I have been extremely hesitant to make any posts about Religion. Religion seems to be one of the most sensitive topics I could discuss, right along with politics and anything that could be perceived as negativity toward anyone that is friends with me on Facebook. I understand that part of writing blogs, news articles, magazine articles...whatever it may be...is to stir people up. Sure, they are great for giving information to the general public, but it's no secret that a story can be adjusted to reflect the writer's personal opinion without entirely stretching the truth. Think back to some of my previous blog entries. Several of my posts have been based on my opinion, and I've made it clear to everyone that's the case. With that in mind, I purposely avoided certain issues because I know too many people would get butt-hurt over it, and my main purpose for writing is to entertain you, not piss you off. The only other reasons are that this keeps me busy during my down time and I like getting my thoughts into writing (it makes it feel almost...significant). I feel the need to go against those instincts, but it's not without inspiration.
As I do almost every day, when I get home and have a chance to relax after a long work day, I look through the web to see sports scores and schedules, my email and then I skim through news stories to see if anything jumps out at me that I find interesting enough to read and possibly even write about. One small segway before I continue: I'm not oblivious to the fact that certain news media channels lean heavily toward one political party over another. I know that most of the news articles I have linked you to have come from CNN, which has been accused of Democratic bias. I don't care one bit whether they favor one side or the other, they tend to have the most stories that grab my attention. Why is that? Well CNN has also been accused of releasing stories that are borderline tabloid-worthy because of either their absurdity or their goal to simple draw readers in. You could say it worked on the likes of me, but only because I'm always in search of such buffoonery.
The story I found a few weeks ago is a perfect example of said ridiculousness, and I find that this is a perfect opportunity to present my side of the Religious issue. The article wasn't written by any regular CNN writer, but by some guy that wrote a blog about something that CNN found to be interesting/controversial enough to be posted for everyone to read. Alan Miller wrote an article called, "My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out", and I would love to take this time to personally pick his arguments apart. Here is the article for you to read, and please do, because I find it to be extremely relevant to my account.
Alright, from here, I'm hoping you've taken the time to read his take on this issue. First I want to talk about his style of writing. There is no masking the fact that he is looking to get his point across while, maybe not intimidating, but rather trying to impress people with his knowledge of the English language. I'm going to sound mighty full of myself here, but I have a pretty extensive vocabulary. Why is that? Mr. Beers, my English teacher for both the ninth and eleventh grades in high school, had weekly vocabulary quizzes of fifty to one hundred words. When you know you're going to be tested on your words every week, and that it would have a significant impact on your final grade, you made sure that you put a little extra attention on studying these definitions. I never failed any of these quizzes. Even if there was some other assignment he handed out that I did poorly on, those weekly exams were not the reason for my lower grade. With that said, I am also not oblivious to the use of a thesaurus. I do it myself from time to time, but it's normally because I don't want to repeat the same word throughout a blog post and sound incredibly redundant. Looking at this guy's article, it really seems like he was looking to improve upon every word that he could because he knew the average reader would have to look up a few of them to better understand the message he was conveying. I'm hardly impressed, sir. Sure, it's better than the alternative, being a blog written in broken English and slang that nobody could take seriously, but there's no reason to confuse people with big words while trying to keep them interested.
So if you can look past the tricky language, we'll move on to my next bit of irritation. The very first thing you see when you open the article is a strategically chosen photograph. If you want to really influence someone's point of view, one of the best ways is to provide a visual aid of what it is you are talking about. As you all know from my previous posts, I add photos and videos for pretty simple reasons. Either it's done to inform you of who or what I am talking about in case you are unfamiliar or unaware, or I do it to add to the humor that I truly enjoy adding to my writing. How does Mr. Miller go about using his picture of choice? Well, he tries to discredit anyone that claims they are "spiritual but not religious" by putting an out of shape, unkempt hippie with short dreadlocks praying by the ocean. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the author does not know the person in the photo. He's not a friend, an acquaintance, coworker, or even some guy he lives near that he sees on a somewhat regular basis. He doesn't know if this guy has any religious affiliation, if he doesn't claim one at all, or if he's having some drug-induced hallucination on the beach. Is it because he doesn't have a cross hanging from his neck, a bible in his hand, or some other element of worship in his possession? Mr. Miller is using this image purely on the assumption that this guy is a perfect example of a person who is "spiritual but not religious". Most people already have their own perception of the guy in this photo, mine being made perfectly clear by my hippie comment. Contrary to popular belief, that term does not always extend into the spiritual world, so to say that he is not a part of a religion is somewhat uninformed. He knows that there are a lot of people that will agree with his assessment because they not only sympathize with his words, but the photo just adds to his attempt to convince them. Little did he know, he didn't need to reach for their approval with that still form of propaganda. As I said, I already had my predisposition, but religion was certainly not involved.
The next thing I want to point out is really just an aggravation of what I feel is poor grammar. Yes, I've already made it known that I think his use of big words could have been dialed down a notch. How about his inconsistency in the "spiritual but not religious" phrasing? So far, each time I have typed that phrase out, I have been certain to put it in quotation marks because I know they are not my own words. Whether it belongs in quotes or not in perfect English context, I do not know. I am not an English wizard, wasn't an English major, and I never claimed to be either. I am humble enough to admit that I also didn't bother to research the perfectly appropriate usage of the phrase before typing this up. So if I'm telling you that, yet I'm calling him out for something in relation to his grammar, it must be pretty obvious. To me, it was, but I can understand if it took everyone a second glance to see what I mean. He uses the phrase "spiritual but not religious" eight times throughout the article, including the one in the title. He also uses "spiritual-but-not-religious" twice. His use of hyphens between the words usually imply he is using the phrase as an adjective to describe the noun that follows immediately after it. The two times with hyphens are followed by nouns, as prescribed. I guess he didn't realize that four of the eight non-hyphened mentions also precede nouns. In fact, both versions come before the word "outlook" in this article, and you would think one rule would apply to both. Once again, I am no expert, and it's just something I noticed, so forgive me for being picky.
He talks about how people have "drifted from formal institutions" rather than losing faith as a whole. Some of the reasons he presents are rather oversimplified if you ask me.
"It seems that just being a part of a religious institution is nowadays associated negatively, with everything from the Religious Right to child abuse, back to the Crusades and of course with terrorism today."Perhaps some of those elements are true, but from an outside perspective. Some peoples' opinions can be easily influenced by these examples of what negatively reflects on religion. These are only a few, though. He's completely forgetting the human element that exists on a person-to-person basis, as opposed to the widespread problems that he mentions. It's safe to say that hypocrisy exists everywhere, and it is far too common in religion. Without question, it is necessary to state that nobody is perfect. This includes all clergy and other religious figures, and does not exclude members of any particular institution. The ones that lead them, however, should be held to a higher standard, due to the fact that they represent said institution, and are "religious role models" so to speak. "Leading by example" is a familiar phrase that should ring loud and clear to these individuals. When you lose your trust in them, or you feel they never deserved that trust in the first place, that's something that I believe speaks more volumes than any of the examples he provided. Why? When you lose trust in someone you interact with on a regular basis, that's personal. Very few people who question their faith based on what religion it's associated with question it because of his list of reasons. It is highly unlikely that the "spiritual but not religious" people were personally effected by the Crusades. As for terrorism and child abuse, it's still few and far between (yet extremely unfortunate) to find people that are directly linked to either issue, so those issues I believe fall under the Religious Right concept, which is basically how some religious beliefs effect political stances. Feel free to browse any of the links listed within the link I provided, but I still fail to see how that is going to draw people away from their respective religion as opposed to strengthening their beliefs. So what would I know about personal issues with religion? I have a couple of true stories that I'll gladly share with you of my experiences in the not-so-distant past. Before I continue, I will also say that my life stories are exactly that: my own. Not everyone has faced or ever will face any of the things that you will soon read about. With that said, I know my situation is not the only one in history of someone losing their trust in a religious institution, enough to separate themselves from it. I just have considerably convincing reasons to tell you all about.
I grew up in a Lutheran household. I went to a Lutheran nursery, grade, middle and high school. Through all of those years, I was very active in the Church. I was an acolyte, I went to church every Sunday, I participated in many different youth activities hosted by our youth group. After a while and some stupid circumstances of kids being idiots, some events were no longer scheduled to occur, and some of the fun or interest in going was therefore lost. From my senior year of high school on, I became close friends with a youth minister of another Lutheran church in the area that I grew up. I was going to his church on such a regular basis, that it was as though I was his unpaid assistant. All of it was voluntary, and we organized a whole bunch of events that drew kids in without hesitation. They were fun, educational and last but certainly not least, they were charitable. Keeping kids interested in their faith and doing it in a manner they even saw as worth their time was what my friend excelled at, and I was happy to help him in any way. Then came a summer youth convention in Florida that thousands of youth from across the nation would eventually attend. The youth groups of the church I was a member of and the one I was devoting my spare time to were both going. I was at that awkward age of being older than the oldest youth, yet being "too young" to be a chaperone (somehow the age nineteen was left out of consideration for either title). If I went with my church, I would have been the oldest youth in a group of thirty-something kids, most of whom I didn't really know all that well. If I went with my friend's church, I would have been a chaperone in a group of approximately twelve people. To me, that was a clear choice, which was to help lead the group in which everyone knew me very well and knew I would do my part in keeping everything fun. This led to quite a bit of controversy, surprisingly enough.
In order to go with either church, fundraising was crucial. Both churches had their methods of raising money, and in the end, both were successful. My mother was a major help in funding my trip with my friend's church, yet she made the decision to attend a fundraising event for the other church as well, just because she could. It was a silent auction, and she was going back and forth on a bid for some item or service that went well over a hundred dollars before the auction closed. It was announced that the auction ended on that item, and my mother's name was the last on the list. The woman bidding against her then sent her kid up to the board to sign the mother's name on the board when everyone's attention was on another item up for bid. The winning bidder was announced as the other woman, and my mom approached this woman knowing full well what was done. Upon questioning her for doing so, the woman's only response was, "at least my kid is going with our church," making a few things perfectly clear. First, it was public knowledge within the congregation that I was going with another church to this event. Second, it was being held against me by people that I hardly even knew. Finally, it was being taken out on my mother, the one person who was not only willing to donate to my cause, but it was obvious she was willing to do the same for the church out of the goodness of her heart. This may not be a direct reflection of the leaders of the church, but as I said earlier, church members themselves are not excluded from those who should promote good Christian values, and singling someone out and punishing their mother for it is just pathetic. This was only the beginning, though.
I went to my church on multiple occasions about joining either of their two coed softball teams, and no matter who I spoke to, it was a complete runaround. I was directed to this guy, then he redirected me to that guy, and finally I gave up. If nobody could give me an honest answer whether it being they had no room or they just didn't want to fit me in, I had no reason to keep trying. I went to my friend's church and asked if they needed a player, to which he replied that they absolutely needed anyone they could get. I signed up and was ready to play, and a few games into the season, we were scheduled to face one of the teams from my church. As my friend and I were having a warm-up catch, the pastor/third baseman of my church approaches the youth leader, who previous to this altercation didn't even know the pastor personally, and gets right into his face, spouting out things about how I shouldn't be allowed to play because I'm not a member of the church I'm playing for, because I'm a non-roster member (not true), that I'm a ringer (again...not true...I'm not a bad player, but I'm certainly not a ringer), and that I should be benched for those reasons. It didn't help his case (as a pastor, no less) that he was dropping "damn" and "hell" in his arguments in a not-so-religious context, only to get into my face to tell me, "you know you could always come and play on one of our teams." Interestingly enough, the pastor was the first and last person I went to when I originally wanted to play for my church, yet he was very quick to change that story when he realized I could be a small factor in his team not winning. Seemed like a rather petty thing to concern yourself with, enough to use salty language and intimidation to make his point crystal clear. I knew then that the church I was once a member of was no longer the right place for me. I made the choice that I would no longer attend services there on any sort of regular basis. Because it was (and still is) my mom's church, if she wanted me to go for Christmas, I would. In the unfortunate circumstance of a funeral of a loved one, I wouldn't hesitate to attend. That's what it took to lose all trust in this particular pastor.
My father was a veteran of the Air Force during the Vietnam War who thankfully spent his time on American soil. He then spent nearly twenty years on the county police force before being diagnosed with a terminal illness. After a long battle, he passed away while I was in college. During the funeral, the pastor gave my father's eulogy, in which he went into a brief story about my mother, then my sister, and then the one about me. He began telling the congregation about a conversation that he and I had right after the attacks on 9/11. He said that I came to him acknowledging that the firemen, police and all of the responders on that day were heroes, yet I was asking him if my father would still be considered a hero for his efforts. Immediately, I couldn't believe what I was hearing, because I never had a conversation with him in any form of this nature. Not once had I ever come to him with any concerns remotely related to what he was talking about. I even gave him the benefit of the doubt at the time and thought real hard about that in case I just didn't remember it at that moment. To this day, there isn't even an inkling of a chance that it ever happened. I know my father was a hero, and I certainly didn't need his approval or certification to know that was the case. I never had a reason to ask him that, so there's no doubt in my mind that it never took place. I knew then that I could never trust this man again. It's downright frightening that a man in his position could stand at the altar and lie to the loved ones of the deceased man only a few feet away from him in order to make his eulogy sound that much more memorable. There aren't many people that know what was said that day was an absolute lie, so this post might be a bit of a shock to the system to a few members of my family, but it only adds to my arguments against Mr. Miller's claim. Strangely, I'm not finished.
After vowing not to go to that church again, at least as long as he was the head pastor, I spent the majority of my Sundays back home at my friend's church. To summarize a long story, the pastor and the youth minister weren't the most conservative-minded leaders, and a small group of the church members (that just happened to be the church committee) didn't like that. They made it obvious that they didn't want these men a part of their church anymore, no matter how great they were as leaders. They voted to freeze their salaries in order to drive them out because they were upset with all of the community outreach these men were doing. Eventually, it led to both men seeking and finding jobs elsewhere because it understandably wasn't worth the aggravation for them. For a church, community outreach is and should be a regular practice. In fact, the whole concept is centered around spreading whatever message that church is wanting to get out there. Isn't that what they want? Nope. They wanted to keep the church the way it was: a country club for the people in the church council. They were against letting new people in because they were afraid the average social status would diminish. They were elitist and did not want to be associated with anyone they considered to be of a lower class than themselves, so they cut it off at the source. That's when I knew for sure that church was no longer a place for me to spend any of my time.
As for my faith, well that has had its trials and tests over the years, but it actually makes sense to question your faith. If you don't strive for greater understanding, you will never be able to strengthen your faith. I believe mine gets stronger all the time because I am always looking for answers. What I can't comprehend is why I would need some man-made religious center of worship to validate my beliefs. In fact, some religions state that it is not against doctrine to pray or worship from home. Also, think about how many religions are actually out there. There was some number released that I wish I could find through research, but it stated that there are well over one thousand different established religions in the United States as we speak. It's fair to assume that each of these religions truly believes they are the correct one. In human logic, they can't all be right...am I right? I think the understanding is much greater than that, but I'd be going off on a whole new tangent. All I'm saying is that I believe I am well within my rights to call myself "spiritual but not religious."
Back to Mr. Miller's article, I will present another thing to consider. How are we (we being people that are "spiritual but not religious," of course) to feel about our stance on faith?
"The idea of sin has always been accompanied by the sense of what one could do to improve oneself and impact the world. Yet the spiritual-but-not-religious outlook sees the human as one that simply wants to experience 'nice things' and 'feel better.' There is little of transformation here and nothing that points to any kind of project that can inspire or transform us."Part of faith is having a level of security in your personal life. It's supposed to give you emotional and existential comfort. It provides some kind of direction in life when you might not otherwise have it. All of these things are "nice" and are meant to make you "feel better." How can this man argue that being "spiritual but not religious" is any different than established religions in that regard? Everyone wants to have "nice things" and "feel better," and a religious label has no bearing on that fact. Furthermore, who is he to say that people that don't devote themselves to one religion can't find something to "inspire or transform" them? Inspiration and transformation do not need to come through some religion to be considered legitimate. Faith is the important factor, not religion. Then there's the question as to whether or not atheists or agnostics can find inspiration or transformation. If he would argue they can't then it's amazing how short-sighted he really is.
My final thought is a question directed at Mr. Miller himself. What is your stance? Not once in that article of yours did you take a position yourself. We are only left to assume that your arguments against those who refuse to take a position on religion mean that you belong to a certain religion. Somehow, it never came up whether you do or not. Are you ashamed? Are you afraid somebody would call you out on being a member of a religion that isn't the most popular one, maybe questioning whether you believe that one religion is correct? It's amazing to have someone say that people like me are copping-out when you can't even own up to your own beliefs. You made the article public, so you should have no restraint in what you believe. You should have expected this sort of criticism from the beginning, and if you didn't, then you should have known it may not have been the best idea to have it published.
For now, that's what I've got to say on that issue. Sorry it took so long to write, and I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers of anyone close to me, but this guy made his arguments too generalized and left it wide open to my thoughts. I know I'm just one person who has experienced quite a bit that is far from the norm, but he struck a nerve. Thanks for reading, everyone. Take from it what you will.
D.
