the interfaith crowd are all “bracketing” disagreement about ultimate truth so that it doesn’t interfere with the project at hand—like Rommel and Montgomery meeting for drinks to discuss how best to handle all those goddamn sandstorms and desert fleas.

I'm not sure this bracketing is such a good thing. If you fundamentally disagree with somebody, then you should say so. Start there.

Or are these Kumbayasters all assuming that, despite the differences among them, they're all finally looking into the abyss and seeing the same ultimate truth, the same impossible-too-get-at really real cosmic "it"?

Why on Earth would anybody assume something like that?

In grad school, I had a good friend who was a devout theist. After a while, I got the idea that he, along with others of his particular faith, supposed that non-believers are headed for eternal torment.

He knew I was a non-believer. I made no bones about it.

One day, I said: “So you think I’m headed for eternal damnation?”

“Well…”–he seemed uncomfortable, but not very—“that’s what the church teaches.”

“Do you believe that?”

“Yeah. I do.”

I looked hard at him: “Then how come you never try to convert Kathie ‘n’ me? Doncha care about us?”

He seemed amused. Then he shrugged. He had nothing to say.

He seemed OK with his picture of our differing fates.

He went off to the kitchen. He brought me another beer. He changed the subject.

Asshole.

Stephen Fiske (the "Ten Pillars of Peace" guy)









4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dead Man is the best.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry that you seem to have re-evaluated that old friendship and that friend. Too bad, I say, because I would like to preserve as many of my own friendships as possible.

Your friend may have misrepresented "what the church teaches." No less an authority than Joseph Ratzinger, in _Truth and Tolerance_, says that we are not in a position to know who is "headed for eternal damnation" and who is not. More hopefully, another authority, Bishop Sheen, taught that Christians are not required to believe that there is anyone in Hell, even if they must believe, as a doctrine of the Church, that Hell does exist.

Sheen and Ratzinger may not count as "authorities" for what you need to believe, of course, but they certainly are authorities on "what the church teaches."

As for me, I have the opposite fault of your old friend: I have been trying to influence you to adopt (re-adopt) belief in Jesus and the Christian faith for more than thirty years. My efforts have been clumsy, othewise deeply flawed, and (apparently-no wonder!) ineffective, but I hope that you know that I care about you, and have cared about you throughout these years. I hope that counts for something, as an expression of friendship-type love, and as an (imperfect) expression of good will (at least).

Anonymous said...

Dear 5:41,

I have not re-evaluated that friendship or friend. I was describing my reaction to him at the time, a reaction I suppose I still have. But I did not mean to imply that I "unfriended" him. I did not. (If anything has occurred that created distance between us, it was nothing to do with his curious religious convictions, which were unequivocal in this regard.)

BTW: he was not a Roman Catholic. He was some sort of Protestant as I recall.

When I called him an "asshole" (did I leave that in the final draft?), I did so with affection. This person was not (is not) a bad person at all. With this story, appended as it was to other things I was noting, I was drawing attention to difficulties and complexities I see in someone with such beliefs communing or discussing with those who do not share them. In part (but only in part), I was suggesting that there is something indirect and dishonest about much ecumenical and inter-faith activity and verbiage. I am suspicious of activities that seem to entail hiding or refusing to recognize the implications of one's actual beliefs. If someone thinks that I'm headed for hell, I do wish they would be upfront about it and treat me that way. Let's be clear!

BTW: I do not know who you are. You have given me a puzzle to solve.

Also: on this blog (and, in general, in other settings) I am among the least hostile to religion of the crowd of (mostly atheists and agnostics) that I tend to hang with. For instance, I am somewhat annoyed by Mr. Dawkins' assault on theists. It strikes me as unnecessary and counter-productive. (Is it unjust? Not sure. Probably.) -RB

Anonymous said...

Hey Great Blog. I submitted you to Reddit and Digg. If you want, you can check out my article here: World of Warcraft Mods You Need

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...