Doing Time

Religion is like an hourglass.

At the outset it’s difficult because the sand is trying to go up. Each grain of sand is an aspect of the person, and the person sees the narrow constriction in the middle as The Way Gods Wants Things. It’s nearly overwhelming seeing all your grains of sand and thinking of getting them through the constriction, especially knowing that some of them aren’t supposed to go through. And the fear is that if you leave enough of the grains behind you’ll not be the same person, you won’t have the interesting colors they bring. This is balanced against urgings by the church and the importance of your image to others; you must appear as if you want to leave behind the sinful grains.

Some people make the transition. For a few the constriction is relatively short. For most it is longer and more arduous. There is a struggle to leave behind things which are supposed to remain there but they are so darned attractive. Or compulsive. Or part of your arsenal of habit or defense. Some extend the constriction into the rest of their lives, settling for the struggle, never really believing that they will be free of sinfulness. They may go to church faithfully and give it all their effort but they never lay aside the sinful sand.

It is a shame that one’s view of the top half of the hourglass is restricted to that which can be seen through the constriction. It is a narrow aperture. If one does finally resolve to leave behind unneeded sand and comes through the constriction it turns out that one’s life begins expanding. One’s experiences, joys, and visions become far greater than could have been imagined. There is more space to spread out in, more time and energy and relaxation. It is far less of a struggle for three reasons: one has left behind the grains of sand that, it turns out, were hindrances in living well; the longer one toils the fewer grains there are to pull from the bottom of the glass; and one doesn’t need to struggle to get through a claustrophobic tunnel anymore. One has climbed out of the earth and into the air.

It is understandable if people don’t recognize – or have trouble really believing – that life eventually gets more free and expansive when their religion is at present constrictive. Perhaps we need a different type of religion to accommodate those who have made it to the top half of the glass, for although they have overcome strong difficulties through the constriction they are still imperfect and could use guidance to keep going up and up and up. No human has ever reached the top, at least alive. And we would do well to instruct those in the lower half of the glass or in the midst of the constriction that things get freer and more expansive. That way people in the constriction don’t get the idea that they’re at the top of the game, or that narrower and narrower constriction is the goal. One cannot chart a path if the destination is unknown.

I understand that the message is often given that there is joy in overcoming, yet it is confused when congregants are encouraged to remain spiritual infants (especially under the tutelage of a charismatic, self-styled master who preaches constriction), told that they are bad by nature, and are filled with fears of freedom because nobody teaches them what to do with it. I also understand that the ‘different type of religion’ could be ancient Eastern practices that assume you’ve already got things right with God and now go about improving habits of living and being for the rest of your life.

We recognize some humans who have lived in the top half of the glass: Gandhi, MLK, Jr, Schweitzer, Mother Teresa. There are those around us who seem to have an ease of living we don’t understand; they don’t have to berate themselves constantly to follow a strict path yet they seem to be good people. Although it hasn’t happened yet it is possible that a majority of people can attain this state, and when the hundredth monkey Gets It humankind will blow into a method of easier and principled living that would drop our jaws today.

Classic rock

The local classical station introduced a new Saturday evening lineup tonight. It consisted of two hours of 1960’s era rock and then an hour of hypnotic rock with screaming guitar. It grated on me.

Why is a classical station playing screaming rock? To cater to weekend partiers? To increase its listener base? To garner more subscriber support? Well, when they go outside the limits of ‘fine’ music they lose the support of people like me.

It got me to thinking. It’s sad that schools emphasize sports over music. Both involve teamwork, of course, but by denigrating concert bands we are losing something finer in life. We are losing the ability to learn and appreciate a language that connects us to other cultures and times.

Why don’t schools have rock bands? Because, despite what many rockers want to think, it’s easy to learn guitar, bass, and drums. Granted, the superstars develop it to a level that most people can’t imitate, but it’s nowhere near the ability that has to be developed over years learning to play a concert instrument.

What’s it worth to realize that the last phrase of a Bach invention, even in its strong structure coming out devastatingly maddening and flowingly beautiful, is nothing short of cool? What’s it worth to realize that a Chopin piece is a description of the last moments of life, much more descriptive than words could ever approach? What’s it worth that research supports the fact that harried music doesn’t really relax us – it merely reflects and adds to our insane pace -- and instead classical and easier jazz can? What’s it worth to understand an ancient language and tradition, adding depth and context to existence? What message do we give our youth when we show that an aspect of human excellence isn’t really that important? What do we accomplish by making brute force equivalent to fine achievement?

The denigration of fine music is pretty much the same as believing that liberalism is a bad thing. It reflects that one hasn’t taken the time to learn something higher and pretends that where they’re at is high enough, in extreme cases deceiving themselves into believing they’re at the highest level. It is, in plain terms, ignorance on parade. The further a culture descends into this condition the sillier it becomes. It settles for immaturity that can’t see beyond itself.

No, I expect a classical station to play fine music. Even if it means a smaller donor base.

Closer to Believing

It was a good pop lyric, “can’t live without you”. And so immature.

You see, when we get wrapped up in the hormonal myopia that makes us think life is over if we don’t have the love of the person we’ve zoomed in on, we’re missing a big point: we had a life before focusing on that person and were able to live just fine, thank you. And if our lives weren’t okay before that person, having them around won’t fix what needs fixing inside. Besides, what motivation is there for a healthy person hook up with someone who doesn’t have things worked out? ‘Can’t live without you’ also says that our own lives aren’t complete if it takes another person to fill it.

In a more mature person the big chunks of inner problems are dealt with. The person is a mind, heart, and spirit already formed and complete. They are attractive to the type of person they want to be with. A partner is no longer a necessity, and the jump is made from ‘need’ to ‘desire’. A partner isn’t needed to complete you; a partner is sought to complement you. They don’t fill what you are lacking; they add to what you already have. They don’t distract from personal failings or participate in them, and instead are by your side as you grow past them. And if the loved person is taken away for whatever reason, it will hurt and leave an emptiness but the mature person will go on with life.

When you give someone your heart you don’t give them your soul. You don’t give them your identity, your resources, your purpose. These all become shared, but your part is still owned by you.

We are told that God wants our love and adoration. If we refuse does God go into paroxysms of grief and want to commit suicide? Nope. God continues to offer love and all its benefits and goes on with matters of the universe. Although humans are far less perfect than God, are we not able to attain this level of maturity? Of course we can. Many people have.

It would be an interesting world if most people developed this maturity. Then we would sing that ‘I need me, you need you, we want us’ (Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Closer to Believing).

Disaster Memorial

"You may be right," my office mate said last Wednesday, "but it would be in poor taste to say it today."

It was the seventh anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. My observation was that as much as I've researched and learned since that time I can't help but to think that the buildings came down in a controlled demolition.

The easiest reference to start your own research would be to Google 'David Ray Griffin'. Be sure to read the government's counter-research for balance.

My own points:

• When the WTC was built I remember a comment made that they were built to withstand the impact of a commercial jetliner. My father was an engineer for a major airline, and that comment caught my attention.
• After the attacks Larry Silverstein, landlord of the WTC, said on a nationally-broadcast interview that a decision was made to 'pull' Building 7 after the attacks (even though it hadn't been damaged by airplanes or falling debris). 'Pull' is industry jargon for the controlled demolition of a building. But it takes weeks or months to plan, prepare, plant explosives, and execute a demolition. No word was given that any previous planning had gone into the demolition (and Silverstein also said that he authorized the NYFD to pull it; the fire department isn't in the demolition business). The demolition of Building 7 was planned and it is admitted that a controlled demolition happened at WTC that day. Silverstein made it sound like a decision made four or five hours before the building came down.
• Government explanations defy physics and common sense. The 9-11 Commission report ignores Building 7. It pretends that airplane fuel can melt steel enough to cause such a catastrophe (if it could melt metal so easily, engines would melt on a plane before it even got to the runway). The report also ignores the interior structure of WTC 1 and 2 that made them strong enough to withstand the airplanes' force.

I understand that it's a horrific thought, that it may have been an inside job. It would put our government on the level with the Nazis. It's like trying to think nuclear weapons all the way through, from the immediate to the long-lasting effects of a blast. Such things aren't supposed to be true of the United States. We're supposed to be superior, good people who lead the world. Our leaders, who would have devised and executed the plan if it was an inside job, were very open about their Christianity, and religious people aren't supposed to be capable of such hypocritical attrocities.

'Conspiracy theory' is what they call my thinking about 9-11. It will remain a theory until researched and proven or disproven. But it has been researched, and all independent research supports the 'conspiracy' so far. Perhaps it's time to apply 'conspiracy' to the official story instead.

Why can't our national leaders be horrific beasts? They've been exposed time after time after time for deceiving the public and secrecy. If they actually planned and carried out the 9-11 attacks what is the harm in holding them accountable? Are we too embarrassed to admit that we supported them, that we believed them? Do we feel guilty about it, like our promoting them to highest office made us in a way responsible for the deaths of our fellow citizens?

God knows the truth. And God knows we've all had the opportunity to search out the truth.

If it is the truth, why is it in poor taste to say it? I would think, for the sake of everyone who suffered loss on that day, that in the interest of justice and closure the truth should be spoken.

Sarah Palin Being Researched

In a brief moment watching TV before heading out for volunteer work this evening, I heard an evangelist proclaim the United States as "a Christian nation." While the major religion in our country is Christian, by constitution our nation does not sponsor Christianity or any religion. I don't know the evangelist's motivation to promote an untruth. Speaking an untruth in the name of God is disquieting.

Then a news headline came out this evening: Sarah Palin, Governer of Alaska and the nominated vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party, had been taped giving a speech where she proclaimed that the war in Iraq as "a task that is from God." She also asked audience members to pray for a $30 billion gas pipeline across Alaska because it was "God's will."

It's disquieting to confuse religion with politics. One begins to suspect that those who are after the Moslem extremists are themselves Christian extremists. Perhaps we could buy out a poverty-stricken third-world nation, move all its residents to better economic spots, and let all the religious extremists of the world go to the nation to fight it out between themselves and let the rest of us get on with the issues of growing forward.

A report on NPR today revealed that Ms. Palin, along with Senator McCain, opposes earmarks in federal legislation. It was also reported that while mayor of a town of 9,700 people just a few years ago she secured approximately $20 million in earmarks for the town. So which is it, Ms. Palin?

President Bush learned early on to cool references to 'another Father' because it disturbed too many citizens. Ms. Palin has yet to learn the lesson. But that's not as important as the underlying system of belief that prompts such statements, and that system got us into an illegal imperial holy war. Should she become vice president we could probably expect more of the current administration, no matter how much they are saying that it won't happen. If you can rationalize political will as being God's will, I suppose you can rationalize anything.