God in School

I wish I had a better title than the above for I do not believe it does this post justice.  Nothing better came to mind to kind of pull together the thoughts roaming around in my head.

Let's start with Miley Cyrus.  Not only did she grab attention at the VMA's, but the next thing you know, she is featured in a music video riding a giant wrecking ball naked (with hands strategically placed) seductively licking a sledge hammer.  I've read more than a few opinion pieces analyzing, criticizing, and supporting her behavior.  And I ask, "Is it surprising?"

Let's then move to Anthony Weiner.  I posted about a shouting match he had the other day with a fellow Jewish New Yorker.  New York voters soundly rejected him as a mayoral candidate particularly after he was found to be sexting even after losing his congressional seat for doing the same thing.  One of his sexting partners showed up at his election party.  After all was said and done, Weiner flipped the bird at reporters showing little contrition for anything he had done or was doing.  And I ask, "Is this surprising?"

We move now to violence and the horrendous murders we have seen taking place in the news--particularly those with a racial overtone.  I find it interesting how the different news networks have begun dealing with such matters after the George Zimmerman trial.  Suddenly, each time a black person harms or kills a white person, there is a racial overtone and vice-versa.  There seems to be a concerted effort to highlight violence that occurs between people of different color/race/ethnicity.  And I ask, "Is such violence surprising?"

Now, we head toward the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor.  I saw several stories in the past few days highlighting the fact that the wealthy keep getting more wealth while the poor remain in poverty.  The few are lording it over the many, and there are cries rising up about the injustice of it all.  But I ask, "Is it really surprising?"

I mean, I think all of these things have something in common.  There is a common thread that actually binds it all together.

Think about what we teach now in school regarding human beings and how they came into existence.  In our science classes we teach that man descended from apes.  Man is simply another animal who evolved--there is nothing special about him.  And how did that evolution occur?  Through natural selection and genetic mutation.  Now, we know we have little control over genetic mutation.  This happens when our genes fail to make exact replicas either by a mistake in the replication process or from some sort of mechanism including being affected by radiation from the sun.  It really doesn't matter--it's out of any control that we exert.

Ah, but natural selection--that's another story.  For natural selection is all about the survival of the fittest.  Death and disease wipes out the lesser and the weaker leaving the strong to thrive and survive.  Passing on one's genes means rising to the top of the food chain, striving to be the highest on the ladder to ensure survival of one's genetic lineage.  It means attracting the alpha of the opposite sex as well to ensure a good genetic bond.  And protecting one's genes from those considered lesser is paramount!  When a threat arises to challenge our status, it must be met and put down decisively.  This is the natural way of things.  Nature isn't some kind of Eden where everything gets along.  It's fight, flight, freeze, and reproduce to pass on one's genes and ensure the survival of the species.

Sure, we talk about tit for tat and kindness being a part of the evolutionary process.  We talk about how one species can be kind to ensure its survival--particularly if it's effective for a weaker beta male or female.  But this is merely descriptive--it is not proscriptive.

This what we teach in school.  Plain and simple.  And we offer no sort of corrective to this in our science classes at all.  Most high schools that I am aware of do not have the resources to offer philosophy or theology classes, and so most students are taught that this is what makes us tick--as the animals we have evolved to be.

And God forbid that we invoke any thought of a Creator in the educational process for that violates the separation of church and state.  That is establishing a religion, and we simply cannot have that. 

But we have no presented ourselves with a major conundrum.  For science isn't capable of getting us from what is to what ought.  And as a society, we have walked away from any sort of universal ought when it comes to morals and actions--in short we have walked away from any sort of religious foundations for morals and ethics.

And because of that, we are left with evolutionary thought guiding our behaviors and thoughts.  The very stuff we taught in school.  And it surprises me that many get so upset when people act like evolution has bred us to act:

When Miley Cyrus uses sexuality to make herself desirable and wealthy, she is simply using what nature gave her to climb the ladder and pass on her genes.

Anthony Weiner does the same thing from a male point of view.

Interracial violence mirrors what goes on in nature when different colors of fur cause species to attack one another from within.

Garnering more wealth is simply a way of garnering more power and prestige--rising to the top of the evolutionary ladder.

And even though kindness is shown in nature, there is nothing--nothing at all--there to take us from is to ought.  There is nothing which says kindness ought to be the rule instead of fight, flight, freeze, or reproduction. 

Only religion offers a foundation to take us from is to ought.  Only faith gives us a foundation to go against many of the evolutionary instincts which drive us. 

A failure to recognize this means we will simply keep teaching the same things and expecting different results.  Perhaps God does indeed need to be reintroduced in school--not as a means of forcing religion upon anyone, but by helping folks understand:

We are more than animals.

Hell of a Shouting Contest (Who Can Judge Me?)

Wow!

Anthony Weiner, of course, became the target of many when he sexted with numerous women.  It cost him his job in public office.  Yet, in a bit of hubris in my opinion, he decided to run for mayor of New York City.  Well and good.  To err is human.  To forgive is divine.  Well...  Um...  That is... Until it is found out that the sexting continued even after he was caught the first time.

Apparently, the guy in the video objected to Weiner's decision to remain in the public eye, and they stood toe to toe.

And this is what I found interesting:

The repeated mantra, "Who are you to judge me?  What makes you morally superior to me?  Are you my judge?  And you are perfect?  You know who judges me?  You want to think of me as your superior.  Where do you get the morality to judge me?  You are not my God."

Weiner and this guy going back and forth are Jewish, and it would be an intriguing question for them to sit down with a Rabbi and indeed hash this thing out.  But there is a bigger problem raised in this exchange:

What is the standard for morality within our nation?

I'll give you 30 seconds or so.

Found it yet?

That's because I think you won't.  I don't think you will find a moral standard which covers 100% of the folks in our nation.

This is one of the fall outs of the Post-modern world.  Essentially, one can do whatever one wants as long as it does not "harm" anyone--to one's best definition of the word harm.  Where this is exactly rooted as a particular philosophy in life, one must question for there are more than a few examples of where harming someone short term is actually a good thing in the long run.  Don't believe me: vaccines.  Short pain for the kids.  Long term protection.  But that is another issue.

What is at stake is how does one confront someone who has done something which the majority of people in society feel is wrong (sending nude pics and receiving nude pics from others when married)--when that person doesn't necessarily feel like he's done anything wrong?  How does one invoke morality and a standard of life when another doesn't hold that same standard?  How does one find some sort of moral high ground to point to when two people have such a vehement disagreement?

I mean, I could type this post out and fill it with all sorts of colorful language.  Some of you might call me on it and say, "As a pastor, you should not be using such language."

I could easily respond, "God judges me.  You don't.  I don't believe I am doing anything wrong."

"But society thinks it's wrong.  There are societal norms, and you are violating them."

"And society's norms are perfect?  We live in a perfect society?  What if their norms are wrong?  Like back in the early history of our nation when people of color were thought to be less than fully human?  Society dictates the norms?"

One can easily undermine any sort of argument just as Weiner does to this chap in the video.

Now, it is one thing to point to one's religious faith as a resource for such norms.  It is another to point to the U.S. Constitution.  It is another thing to point to case law interpreting that Constitution.  It is another thing to point out the interpretation of certain passages from the Bible.  All of these things are different!

Where is the agreed upon base, foundation, center?

We don't have one.

And until we get one, I believe we will see more shouting contests.