From Newsday’s Spin Cycle:

Nassau legislator adds God to the debate

Tuesday June 19, 2012 5:02 PM By Celeste Hadrick

Legis. Fran Becker, a Lynbook Republican who is the party’s nominee to run for Congress against Democratic incumbent Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), was looking for divine intervention during Monday’s hectic meeting of the Nassau County Legislature.

As Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for a $41 million hole in last year’s budget, Becker said, “Let’s bring God into the office. Let’s pray about this.”

The 10-member Republican majority wants to borrow the money to pay overdue property tax refunds and fill the budget gap but the legislature’s nine Democrats have refused to provide the three votes needed.

“What would Jesus do?” Becker said.

“Excuuuuse me?” interjected Legis. Judy Jacobs (D-Woodbury).

“Why are you interrupting me?” Becker asked.

“This is so ridiculous,” Jacobs said.

“To say God should be in the audience?” Becker responded.

Later, Becker chided Legis. Kevan Abrahams (D-Freeport) and Robert Troiano (D-Westbury) for not approving the bonding as a way to help save youth group programs in their communities. He noted that he had voted to borrow when Republicans were in the minority on the legislature.

“I did what my God wanted me to do,” Becker said.

Abrahams, leader of the Democratic caucus, said, “I think Mr. Becker’s plan is to argue with people he doesn’t agree with. I guess God is telling him to do that.”
Becker is facing a primary from Frank Scaturro of Hempstead for the Republican nomination next week.

Fran Becker yelling at constituents during a 2011 meeting. Photo credit: Michael Kirby Smith, New York Times.

I’ve written previously about the Nassau County Republicans, and while this appears to be a new low, it’s not really as bad as having campaign staffers yell racial epithets to intimidate people. But it is definitely a new height of absurdity. Mr. Becker is a Catholic. And reading through his outburst, I’m reminded of Matthew 6:5,

And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.

This wasn’t a humble display of piety, he was using religion as a weapon, which should be distasteful to the religious and secular alike.

Beyond absurdity, and a blatant disregard for the First Amendment, this is intentionally aggressive. A person who cannot use his negotiating skills to reach a compromise, and must instead issue a combative appeal to the divine, is unfit for public office.

While I’m still endorsing Democrat Carolyn McCarthy in the general election, any Republicans reading are encouraged to support Frank Scaturro.

Yesterday, Leah Libresco, a well-known blogger announced that she is converting from atheism to Catholicism. The reaction was immediate, chaotic and forceful. Catholics flocked to her comments section to offer congratulations and welcome her home. Atheists were largely confused, but also angry, saddened and sometimes cynical about the news. Some claimed to have seen this coming from a mile away – she had been studying Catholicism for a long time initially as part of a deal she made with her ex-boyfriend.

I have not been a regular reader of Leah’s blog, although I have read it on occasion. I’m a big fan of her ideological Turing test experiment – whereby atheists and Christians post both as themselves and as a person of the “opposite” viewpoint and others have to guess who is who.

I was shocked by the news, and especially by her reasoning. In addition to atheist-to-Catholic convert Jennifer Fulwiler, Leah is the second atheist I have heard of to convert to Catholicism in part because of the belief that an objective moral truth exists and is incompatible with atheism. This is a belief I also hold, but it keeps me more in the spectrum of militant agnostic – weak theist than it convinces me that Catholicism is true or right. How could someone with the same belief come to such a different conclusion?

Although I was raised a Catholic, I left the church for several reasons. Mainly that I did not believe their teachings on sexuality had any place in reality and that I feared my disagreement on this topic would lead to my excommunication. When I embraced Unitarian Universalism, I did so because I could with the knowledge that any disagreements I have would probably not lead to my departure and because their statement of principles is an expression of my deepest moral beliefs.

This question of values is what boggled me so about Leah’s conversion. She is openly bisexual and a passionate supporter of same sex marriage rights. I don’t understand how someone who fits that description could make the informed decision to convert to Catholicism.

Nonetheless, in the comments section of her blog I wished her well. Changing religions is difficult, as I have experienced in my own life, and my conversion was not as public as Leah’s. And while I feel the urge to defend her from the mean spirited comments some are leaving – that she is doing it for attention, that she’s unintelligent, I also find myself bursting with questions, accusatory ones that I don’t know how to ask.

Someone in the comments, Matthais777, wrote:

I just sort wanted to say that I’m very sorry to hear this… Now that you’ve accepted catholisim, i hope your ready to accept what that means. Especially since you’ve chosen Catholisim.

It means, By definition, you must reject the GLBTQ community, like myself.
It means, by definition, you must believe that i and my fellow non-believers are going to hell. Whether that means eternal seperation, or eternal torture, you still believe that our actions deserve that.
…
It means, by definition, you believe in the subjegation of women through denial of abortion services, birth control, and the right to hold postion of authority on spiritual matters.
And leagues more.

And I couldn’t help nodding along. I’m frustrated that Leah would support such a sexist and homophobic institution that covers up the rape of children. I want to repeat every point Greta Christina made in her post “Why are you still Catholic?” But I feel oddly guilty demanding answers from this new convert. What about her free and responsible search for truth and meaning? It seems obvious to me that Catholicism is not a responsible choice, though I can’t help feeling arrogant in making that accusation.

In choosing to blog publicly about this to answer some questions and respond to comments, she’s opening up her decision for discussion. And there is so much to say.

I seconded the question someone else asked in the comments – “Why Catholicism and not some kind of virtue ethic deism?” And Leah responded:

The very short answer as to why not Deism is that it seems too hands off for the way Goodness would treat us, especially when we so badly need its help. The why Catholicism is mostly based in the fact that, while I’ve been fighting with Catholics for the last two years, they had a lot of times where they or the books they recommended exposed a major error I was making and helped me live better when I changed my philosophy or behavior on smaller scale things than this.

And the first thing I thought was, This totally ignores the problem of evil! My mind ping ponged back and forth between the various Catholic apologetics I am familiar with and my current lapsed beliefs.

It’s not just well known bloggers in the midst of a crisis of faith that I’m considering while writing this post. I often wonder how much I should talk up Unitarian Universalism to people who are considering changing their religion. I read today on a UUA blog that,

The average Unitarian Universalist only invites a person to church once every 26 years.

We have a long way to go before we gain a reputation for being pushy and evangelizing. But like most UUs, I have no desire to be anywhere near that line. Yet we are also frequently hearing from our leaders that as more Americans grow disenchanted with traditional organized religions, we are being presented with the opportunity to share our faith and gain new members in a way we have not before. Could Leah Libresco have become a Unitarian Universalist? Probably not – for various reasons she has been pursing Catholicism for a long time. But there are others out there who would benefit from our message. We have made the choice to become UUs, there are likely others who would given the chance.

Like everyone else, I’m going to wait and see what Leah posts over the next few days. I look forward to the conversation that follows.

*The tagline of Leah’s blog has been alternately “A geeky atheist picks a fight with her Catholic boyfriend” “A geeky atheist picks a fight in good faith” and is now “A geeky convert picks fights in good faith.” She has stated, “It’s much more important to respect people than beliefs, and picking a fight is respect — it means you care about someone and want to lead them out of error.”

Recently, Ellen hosted Rainer and Atticus – two charming red-headed children who know a lot about the Presidents of the United States. (Disclosure: In real life, I am acquainted with Rainer, Atticus, and their parents.) Apparently their age and their cuteness do not shield them or their mother from attack by the right wing media.

During the clip, Ellen asked Rainer what was happening this year. He said he thought that Barack Obama should win reelection because,

“Barack Obama said that men and men can marry each other and woman and woman can marry each other and I think that’s right.”

You can watch the whole thing here:

Newsbusters, a conservative website touting itself as, “the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias” published a post in response to the clip. I don’t see why this was necessary. Young Rainer was simply stating his opinion; “I think that’s right” – even at the age of six he knows not to phrase an opinion as a fact.

What’s more disturbing is the way the post attacked the boys,

Rainer and Atticus are liberally raised by their literary parents Matt Pasca and Terri Muuss. (The little fact they use their mother’s surname signals the feminism.) Muuss is a survivor of incest and travels with her own stage show called “Anatomy of a Doll.”

Let’s count the layers of this attack:

1. There is something wrong with having parents who teach children their own, liberal values.
2. There is something suspect about a woman keeping her name when she gets married, or naming her children after herself instead of her husband.
3. There is something wrong with being a feminist.
4. If a woman is open about being an incest survivor, she is an unfit parent.

I contacted Tim Graham, the author of the post on Twitter, wondering how someone mean-spirited enough to write a shallow hit-piece on small children would respond.

Elizabeth: “Nyah-nyah your mommy’s a feminist!” You dont have to respond to children as if you were one yourself.

Tim: I’m merely stating that Ellen put on cute little kids who just happened to tout Obama and gay marriage. My, what an accident.

Elizabeth: I doubt families opposing Obama or same sex marriage are beating down the door to have their children on Ellen.

Then it got weird.

Tim: As if they had the chance?

As if they had the chance? What family who opposes same sex marriage would want their children to appear on television with a lesbian? Conservatives frequently attack any positive portrayal of GLBT people in the media. Why would they want to expose their children to people they think are depraved and evil? Is there some kind of conservative group I haven’t heard of – the Million Moms Who Want Their Kids On Ellen?

Elizabeth: All people teach their children values, be they liberal or conservative.

Tim: Yes, I acknowledge my kids would have been cute little Catholics at that age. I haven’t really drummed my politics at them.

This is ignorant at best, but I think it’s plain intellectual dishonesty. Catholicism is a religion first and foremost, but the teachings of Christ, especially as explained by the Catholic Church are deeply political – even at the level a child could understand them. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard a conservative tell a story about how they explained to children why they shouldn’t give money to homeless people. I was a small Catholic when I was Rainer’s age, and I wanted to help poor people – because of what my family, my Sunday School teacher and the priests at church had told me about Jesus!

Chatting with Tim on Twitter was illuminating in that it revealed two additional assumptions – firstly that Ellen was somehow “biased” in choosing Rainer and Atticus to appear on her show. Ellen’s website asks anyone to submit a show idea or to make their case as to why they should be a guest. But Ellen is in no way obligated to include homophobes on her show. The idea that this is necessary for “balance” is ridiculous and hurtful.

Secondly, Tim draws a distinction between values and politics. A family’s religion might be a part of their values, but somehow their politics cannot be. Politics and policy are the way we transform our values into reality – be they power, liberty, charity, lower taxes, freedom of speech, or anything else.

As the public increasingly supports same sex marriage, conservatives have the choice to accept this, or to be left behind. Their exaggerated reaction to a child who believes differently than they do reveals the weakness of their argument.

One of the things both of the panels I have been to this morning Have made me think about is the ubiquity of religion in American politics.

The first panel was called “Inside the Activists Studio: What to do when the right comes after you” and featured people from AFSCME, Planned Parenthood, and Jewish Voice for Peace. I found myself surprised that unions were currently under as great an attack as people who advocate for Peace between Israel and Palestine – rather than always thinking Israel is right, and reproductive justice. It quickly dawned on me that unions have been demonized in the United States almost as long as they have existed. Why was I surprised then to see them lumped in with Planned Parenthood and Middle East Issues? The common thread between opposition to reproductive justice and conflict in the Middle East is that they are both fueled by religious fervor. There is no religious justification, as far as I can tell to oppose worker’s rights.

The second panel was sponsored by Advocates for Youth and was called, “Paying the Price, Leading the Fight: Youth and the Politics of Reproductive Rights.” Panelist Debra Hauser stressed that we live in a sex negative culture. But when the panelists were asked why they think this is so, not one person named religion as the reason. A representative from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State spoke up, and the conversation shifted to the “Our Whole Lives” Curriculum and how some members of the religious left support the sexual health rights and education of young people. While as a Unitarian Universalist I am proud of OWL, I find it ironic to suggest that religion is the solution to the problem that it largely created.

Just my thoughts for now, there’s a lot more to unpack here.

Note: An expanded version of this post is available here.

As the years go by and my identity as a Unitarian Universalist solidifies, I feel my appreciation of my new tradition deepening all the time. At first I was drawn to a place where I could be spiritual with others who accepted me. My congregation is a community where I can share common values but also where disagreements do not mean fear of expulsion.

But something I have been thinking about recently is the UU doctrine that “Revelation is not sealed.” What this means is that while there might be some good lessons in the holy books of other religions, people can still learn truths about morality, human nature and the world in a multitude of ways. We must “be open to new and higher truths.”

What this also means is that Unitarian Universalist Ministers are not limited to a single volume, written in the past during a different time and place to find the words to inspire and guide their congregations.

I think of that scene in Walk The Line where Jack says

Look, J.R., if I’m going to be a preacher one day, I gotta know the bible front to back. I mean, you can’t help nobody if you can’t tell them the right story.

To a young boy of strong Christian faith, this makes perfect sense. But in my mind, his earnestness is immediately contrasted with Julia Sweeney’s remarks in Letting Go of God about the priests who have to live this reality of trying to tell people who need their help the right story,

[L]ike a big ocean wave, the force of all that I hated about this Church welled up in me; all the pompus, numbing masses, the unabated monotony of the rituals, all the desperate priests trying to tease out something meaningful from a very flawed ancient text.

I first articulated this problem myself in thinking about a recent Sunday service at my UU congregation about Leymah Gbowee, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for her activism in stopping the Second Liberian Civil War. On the drive home after service, Adam and I, and anyone else in the car usually continue the discussion. I wondered how a Catholic priest could talk about Leymah Gbowee if he wanted to. There was a priest in the parish my family belonged to when I was in high school who loved to talk about “the power of prayer.” Sometimes he quoted guests on Larry King Live or something he read in Reader’s Digest to make his point. But, as a Catholic priest, he was limited in when and how he could broach the subject – or any subject. The Catholic Church has selected Bible readings for every Sunday of the year – these are the same all over the world – on a three year cycle. So any given priest only really needs 156 homilies for his entire life. If he wants to write more than that he can – but the readings never change. Unlike Jack, who was a protestant, Catholic priests do not even have the entire Bible at their disposal.

Current events did come up during homilies on occasion. The Catholic chaplain on my university campus often spent Sundays relating that week’s gospel to the unjustness of the Iraq War. And I will always remember the Christmas Eve Mass I attended in 2001, where the priest spoke of the Olympic Torch in Rockefeller Center, on its way to Salt Lake City, as a light of hope – we should see it as symbolic of the light of Christ – and a symbol that we would heal from the horrors of September 11. Several members of our community had been killed in the attack.

But these homilies were not the norm. Most of the ones I have heard were much more generic. I understand perfectly what Sweeney is talking about when she refers to the “desperate priests trying to tease out something meaningful from a very flawed ancient text.”

When a priest wants to speak about an issue facing his community he faces two hurdles. First, how to relate that issue to the week’s Bible passages prescribed by the Vatican. Second, the possibility that the topic he wants to express is not relatable to any of that years readings or the entire three year cycle of readings at all. Aside from the Christmas Eve Mass of 2001, and every Ash Wednesday in college I cannot remember which Gospel readings went with any of the homilies that have stayed with me through the years whether they be the best and most uplifting, or the frustratingly close-minded or silly. The purpose of the homily is for the priest to relate the message of that week’s Bible passages to the community. But the two types of homilies I remember hearing most often were either interpretations which amount to vague platitudes about being a good and forgiving person, or insightful discussions which only tangentially relate to the Bible. It was very rare that a homily was both inspiring and clearly related to the text.

Unitarian Universalist ministers do not have this problem. I have heard UU ministers read from the Bible, or from another holy book. But more often than not they read a passage of poetry, prose, philosophy, or history that speaks to them. Sometimes these readings are written by other UU’s – and sometimes they aren’t. Sometimes a reading not a piece of text, but a piece of music or a work of art. In this way, a congregation can address its needs and is not frozen in time. When we believe that revelation is not sealed, we are open to learning about the world and about ourselves from every source around us. In not limiting ourselves, we can continue to grow unrestrained.

Just as limits on the creation of “graven images” slowed the development of artistic techniques, and prohibitions of dissection impeded the progress of biology, when we limit ourselves to only the Bible, we stunt our spiritual growth.

Adam posted about how the Pope rejected calls from Catholic priests all over the world to allow women and married people to be ordained. What he missed was the third demand,

[A]n Austrian group called Preachers’ Initiative… has issued a “Call to Disobedience,” asking the church to allow the ordination of women, to remove the obligation of priestly celibacy and to permit priests to give holy communion to divorced Catholics who have remarried without an annulment.

I think that this is extremely important. The Catholic church cannot continue without more priests, but it could probably hobble along just fine refusing to give communion to divorced people. Like the prohibition against contraception, there are many who simply ignore this rule. Many times, in large anonymous parishes, the priest or Eucharistic Minister does not even know they are breaking a rule. The problem would be for divorced people who “out” themselves or for priests and EM’s who know the truth but feel conflicted about the rule. Technically only divorced people who remarry outside the church without getting an annulment, or are cohabiting with a new partner are excommunicated – but that still excludes many people who wish to receive the sacrament.

As I stated in my previous post about the church,

Receiving communion is a big deal for Catholics. To be told that you may not do so can feel like a devastating rejection.

This feeling of devastation may account for why some people simply ignore the rule. Receiving communion, for many Catholics, is more important than following other rules of the church – even those rules about who is forbidden and who is allowed to partake in the sacrament. The priests who signed this letter to the Pope understand this on a deep level. They understand because as Catholics themselves they can empathize with the pain people who are being shut out from something so central to their lives, and also because some may have brought their pain on this issue to them directly and the cognitive dissonance of their empathy conflicting with their desire to obey the church is keeping them up at night.

And the Pope understands this, but instead of offering comfort, he mocks their troubles,

Benedict said that although such priests claim to act out of “concern for the church,” they are driven by their “own preferences and ideas,” and should instead turn toward a “radicalism of obedience” — a phrase that perfectly captures the essence of the theologian pope’s thought.

He’s pretty much telling them that they can shove their empathy for divorced Catholics in very uncomfortable place.

This is utterly cruel. It denies the reality of divorced Catholics and the priests who counsel them. They tried obedience and it wasn’t working. That’s why they signed the petition. They signed this petition at risk of excommunication, a fate which has befallen others who advocated for the ordination of women, or for simply being openly opposed to making abortion illegal. These priests had such compassion for their parishioners that they risked the same punishment. That is a moving display of service and selflessness which the Pope ignores and perverts by simply telling them to be more obedient. Secondly, Pope Benedict will never be a divorced Catholic seeking communion, nor the troubled priest being sought out for comfort. I would almost be glad for the latter as it would mean that no one would have to be subject to his twisted advice – except that he has so mush more power to abuse. That he is not capable of the empathy these priests are speaks ill of his character and makes him wildly unfit for leadership of any kind.

Recently, I completed a very interesting book, entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, also known by the simpler title, The Jefferson Bible.

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, undertook a very interesting project that most people would never contemplate: he edited the Bible. The Bible is a very hard read, in the final analysis. It has been translated and re-translated, it repeats itself, it contradicts itself, and it is full of events no one can corroborate. Jefferson, an avowed deist, was hostile to organized religion, yet believed in a creator. He decided to take several copies of the bible -written in Greek, Latin, French, and English- and literally cut and paste the Gospel passages that focused on Jesus and his teachings into another book.

The edited gospels are a much more coherent read. Jesus is born, he lives, he teaches, and dies. In this edition, he does not cure blindness, turn water into wine, or come back from the dead. Did I mention it is never implied or stated he is the son of God?

Now why is this important, today? It gives the lie to the idea that the founding fathers were a monolithic group of devout Christians. Additionally, any Christian who followed this pared-down version of the Gospel would enjoy freedom from the cognitive dissonance that plagues their faith. They might even wish to give the same treatment to the Old Testament, to remove the perplexing passages where God orders them to hate gays and masturbation, as well as avoid lobster and mixed fibers.

Jefferson’s project also is not without precedent. All widely-read printings of the Bible have been edited to some degree. His project is also not without imitators. The contributors at “Conservapedia”, a Far-Right-Wing Wiki, (I won’t link to their site) are editing the Bible in an on-going project to prove that modern Conservative thought is fully supported by the Bible. Of course, they are not as smart as Thomas Jefferson.

Just because something was written by a President does not automatically make it correct -that is an argument to authority, and a fallacy. However, The Jefferson Bible is a suggestion to all believers. Maybe scriptures really are a book of stories, but that wouldn’t make the lessons any less true. Maybe scriptures encourage cruel actions, but that doesn’t mean you have to listen, when you know the orders are unjust.

The Bible says men shouldn’t spill their seed on the ground, and wives must submit to their husbands. People really should trust themselves, and refuse to obey such commands, which they know can only cause suffering. What a depressing life you’d have to live, obeying the orders of a God that hates you.

Last week, a story broke about a Catholic woman in Maryland who was denied communion at her mother’s funeral because she is a lesbian.

I read comments about this on social, media and saw many outraged Catholics criticizing the priest in question. While I think it shows how far the LGBT movement has come that this is a huge news story and so many people are outraged on Barbara Johnson’s behalf, it frustrates me. I think it’s a good sign that so many people are feeling compassion for this woman – even religious straight people. But this whole controversy is at the heart of why I left the church, so it touched a nerve for me.

In 2004, the Archbishop of St. Louis publicly stated that John Kerry could not receive communion in his diocese because he is pro-choice. This was the last straw for me. I knew that it would only be a matter of time between denying communion to pro-choice public figures and all pro-choice parishioners. Not every bishop denied communion to Kerry, but Archbishop Burke was not reprimanded in any way – his behavior was fine with the hierarchy, and there would be nothing to prevent similar actions from taking place in the future. I felt sick – I was no longer welcome in my own church. And a few years later, Pope Benedict was elected, the man who wrote memos in favor of pro-choice politicians being denied communion. This was evidence that people like Benedict and Burke showed the true direction of the church, not more moderate leaders who wanted to put as many people in the pews as possible, regardless of their disagreement with church doctrine.

The situation with Barbara Johnson is sad on many levels. It’s sad that her mother died. And it’s sad that a priest, who was supposed to comfort her rejected her in such a public way. Receiving communion is a big deal for Catholics. To be told that you may not do so can feel like a devastating rejection. This is why so many Catholics are outraged. It’s not just the denial of communion, which people seemed ambivalent about in John Kerry’s case. It’s that the rejection happened on a day when Johnson was mourning her mother’s death. This outrage comes from the compassion people are feeling for any person who is suffering because a loved one had died. If this had been on any other Sunday, or if Johnson had gone to the press because her priest had refused to marry her and her partner, this story would not have made such a splash. To me, this signifies that the outrage is not over denial of communion or the churches position on homosexuality, it’s that the priest publicly humiliated a woman who was mourning the death of her mother.

There are some Catholics taking the position that “a no-sin rule would bar all from Communion” but this misses the point. Most of the people who make the news for being barred from communion do so because they disagree with the church’s position on divorce, choice, or gay rights – that is their positions on sexuality. No one is barred for being a crooked businessperson, for supporting the Iraq war or the Death penalty – the first of which is a violation of the Ten Commandments, and the latter two the church could not be more clearly against. This is entirely political and it’s entirely the politics of sex and patriarchy. Being outraged that the church has turned the Eucharist – the rite most scared and holy to Catholics into a political weapon is the reason why I left the church. The hypocrisy of proclaiming it to be essential to spirituality and a relationship with God, and then denying it to people because of their personal sexual choices or opinions is the utmost hypocrisy.

The Archdioceses of Washington has issued a weak apology, but it misses the point. I find myself in solid agreement with this Catholic blogger who states that the preist was “thrown under the bus for following Canon Law.” I don’t think that homosexuality is a sin, of course. But I do think the this Father Marcel Guarnizo was in fact, simply following the rules of the church. And that is the source of my frustration with the Catholic response to this story. These people who attend Mass, give money and time to the church find themselves outraged that the church is following it’s own rules. This is nonsensical. If you are outraged, why are you still Catholic?

There is no way for any average parishioner or even priest to change the course of the Catholic Church. You can stay, seething in outrage, you can complain – as if you were complaining to a brick wall, or you can leave, and free your conscience from the burden of supporting an institution that treats people so cruelly. *
__
*Exit, Voice and Loyalty

If you follow me or my husband on twitter, you might have noticed that we were in Las Vegas for the long weekend. Today was our first day back in civilization. Waking up I felt a little bit jet lagged, but I survived.

I dozed on the train, but walking out into the sunlight this morning in Manhattan I immediately was confronted with Catholics who were observing Ash Wednesday. It usually reminds me of when Rodney Dangerfield joke that every New Year’s he resolves not to ask his Catholic friends at the beginning of Lent, “Hey what’s that schmutz on your forehead?” Others on twitter were having similar fun.

Sometime in the early to mid nineties I noticed – in the NY metro area anyway – that Catholic priests stopped just gently pushing their thumbs into peoples foreheads to distribute ashes, and started making crosses. I am not sure if this was to add to emphasize that this was a Christian ritual, to make it more aesthetically pleasing or for some other reason, but every year I catch myself admiring people with perfectly symmetrical crosses on their faces.

It brings me back to when I was a very observant Catholic in college. Our campus chaplain would give the same sermon every year on Ash Wednesday called “Gettin’ Ashes.” He would print it in the bulletin, which I wish was still available online. But the heart of it was that receiving ashes was an outward symbol of an inner desire to change – the custom came from a time when people covered themselves in ashes to mourn but also to atone for wrongdoing. He said that we should not receive them if we did not intend to focus on spiritual growth throughout Lent. And then when the service was almost over, he would harken back to the Bible reading we had just heard,

Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.

And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And he would tell us to wipe the ashes from our foreheads before we left the chapel, wiping the ashes from his own forehead. Usually people would gasp at this point and he would say “I know what your grandmother told you, she had good intentions. But ashes are not a badge, they aren’t a fashion statement. They represent what is inside you.” Then before the closing prayer – he would advise us that Lent is not a self improvement project, we shouldn’t give up sweets so we would look great on the beach during spring break. He only advised giving up smoking (for good) and doing more volunteer work. Then he would tell us that if any of us were working too hard and not getting out at all we should go to a concert by our university’s music department, consider that our ability to appreciate it was a holy gift, and that this would be a great way to observe Lent as well. Usually a few students would sneak out without wiping their ashes off, totally confused and visibly shaken. I wish I would have asked them what they were thinking, but it was never any one of my friends so I never did.

This sermon, which I heard four times in four years was extremely impactful in my decision to leave the church – I stopped observing Lent because after a while, I felt it didn’t help me much spiritually. Why should I receive ashes if I didn’t feel like making the 5 week commitment to be more pious? I experimented a few times with fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday – combing my hair, washing my face and taking Advil for my fierce headache as advised in the Bible. But it didn’t make me feel close to God. It made me exhausted and grumpy.

This all came rushing back to me not this morning, but this past week, when meeting a (atheist) friend and her (Catholic) boyfriend for a meal, she asked him what he would be giving up for Lent. He told her and then she asked me what I would be giving up. We had spoken previously about my conversion to Unitarian Universalism and I told her and her beau much of what I wrote here. I do remember as a teenager sometimes spending Lent giving something up, praying more, going to church every Sunday and feeling so special on Easter Sunday. I still appreciate the joy of Easter as a UU – on a different level. I am grateful for all of the love in my life and the opportunities I have had for forgiveness, and appreciate the coming of spring. If I go to Mass with my family (which I have the past few years on Easter as we usually visit family out of town) I like seeing the children in their bright pastel outfits, excited about their chocolates from the Easter Bunny, and my Aunt’s priest usually gives a Homily I don’t find entirely objectionable. Then we do something fun in their town and have a wonderful meal as a family.

But Easter does not have the same anticipation it did when I observed Lent. I have often thought about how to bring it back – a way I could “do Lent” as a UU that would feel fulfilling and authentic. I tried one year giving $1 to all of the homeless people who asked me for money during Lent. But I have since redirected my giving elsewhere. I’ve searched the internet and read a few other UU blogs about this topic, but like this post, they offer more questions than answers. I suppose that’s a start.

Last night, Adam and I attended the Intelligence Squared debate “Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?” I am inclined to think that the world would be pretty much the same without religion. I don’t deny that religion is linked with tremendous atrocities – oppression, war and ignorance. However, I am not sure that these things are the sole purview of religion. As I said on twitter, religious problems also exist in a secular context – greed, bloodlust, prejudice all appear in our society in ways not directly related to religion. I think that a better way to state the motion would be “Does religion do more harm than good?” But as I have written previously, I think sometimes Intelligence Squared goes for the catchy title rather than a proposition that is easy to debate.

I think that the speakers were all impressive Matthew Chapman and A C Grayling for the motion and Dinesh D’Souza and Rabbi David Wolpe arguing against. However, I was a little disappointed with the fact that neither side really made an effort to frame the debate, and both sides seemed to be talking past each other. Chapman and Grayling cited ridiculous and cruel passages from the Bible and stressed that religion deters science and oppresses women and gay people. D’Souza and Wolpe spoke of the good things religious charities do and of how people need hope and to set high moral standards. Rabbi Wolpe pointed out that the other side kept stressing the text whereas he was talking about the actions of religious people. This was an excellent point, and wasn’t countered at all.

Still, I felt like there was a lot being left unsaid. I did get to ask a question. I asked, “For those in favor of the motion, how are the harms of religion different from those of nationalism and racism? And for those opposed to the motion, how are the good things about religion different from the benefits of secular charities, community organizations or having close relationships with family?” Chapman said other societal ills are “mistakes based on reason” and that the “horrors of religion” are based on “superstitious fear and delusion.” I’m not sure if he really means to say that racism is rational, but what I think he is missing is that superstition and delusion exist outside of religion. Rabbi Wolpe said religion is good because religious people do good works for a transcendental, enduring purpose. I find this also kind of silly and trite. What if your enduring purpose was because you wanted to be remembered after you died as a philanthropist? There are reasons people do good things for all kinds of philosophical, moral, and social purposes, some of which are selfish but as a person who enjoys art museums and a yearly concert at Carnegie Hall, I can’t criticize the “selfish” philanthropists too harshly.

As a Unitarian Universalist, I am glad that my congregation exists. I am interested more in ideas of orthopraxy – how we should live a moral life, and the faith I have that we are called to do good works – than theological debates about the existence or nonexistence of God. But I am in no denial about the atrocities human beings are capable of. I believe a case can be made that there would be less cruelty in the world without religion, but it was not made last night by Chapman or Grayling. Brilliant writers though they may be, they never specifically explained how religion discourages critical thinking or why it halts scientific progress. I understand those arguments thoroughly, but wonk than I am, I needed to hear them spell it out before I would vote for them. I was frustrated with D’Souza’s arrogance and odd non-sequitirs (if Catholicism is better than Hinduism because it lacks a caste system, then doesn’t Hinduism make the world worse?) I liked Rabbi Wolpe the best of all the speakers but he never explained why a religious person is better off because of religion than they would be if they simply were involved in secular charities and had an active social life. In his closing statement he made a touching statement about hope, but hope comes from all kinds of places, and is not solely the province of religion.

I maintain that the world would be much the same without religion, a few inspiring heroes, some terrible villains, and most of us falling somewhere in between.