Transformation

I want to talk about a few things that are purely subjective, based on my own life experience. Not something factual, no articles or references I can really link to.

It's one of the things I always liked about philosophy (though I think Western philosophy has gotten a bit too hung up on semantics, and trying to define something exactly). See, most of it is something anyone can do. We all have life experience, which we can use to shape our opinions on all sorts of subjective topics. Like what it means to be human. Or what 'truth' and 'justice' really means.

So anyways.

Back in 2004 I deployed with the New York National Guard. There was a bit of culture shock, I'd say, coming as I do from a midwestern, middle class, white, strongly Catholic background. I've summed up the difference in a saying I learned there - "I got mine, how you do?"

It's this belief that you take care of yourself, and yours, first. That there isn't really any greater morality. That the things which annoyed me no end were just 'the way it was', and you would do the same thing if you were in their position.

This was vastly different from the way I was raised. Where I grew up hearing people decry the belief that morality was relative. That right or wrong depended on your point of view. Right was right, wrong was wrong, and just because 'everyone was doing it' didn't suddenly make it right or okay.

Truth, justice, and the American way.

I've talked before about the differences I noticed, particularly in decision making. I've worked in organizations that were fairly open and transparent about the decision-making process. Where at a staff meeting you might present a decision brief, showing the pros and cons of various courses of action... then debate them and see what the commander decided.

And then, there was the New York National Guard. Where the rules were never written, and you only learned them when you broke one. Where there was the 'internal reason', and an 'external reason', and you were never supposed to let outsiders know what that internal reason was.

Where I got asked to investigate something one of my superior officers heard about, a rumor that we were going to have to give up one of the buildings our unit was using. And I tracked down someone who had written up the orders, who said it was supposed to be there... but it was never published. And when I talked about it to my battalion commander, he claimed that this was proof the process worked. Because he knew someone (who probably knew someone) who got that bit taken out.

Not understanding that this was precisely my point. That a decision like that wasn't supposed to be about who knew who, and who had what connections, and who was able to pull one over on the other guy (all of whom happened to be, supposedly, on the same side. Though they sure didn't act that way sometimes.) That it was supposed to be about who needed the building, and whether that need outweighed ours, and about what the alternatives were and - if we did have to give up our building - what arrangements would be made for housing the people currently staying there.

I make that sound pretty negative, I suppose. I don't actually feel all that upset about it right now (though I had to deal with a lot of anger back then, cause that just wasn't the way it was supposed to be. And they just absolutely could not believe that it was any different anywhere else. That the midwest, for example, just made it look prettier... but the farmers lobbies and midwestern groups were just the same. Except, growing up in the midwest, I can tell you that it was never thought of or felt that way. I suppose, from one of my college courses, I would say that the people I knew all understood that you helped each other out when you could. Because you never knew when you might need a helping hand, in turn. You take care of each other, and do favors for each other, and you're not carrying some invisible tally of who owes who what.)

I learned a lot from it, and I don't really judge them for thinking the way they do. Or, perhaps I judge less now. It's a bit like the old 'pessimist vs. optimist' argument. It's a point of view, and it's almost impossible to persuade a pessimist to be an optimist, or vice versa. If I had grown up there, experienced life the way they had, I'd probably think that was 'the real world', too.

I came to believe professionalism mattered, though. Always, but especially when you dislike the other person. Because unprofessional behavior (i.e. 'losing' the promotion or award paperwork of someone you dislike) exacerbates the political crap, and takes the decision of who gets promoted or awarded out of the hands of the person it's supposed to be in. Yes, the process is not always fair or just... but people playing games like that doesn't make it more fair or just. It generally does the opposite. (And you should fight for systemic reform if it bothers you that much).

Oh, and it also seemed like decisions were never final, because it just meant whoever was pursuing their goal would just try to find another way. The bickering and infighting just never ends, really.

And, again, some of that really is true of everywhere. I don't care what nation or company or organization you are talking about, every time you get a large group of people together there are tensions and factions and things people disagree on. Learning how to manage that and work with that is pretty important.

But... there are ways, and there are ways, of doing so. Some ways exacerbate the infighting, some push it underground but don't really resolve it, and some succeed at getting most everyone else on board.

That's all background for what I wanted to go into next. Which, coming from that strong Catholic background (which has shaped and influenced me regardless of what my current beliefs are), I find the Bible fascinating... for a variety of reasons.

I hadn't really put this into words before, so some of this is more retrospective than my thinking at the time, but I started pondering how you could transform an organization from one to the other.

Or rather, learning how to be cynical and out for yourself is easy. Too easy. And as people see others 'succeed' by acting that way, they tend to start acting that way themselves. (Like my earlier post about driving).

But what about transforming an organization the other way? After all, those of us in the midwest came by our beliefs somehow. Just as valuing logic and rationality, truth, justice, transparency... all of these came from somewhere.

And when I read up on the Bible, it seemed to me like a lot of it is about exactly that. (and, presumably, other large religions as well... though I am not as familiar with them and don't make any claims to speak for them. Really, I can't even speak for my own, but I can speak of my own experiences/understanding.) The 'west', even as many have fallen away from the church and religion, had been transformed by centuries of christian domination, to the point where you can have pretty much the same moral compass without believing in God at all. (I knew a lady, as a child, who was married to an atheist. And she said once that her husband was more ethical than many Christians. And as Penn Jillette said, he does murder all he wants, and the amount he wants is zero.)

But the world wasn't always like that. Heck, even christendom wasn't. Early priests were out there sinning and marrying and having children in a way that would be shocking now (though for Protestants who allow their religious leaders to marry and divorce that's not really an issue.) Heck, early popes may have had sex after taking orders, and had children outside of marriage.

I think about my undergrad class, and how it talked about a culture where it was considered perfectly acceptable to cheat strangers and foreigners. So long as you were played it straight with you and yours.

And a large part of the New Testament is Jesus trying to teach his disciples... who were people like us, and more concerned with an earthly kingdom, and seemed to think they'd gain worldly power by following Jesus, and only really started changing after Jesus's death. On the cross, like a criminal.

By all rights, that should have been the end of it. The fact that it wasn't is mysterious, in the religious sense of the word.

It goes against the grain of our fallible, mortal world. Goes against a world where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Where the powerful crush the weak, and all the weak can do is suffer and die.

People wanted to believe that the world didn't have to be like that. That they could build the 'kingdom of heaven'. Because even though some people make their peace and accept a world where "I got mine, how you do"... and even though some people learn how to play that game themselves, and perhaps even take pride in 'winning'... most people find it a horrible, miserable, sucky world to be in.

Sure, you might be on the top. Some of the time. Right up until someone else comes along who is smarter, or stronger, or more willing to get their hands dirty. Or maybe you're lucky enough not to have that happen... but then you grow old, and weaker, and someone younger an more energetic comes along.

A dog eat dog world just plain sucks.

And so we have religions, that offer up an alternative. A way of transforming that dynamic into one that is... well, maybe not a utopia, but still a heckuva lot better for most.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Take care of the strangers in your midst.

Be truthful.

Be just. Merciful. Compassionate.

Turn the other cheek.

And have faith, believe in it enough to keep doing it. Even when the world seems to tell you that doing so makes you weak and vulnerable. Perhaps especially when you think it makes you weak and vulnerable.

Oh, over the centuries, as early Christians started to realize they were in for the long haul (many had expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes), they started talking more about doing these things for the later reward in heaven.

But much of it was also about creating a better society here, on earth. Because when a majority of the people believe in living this way, it's like the allegory of the long spoons.

Giving in to fear, and anger... going all Sith on the world... that pretty much does make hell on earth.

And, well. Some people can be persuaded by logic, and rational thinking. As I said above, we came to value these things for a reason.

But most people are more emotional than that. So I think, if you want to make that sort of transformation, you have to engage the heart.

Posting For Future Reference

My aunt shared this on Facebook -

https://www.umnews.org/en/news/bishop-gay-daughter-sent-him-back-to-scriptures

And it fit with some thoughts I may or may not post about in the future, so I figured I'd share it here. 

The Good News and Some Thoughts On Current Events

Had a couple of things I thought about writing here. This article, from a conservative perspective, brought up quite a few thoughts on my end...

But now that it's time to post, I'm just not feeling it.

It just feels like... I dunno. Like there are forces at work that are determined to take us down the worst path, and they don't want to listen. Nobody wants to hear it.

So I'll write about the other thing.

Anyone who has been reading my blog has probably picked up on my interest in history (among many others, but those are less relevant to this post.) It's interesting to try and imagine what life was really like in the past, because we have a tendency to project onto it our own experiences... so it's hard to really understand what life was really like back then. Like Rome - most of us know Roman myths and legends, but our understanding is not the same. Romans apparently took their religion seriously, were devout in their own way, and it's hard for us to think about their beliefs that way. To us, legends of Jupiter, Minerva, and the like (more commonly, to me at least, known by their Greek counterparts Zeus and Athena) are more like folktales. Myths and legends. Ancient stories that have been passed down for centuries, but not beings that we believe in.

I never claim to be an expert, of course, but I filter various things I've read through my own understanding of people, and one of the things that has struck me is... how do I put it?

In the Old Testament, Abraham (or Abram at the time) asked his wife Sara (later Sarah) to say she was his sister in order to avoid trouble.

Think about that. Think about a world where someone was likely to murder you in order to take your wife. A threat that was commonplace enough that Abraham expected it and came up with a plan to avoid it. (A plan that involved letting a powerful man claim his wife for his own.)

It reminds me of all the strategizing and calculating that we think we need to do in order to make it in this imperfect world. Machiavellianism. Realpolitik. The attitude that "I got mine, how you do?" and "If you were in their position, you'd do it too."

So for Christians, Jesus came and overturned all that. He said that "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first."

He didn't succeed in a conventional and worldly way. He didn't make himself rich, or overthrow Roman rule and become a worldly King of the Jews (though apparently that's what some of his followers at the time expected, and our religion was shaped by some of the reconciliation we went through when it didn't happen).

He died like a criminal. Crucified on a cross.

And then you get the resurrection... and suddenly his disciples (who had mostly seemed interested in that worldly success, and kept missing the point of his sermons; who just a few days earlier had all fled, with Peter denying Jesus three times... ) were going around spreading the Good News.

From a historical perspective, there's no real evidence of what happened back then. It does make me think, though, of Napolean alleged quote that -

I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me . . . but to do this is was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lightened up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. . . . Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. 

Something mysterious happened, something that turned ordinary men and women into apostles willing to risk their lives... and their message was welcomed, was greeted joyously....

And I know all the Christian ways of saying what that message was, but I think at the heart of it was this:

Nice guys don't finish last.

Okay, that's the catchy way of summarizing it, drawing on the rather familiar saying that "Nice guys finish last", and it's meant to be far more inclusive than that.

And perhaps 'heart' isn't the right word, since the commandments Jesus said were most important were

Thou shalt love thy Lord, thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind

And

 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

But important though that is, it's not the part that made people go crazy for the story. (I mentioned early Christianity and fanfiction, and if you want a sense of that... look up the stories that never made it into the Bible. People were sharing and telling Jesus stories like crazy, though only a few were accepted into the Bible.)

So yes, we should all strive to love our neighbors as ourselves (and heal the sick, and hang out with prostitutes and tax collectors. You know, like Jesus did.)

But we're supposed to remember to be good people, to strive for that... and when the real world rears it's ugly head, when it seems like we just have to do wrong in order to survive - to practice realpolitick, or do whatever it is we're trying to justify because 'those evil _____ are winning and we have to do this  or all is lost' we're supposed to remember that Jesus won despite 'losing' and dying like a criminal.

We're supposed to have faith, and resist worldly temptation.


Which is why I find the current state of affairs so horrifying, as the article I linked to above touches on.

When you think the battle "must be fought by any means necessary", when they are willing to overlook all the signs that someone isn't a good Christian because they think that's what it takes to win...

They've pretty much missed the entire point of the Book they claim to revere.

Faith, Addendum

I wanted to add something to my last post about the LGBTIA community.

This kind of goes back to a basic question about the Bible - that is, do you take it literally or do you believe it is inspired by God but written by fallible humans?  Assuming you believe in God in the first place, of course.

My personal belief is that it was written by fallible humans.  Some of that is purely subjective, and some if it is tied to a couple of other things (i.e. it's translated from another language into English, and written thousands of years prior to now.  Which means we miss quite a bit of context, and the King James version is not necessarily an accurate translation of that context. Also - strictly accurate history is a recent phenomena.  I believe back when it was written people were looking more for a Truth, which may not actually be the truth.  You can say "God created the world" and make a story about how it was done in seven days, without necessarily feeling like it had to literally mean it was created in seven days.)

So there are Christians who honestly believe the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and others who believe fervently that it does.  I know where I stand on that issue, though I see where others get a different idea.

I think viewing it my way leads to a richer and deeper understanding, but people differ.  The thing I wanted to point out is mainly this.

I will not presume to say how God judges us.  I might be wrong, others might be wrong, the only way we'll know for sure is if/when the time comes.  What I do believe is that when people who have been beaten, ostracized, and otherwise condemned for who they are say that they do not feel like they are being true to themselves for that, then it doesn't sound like something they've chosen lightly, or on a whim.  That maybe, most likely, probably, it is something they truly feel is who they are if they are to be true to that inner voice.  The one that pushes us to be most fully ourselves.

And if that's the case, it behooves us to listen.

I don't really understand where all the fuss is over this issue.  I don't care what shape someone's genitals are  under their clothes, or how they choose to dress.  Not unless they are trying to date me or something. 

If you think it's a sin, okay.  I get where some people think that.  So don't do it yourself.  I do think you can share your views and speak them (though some may not want to hear it)...but you do not have the right to try and force them to ignore what their inner voice is telling them.  More than that, if you consider yourself a Christian you should still treat people you consider sinners with mercy and compassion.

Overall, I find this need to refuse service (whether it's cakes or marriage licenses) less a sign of faith and more a sign that you feel free to take on God's role in judging others, along with a complete disrespect for and refusal to listen when people tell you something is essential to who they are.  It seems a far cry from Jesus hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors.

Fear, Faith, and the Self-Evident Truth That All Men Are Created Equal

I started to write something about the fears underlying our current political climate, but realized I have to step back and offer some thoughts from my own personal background.

These, for better or worse, were formed during my younger days...where I spent a rather large amount of time attending Catholic schools.  It's not meant to challenge anyone else's current beliefs so much as identify concepts I grew up with.

The word 'catholic' means universal.  I always thought there was something important about that, not in terms of the power the early Catholic church held, so much as that it's meant to say this is a religion that is for everybody.  Universally.  It in inclusive, inviting, all-embracing, of general interest, with liberal and wide sympathies.

They always talked about how Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors (i.e. the worst of the worst in his time.  Tax collectors probably being similar to a loan shark of today.)  He invited all to come to his table

Inclusiveness, to me, seems to come from God.  Exclusiveness is a sign of man's ego.  That is, 'exclusive' appeals are the ones that make you feel singled out and special.  Ads 'only for those with a discerning eye'.  Flattery.  Scientology.  Secret societies.  These are all things that appeal to us because they make us feel special.  Select.  Elite.  Unique.  Apart from (and better than) the average imperfect person.

Inclusiveness says all are welcome at our table.  The homeless, the poor, the crippled and blind.  After all, whatever you do to the least of us you are doing to Jesus.

Universal.  Welcoming to everyone.  There's something about that which seems to call us to be better people.  Our better selves.  And it's a bit of a mystery how we all have an intrinsic worth, intrinsic potential, no matter how rich or poor we are.

It's a calling to create a society where everyone can live to their full potential.  Which is a bit of a mystery, and goes against what we see in everyday society.  How can that bum sleeping on a bench be as worthy as that CEO with six houses and twenty cars?  How can we all be special, in a way that doesn't make it irrelevant to the point that nobody is special?  It's kind of a mystery, in the first sense of the word.

Still, this is a mystery that was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, that "self-evident" truth that all men are created equal.  Even CEOs and homeless people.

What's so sad and strange and twisted about human nature is that we can take a concept like that, and still turn it into an exclusive way of life.  "Our" people are deserving of mercy and compassion, but those others must be stricken off the face of the earth.  Like the Pharisees called out in Matthew 23 (different translations here and here), we find a way to show off our faith, try to look beautiful on the outside while inside we neglect things like justice, mercy and faithfulness.  (This is part of why I find the so-called 'christian' conservatives who back Trump a rather poor example of the faith.  He is not exactly a paragon of justice, mercy and faithfulness.  Those who support him seem more concerned with publicly showing off their faith and condemning/judging anyone they consider sinners than with truly living a Christian life.)

What's even more interesting is the psychological impact of inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness.  In Matthew 19:8 Jesus said "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

I found this concept of hardened hearts rather fascinating, partly because if ground has hardened, hitting them with something generally just compacts it even further together.  In the same way, verbally telling people "you are wrong",  "you should X" or "you should Y" is more likely to just harden people even more.  They'll be even more determined to cling to their view, if only to prove you wrong.

Inclusiveness, however, softens the ground.  It means people don't feel they have to cling to an particular idea or way of being in order to resist that outside pressure...which in turn can make it easier to really evaluate what's best for yourself.  (Yes, some people can do this even with outside pressure...but most people tend to react to a perceived attack by getting more defensive and holding on even harder to whatever they're being attacked on.)

That's part of why the Christian organizations that stop being preachy/judgemental and really engage with people's lives seem to have far more of an impact than passing legislation condemning a particular act. 

In some ways, this desire to pass laws enforcing religious values seems more like a value-signaling method to publicly announce how 'christian' you are (like the Pharisees above) rather than a sincere effort to engage with people and their lives...and in the process, it just hardens hearts and makes it even less likely anyone will hear that little inner voice that you could say is God speaking to you.  Or your higher self.  Whichever concept is most convenient.

In many ways, I want to see who people choose to be when they are truly free to.  When they don't feel outside pressures trying to make them be this or that.  When they've had the chance to make mistakes, and screw up, (like the Prodigal Son) and explore this or that. 

I suspect that, when unpressured, most people will be driven by that inner voice to be something better.  Sure, sometimes we'll be like little kids who eat too much candy.  Our stomachs may hurt, and we may regret it later. 

Lesson learned.

What seems to drive this desire to force people to be religious is fear.  Fear that, if we didn't, they would never realize something was undesirable on their own.  To use the candy analogy above, it's fear that the kid will decide to eat candy for the rest of their life. 

Except I kind of suspect God rigs the game in His favor.  That is, if left alone the kid eating candy will probably begin to feel it unsatisfying.  (FYI: This analogy is not meant to actually apply to dietary habits!)  And eventually the kid will get sick of candy and start searching for something else, until eventually the kid discovers the satisfaction of eating an apple.  Or somesuch. 

Whereas if you come in saying "you can't have all that candy!!!  Stop eating candy! Here, eat this apple, you'll like it better!") the kid will probably resent being told what to do, decide s/he hates apples, and secretly - or not-so-secretly - keep choosing candy instead.  It's not even about the candy, so much as it is about rebelling against your attempt to tell them what to eat.  You might even be right, but they'll stubbornly refuse to admit it.

In many ways, I think these attempts to force religion on people are actually a sign that you lack faith.  You lack faith that people will realize God's will on their own, and think they will only do what He wants (or what you believe He wants) if you force them to eat apples.

Counter-Terrorism, ISIS, Paris, Etc.

I am ashamed and horrified at the news these days.  It seems to me that it is the easiest thing in the world to capitalize on fear, to give in to the pressures of the day.  Like all these governors claiming they will reject Syrian refugees.  Like the facebook posts arguing we should close our hearts and homes, give in to the fear that they're all somehow terrorists.

This bothers me, for two reasons.  First - because I know Muslims are a group like any other.  That is, I (as a rather lapsed Catholic) am very different from a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, even though we all might nominally be called Christian. So even though there are some jihadists mixed in with the community, I know that the vast majority are people just like you and me.  People who want to live in peace, and security.  People who are refugees because they are NOT terrorists.

Second.  Well, the second reason gets more at the mystery at the heart of human nature.  It's easier to explain with a story:

A facility had tools go missing, so the manager decided to put all the tools in a room with a chain and a padlock, so only he or his designated people could get to the tools.  His CEO came to visit and heard about this.  The next day, he dropped the chain and the padlock (which had been cut through with bolt cutters) on the manager's desk. 

I think the appeal here is immediately obvious.  There might have been one person in the entire plant stealing tools, but locking them up made it seem like everyone was untrustworthy.  Who wouldn't want to work for a CEO who made it clear he trusted his people, even at the risk of losing some tools? 

At the same time, if you were the manager whose tools were missing, what would you do?  Or rather - what would you have done differently?  (This rings especially true for me, because we recently bought a cage to store some of the equipment at work.  Not saying they were stolen, precisely.  Its more like people on a shift who knew they had a 'good' one might happen to leave it in their locker or put it somewhere hard to find so that they could easily use the same one the next day.  I personally would have preferred to spend the money to buy everyone their own, and have them sign for it and be accountable for it...but I digress.)

The point here is that sometimes we make choices that sound good at the time.  That are clearly a reaction to a specific situation, and seem like the best/easiest response to that situation.  But in the long run?  You've got employees who know they aren't trusted.  That fuzzy thing called morale drops.  The more you try to control, the more resentful people get, the more morale drops...the less people want to work there. 

So some terrorists, who happen to be Muslim, are committing  horrific attacks.  Part of the strategy of terrorism is to do that...to provoke an overreaction, one that feeds dissent and fuels your side.  (Algeria, for example, where the French rounded up the innocent as well as the guilty, thereby pushing the innocent into the arms of the insurgents/terrorists.)

And here we've got people immediately saying "Let's stop letting refugees in".

It's understandable.  And it's a short-sighted reaction entirely based on fear. 

"Fear is the mind-killer."

So let's try to think about this without fear, without that little voice saying 'if we accept these refugees we'll open ourselves up to attack'.  After all, who is more likely to become a terrorist - someone who found welcome and safety in European lands?  Or someone who has been shuffled off, rejected, abandoned, and left with nowhere to go?

That little voice, btw, is the voice I feel the New Testament repeatedly says is wrong.  Where is the notion of the Good Samaritan?  Of the person who would give the shirt of their back?  Or is charity only for people 'like us'?

Hell.  I have a house, and a spare room.  Sort of.  I'd have to move some things out, and it'd be kind of cramped.  But if there's any organization out there looking for a temporary home for a refugee family in the States I'm willing to take them in.

It's the right thing to do.

Destiny Disrupted Mashup with The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power

I mentioned that mixing up a book on the history of oil with a book on why Muslims feel disgruntled with the world as it exists today was interesting...

Interesting, because you switch from a very geopolitical, grand strategy, business mindset to one that is more about...

Religion.  Meaning.  Pursuit of an ideal community.

I have to admit, I am projecting a bit of my own Catholic upbringing on to what I was reading about Islam.  I don't claim I actually understand Islam, but I think I have a better grasp of the appeal than a strictly secular look.

First - what I consider a fairly significant difference.  See, I spent 11 of my first 12 years in school at Catholic institutions.  I am pretty familiar with concepts like the "Kingdom of Heaven", the "Church as the Body of Christ", etc.  But early Christians thought that Jesus would bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth in their lifetime, and when that didn't happen our concept evolved to a more spiritual understanding.  The Kingdom of Heaven is what we will find in the afterlife.  And the whole "Church as the Body of Christ", for me at least, was tied in with what we were taught about the Reformation.  That is, the Catholic Church grew materialistic and corrupt...leading eventual to the Protestant movements and the Reformation to help make some much needed changes.  So my Catholic upbringing talked about how Catholic believers form a community, the 'body of Christ', and that there is a back and forth discussion between these believers and the official leaders of our church. 

Islam is, in many ways, different.  There's no Pope, no formal institution for making clergy.  But there are similarities, as well.  Ways that the religion recognizing who is legitimate and who isn't.  A belief in the community, etc.

So what stood out to me as perhaps the most significant (and new, even though I've studied this topic for years) difference was the notion that Muslims are seeking to create the ideal community in the world.  I immediately thought of it as the "Kingdom of Heaven", but I admit I'm throwing Christian concepts at it.  They're pursuing this not in the mystical, spiritual fashion we Christians have developed...but in a much more real, earthly way.  Part of the benefits of having your founder live and lead for a significant period of time, instead of dying early. 

The appeal of the caliphate is the appeal of building that Kingdom of Heaven here on earth.  And whoo-boy!!!  What an appeal!  You go tell Christians today that you're building a Kingdom of Heaven, and see just how many perk up and take notice.  (They may be skeptical, and may not join, but most will at least want enough of an understanding to decide if they should believe it or not.)

It actually reminded me more of the founding of the United States of America.  If you read about our early history, there was this notion that we were embarking on a grand experiment.  Building a new and better society.  This place where "We the People...in order to form a more perfect union..."  (Though we, in the United States today, are beset by a feeling that we've lost that.  The rich and powerful have taken over, the union is not so much about "We the People" as it is about the 1%...etc. etc. etc.)

Mixing up a book like Destiny Disrupted with a book like The Prize brings home some of the complaints I've heard about our culture.  INTERNAL complaints, mind you.  Complaints I heard growing up, surrounded by that Catholic upbringing.  Complaints that we're superficial.  Materialistic.  Focused on status.  Forgetting that there are more important things in life than  money. 

To a certain extent, I dismiss those complaints because of that upbringing.  Because I know that there are many, many Americans that are concerned with living a good life.  That there are sound reasons for separating our public and private lives, but that if I went and talked to any American about religion or spirituality or whatnot that there would be plenty to talk about.  (Though NOT, thank God, all of them agreeing with the views of Christian Conservatives.  So many of them give religion a bad name.  I probably am influenced, again, by that Catholic upbringing and teachings like Matthew 6:5.  I'm basically skeptical of anyone making too public a display of their faith, because it seems more like they're trying to show off to everyone else how faithful they are...and the truly pious keep it more private.  They live a good life, without any fuss or need to publicize how good they are.)

Yet the book on oil sort of brings the complaints back, because they show how much we compartmentalize our lives.  John D Rockefeller  was a Christian.  Yet the decisions he made as a good businessman were not necessarily the decisions of a good Christian.  (Though given that I only know what I've heard in history, and nobody knows someone in and out, I will not presume to say that he was or wasn't a good Christian.  I just want to say that the decisions he made as a businessman could have been very different from the decisions he made as a Christian.)

Our modern life is more...isolating.  Alienating.  People don't feel like there's as much meaning to it.  The fights over class and wealth are tied into this superficially...because when you're barely getting by on your income it's hard to feel like doing a good job matters.  If you do a good job, all you're really doing is putting more money in the pockets of those who already have plenty...and even if you're working two jobs, you will probably never get to that level of comfort and security.

The fight against terrorism isn't just about fighting a horrible misinterpretation of religion.  It's about providing a competing alternative, one where people can get that meaning and fulfillment, that sense of community so many of us need.

One that shows you can build a 'Kingdom of Heaven' that isn't harsh and controlling, that reminds us all that God's also about mercy and compassion.  (Though allegedly ISIS does that internally, what with providing healthcare and other goods for their community.  Still...from what I hear you don't want to face the punishment for breaking their rules.)

I could talk plenty about my own (competing, alternative) interpretation of what such a society would be like...but that's sort of personal and I don't think anyone else is very interested in it.  It's the sort of thing best done as a discussion over coffee, or late at night.  All that would be a digression.

Main point is - the appeal of the caliphate and anti-Western attitudes goes back to some very real gaps in our society.  Gaps that we, living here, know we can fill in a variety of ways...but in ways that do not necessarily show in the public sphere.

History, Context, Religion, "The More Things Change..."

I've been reading Zealot, a book that tries to get at the historical Jesus.  I like books like this - I feel like we miss so much of the context of the time when we try reading our modern, English language Bibles.

Particularly since the original Bible was written in an entirely different languge, in an entirely different period of time, where people had no reason to care about or insist on historical accuracy.

Truth is, I think such writing offers a richer and more nuanced understanding of God.  It's less...

Close-minded. 

And in many ways, more miraculous.  It's not hard to see and understand what draws people to a leader.  Conventionally.  Just look at our rock stars and pundits.  You need someone charismatic.  Someone who looks good, and presents well.  Someone who makes everyone feel like they're your friend. 

Someone who gives the impression that they can come in on a white horse, and save the day.  Someone who is larger than life, greater than everyone around them.

Which fits in rather well with our modern world.  Cowboys, superheroes.  The people who seem to get ahead are the ones who successfully fit the mold.  And they cater to what we want to hear, present what we want to be told. (Even if they are actually worse at leading, worse at saving the day.  In Jim Collins' research, having a CEO get hired in order to save the business was often a sign that things were about to get even worse.  He described a type of leader completely at odds with the cowboys and saviors that make so many headlines...and yet company boards of directors, financial news reporters, headhunters, and those who decide who gets promoted all still seem to fall for the narrative of someone larger than life who comes in to save the day.)

So how interesting, that in the Bible Moses is not a good speaker.  Some say he stuttered, or had a speech impediment, but it looks like the exact quote was "But my Lord, never in my life have I been a man of eloquence, either before or since you have spoken to your servant. I am a slow speaker and not able to speak well" (Exodus 4:10)

And even more interesting that God kept insisting Israel worship Him and Him alone, when the Israelites clearly kept wanting to worship a god the way everyone else all around them did.  Why give such a strange and unusual rule?  Something so different?  Novel, even?

But I digress.  I am reading Zealot, and it's interesting how much the events of that time can be reflected in the world today.

I'm having a hard time saying where, and how, other than that it's a time of turmoil in which the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  Certain sentences and phrases keep resonating, as I think "that's true of the world today."

Some of the contextual history makes me think of the jihadists of today, and I'm not sure what I think about that.  This idea that the Zealots (not Jesus, but the movement shortly after his ministry) are so remarkably similar to the jihadists of today.  From the insistence that everyone must worship God the way they say is required, to their willingness to assassinate, to the divisions and fault lines as certain zealots claimed others weren't right-minded, or were in it for themselves.

In that time and place, the movement was squelched when Rome came in and burned it all down.

Yet that was then, and that was Rome.