religion

by

Life By the Numbers


The largest religions in the world 

1. Christianity — 2.1 billion

2. Islam — 1.5 billion

3. None/Atheist — 1.1 billion

4. Hindu — 900 million

5. Chinese traditional — 394 million

6. Buddhism — 376 million

12. Judaism — 14 million

The 8 languages most spoken 

1. Mandarin Chinese — 1.051 billion

2. Hindi — 490 million

3. Spanish — 420 million

4. English — 510 million

5. Russian — 255 million

6. Arabic — 230 million

7. Bengali — 215 million

8. Portuguese — 213 million

Best health systems in the world according to the World Health Organization 

1. France

2. Italy

3. San Marino

4. Andorra

5. Malta

6. Singapore

7. Spain

8. Oman

9. Austria

10. Japan

18. England

22. Colombia

33. Chile

36. Costa Rica

37. United States

38. Slovenia

Ethnic distribution in the United States 

German                     57.9 million

Irish                           38.7 million

English                      32.7 million

African American    23.8 million

Italian                        14.7 million

Mexican                     11.6 million

French                       10.3 million

Polish                         9.4 million

Native American      8.6 million

Dutch                         6.2 million

Scotch-Irish              5.6 million

Scottish                     5.4 million

Swedish                     4.7 million

Best and worst high school graduations rates 

Best – Wyoming 91.8 and Arizona – 91.4

Worst – Texas 79.9 and Mississippi – 80.4

Greatest and fewest college graduates  

Greatest – Colorado 35.9 and Connecticut 35.6

Fewest – West Virginia 17.3 and Arkansas 18.9

by

Who Owns God?


If you went to church with me when I was a kid, you would have heard that God was properly defined by the Roman Catholics, and everyone else had an incorrect version.  And that was even after Vatican II.  While Catholics certainly have moderated their world view of their religion, it still reeks of “we got it right.”

In today’s world we hear a lot about the Moslem version of God.  I think it fair to say that their view is an extremely unpopular one here in the United States.  That probably includes most Moslems who live here as well, but that is just a guess.  I say that because it is my firm belief that most Moslems who live here have adopted a very moderate, or mainstream, view of God.  They certainly are not the ones yelling, “death to infidels!”  And they certainly are not advocating a jihad against America.

These most basic of feelings that all humans seem to hold, that of a person deity, are the very reason I speak up strongly for the separation of church and state.  We are the only country in the world, that I know of, that has this admonition.  Those Americans who want God worked into portions of our government would do well to ask themselves, which God.  That is, which particular religious slant on God are you in favor of?  You have to choose simply because there is no generic God that I have ever heard of.  That is because as soon as you evoke the name God, in each person’s mind this takes on a very particular point of view.  Hence, our forefathers understood that extremely well and they did not want a Church of England God, or even one of their homegrown versions to have any place in our government.

Since monotheism has existed there has always been a mix of God and religion.  For most of history men have been incapable of separating the two.  Mostly, they have had no desire to separate the two.  I believe that is because they have the notion that there has to be a mixed for a society to be successful.  For a long time that actually worked.  Prior to the 20th Century most societies lived almost entirely within themselves.  Tribalism, as sociologists call it, defined a religious belief and that tribe in turned formed a government for itself.  The people were monolithic, that is, all of one kind.  Until the 20th Century it was not at all unusual for a person to never travel more than 20 miles from where he was born.  That meant these societies were so homogenous that singular beliefs usually worked.

Still, certain groups of people decided even before the 20th Century that their take was the proper one and anyone not so defined was a “heathen.”  For Americans, a great example of this was the European view of the Native American cultures.  Even those Native Americans were mono-theistic, since the did not refer to “God,” and did not understand the European concept, it was clear to those European that the Native Americans were obviously heathens.  Many organized religion set out to bring Christianity to a group that neither wanted nor needed Christianity.  They were mono-theistic and it was Christian ignorance that brought on the problems.  Christians had a long history of such foolishness.  The Inquisitions of the 15th Century and before that the crusades to the middle east to ostensibly recover the Holy Grail.  I say ostensibly because the true reason was the European belief that old Christian churches were somehow being desecrated by the Moslems.  Just a little bit of education by the Christians about the Moslem religion would have shown them that nothing could have been further from the truth.  Even so, I doubt that would have stopped them.  Ignorance and passion have a way of getting together in mankind to bring death and destruction to anyone who has the temerity to believe something different.

I have serious problems with the way the Moslem religion is practiced in the Middle East.  Even in today’s world they are still little more than second class citizens in their own societies.  In Saudi Arabia they cannot drive a car.  Why?  I have not a clue.  In many countries in the Middle East, a woman found guilty, or even suspected, of infidelity to her husband is subject to stoning and death.  Most such countries also require her to wear a burka, to one extent or another.  Men, on the other hand, are not hindered by any such restrictions.  Even the adulterous husband does not fear for his life.

But I can allow for that a whole lot more than some of the practices that are going on right here in America.  These days in America there is more religious intolerance than I think we have had at any time in our history.  And I am a US historian by degree so I can say that with some conviction.  The native Americans of Massachusetts had a word for religious tolerance that bears remembering, “Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg,” which means, you fish on your side, I fish on my side, and no one fishes in the middle.  They were all about peaceful co-existence.

Conservative politicians in America have taken God hostage and are holding him over the heads of Americans.  They tell us how our morals need to be shaped.  They do this via their own religious background.  They are openly contemptuous of anyone who dares believe anything different as well.  They are smart enough to live the name God out of their discussions, but if you could nail one of them down on the origins of their belief, which I doubt you could, they would have to admit that it is directly tied to their God.  One of the great debates in America today is over gay marriage.  Those against it say it is somehow ruining the institution of marriage.  Really?  How is that a country that has literally hundreds of definitions for religion can only have one with regard to marriage?  I find that rather peculiar, and rather disingenuous of anyone to make such a claim.  For centuries in this country the acceptance of marriage free from all religious entanglements has been understood as an absolute right.  If two people desire only a judge or justice of the peace to declare them legally married does that not separate marriage from all religious views?  The corruption comes when people insist that when the marriage is between same-sex individuals somehow God has to be magically introduced into the equation.  That is some of the worst logic I have ever heard and yet, it is the conservative Christians of this country who had taken God and force-fed it upon our entire society.  They tell us that their version of God and marriage are the correct one and God help anyone who differs with that version.

I have many friends who have very conservative Christian views of the world.  I am happy for them.  Some I even admire in the way they practice their religion.  I think they know better than to tell me what is moral and what is not.  They simply are not interested in hearing my lash out at them, and they know they will.  But Americans have become extremely lazy about the separation of church and state.  Instead of finding abhorrent anyone trying to force via legislation morality upon them, they allow politicians, PACs, and religious groups to get away with exactly that.  They are allowing those groups ownership of God, and in doing so, allowing for a particular take on God to be foisted upon all Americans.  It is time for that to stop!  In fact, it is long overdue.  The death of this country is very likely to come from religious zealots who have little tolerance for opposing views.  They are still living in 16th societies that no long exist.

Americans gasp when they hear about the religious intolerance and excesses of the Middle East.  But Americans need to take a second look at themselves.  Are we not doing the same sorts of things?

by

The First and Second Amendments of the Constitution


As a student of history, particularly American, I have long considered why ou “Bill of Rights,” the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, are in the order they are in and why they are written as they are.  Most historians agree that the writers of the Constitution, primarily were a small group comprising John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.  Dickinson did most of the draft writing and conferred with Jefferson and Madison on finer points.  Then it was brought to the Constitutional Convention for further discussion and revision.  A number of “plans” were put forth by various state delegations, one the best known being the “Virginia  Plan.”  What happened most was changing of some wording and elimination of a number of paragraphs.  To be sure, the ratified Constitution was considerably smaller than its original presentation.

The “Bill of Rights” came into being in the first two years of our nation.  They were added because the original document had to have ratification of ten states which would not happen if the words of the Bill of Rights were present.

The first amendment I have found to be particularly curious.  It has two seemingly unrelated parts folded into one amendment.  The first part addresses the establishment of religion.  The leaders of the day had an enormous distaste for a state established religion as had been the law in England.  The idea that any church had so much power within government was simply not acceptable to them.  In America, conversely, the three or four religions that first migrated to the American continent had given way to a multitude of religions.  Those present at the convention themselves came from Presbyters, Unitarians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Quakers, and a few who were not allied with any particular religion. They realized quickly within their own small group that their own beliefs varied far too greatly to give countenance to any particular sect.  Although not a part of the Convention, Dr. Benjamin Franklin had made it known in the previous years how distasteful he found John Adams’ Puritan ethic.  They were at opposite ends of the religious spectrum even though they were mostly in sync in their political beliefs.  And that is what all the “framers” of the Constitution understood implicitly.  No one could pick any particular belief as the standard for our country.  They decided, perfectly, that to insure a continued an unfettered government that they would make it illegal for the government to favor any and all religious beliefs.  They were fully aware of people who were agnostic who balked at all religions as this had been both Franklin and Jefferson’s belief.

But then they wrote the send portion of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  This was John Adams at his finest.  No colony had suffered more oppression of suppressed rights to speak and write with impunity as Massachusetts had.  In 1768 when the Townshed Acts had been passed they were quite pointed towards Massachusetts.  England considered Massachusetts the greatest the greatest thorn in its side.  Newspapers written by Adams, Hancock and others consistently complained of the treatment by Parliament and the king.  Massachusetts had also gone through a series of public protests some of which ended in the loss of life or imprisonment.  To be fair, other colonies had suffered  similar events but not to the degree Bostonians had.

My only question is, why not make this declaration an amendment of its own?

Now we come to the infamous second amendment.  After the first amendment, no amendment has had more discussion.  The entire Constitution was written in some vague language.  The belief at the time was the Constitution should be a living document that would undergo change as the times called for.  With all due respect to my college professor in grad school, I do not believe the writers were thinking of individuals when this was written.  This is another Adams amendment.  The minutemen of Massachusetts, known as the state militia, had gone through repeated attempts by the British to curb their power.  One of the provisions of the Townshend Acts made it illegal for towns to warehouse stores of guns and gun powder.  Massachusetts towns had organized some years before into what were called “defense committees.”  Once a month the members would gather on the town green or common area to practice and drill with their weapons.  Many, if not most, of those weapons were provided to them by the state.  Contrary to any beliefs held today, those people were largely farmers and merchants who had no interest in hunting.  Gun ownership was of no particular interest to them.

But these same farmers and merchants did understand the need for home defense.  The British soldiers had shown no respect for their lands, their property, or their persons.  That meant these defense committees had a single purpose, to gather as a group, a militia, to protect those rights they staunchly believe in.  But I can assure you, their thought of the day was their remembering how crown had tried, in vain, to dismantle the colonial militia.  And that was the driving force behind the second amendment.  The right of the people (plural) to bear arms meant they could gather as a governmental body to protect themselves against any government that might try to gain control over them.  The thirteen original states were a very weak coalition held together by a piece of paper.  There was a high degree of mistrust between those various states.  It was felt that if each state could raise and support its own militia, that provided a safeguard against any other state trying to intrude on its rights.  They did not trust a central government’s military to protect them thusly.  If their governor controlled their militia they felt much safer

I am not making an argument here for any change in gun laws.  I am simply tired of the NRA, and others, pointing to the second amendment as the guarantee of an individual’s right.  It is not.  I am, in fact, very much in favor of the individual to have a right to gun ownership.  I am also a reasonable person and I believe there needs to be a reasonable amount of rules and regulation that keep those guns only in the hands of responsible and law-abiding citizens.  How do you do that?  I do not have an answer but I do know there is one but please do not point to the second amendment when  you make your argument.  Point to yourself as being a responsible and law-abiding citizen who has earned the right to have certain weapons of choice.

by

Who Is This God And What Does He Want?


I was brought up in the Roman Catholic tradition.  But you will not hear from me that I am a recovering Catholic or any other such silliness.  The fact is, I highly respect people of great faith regardless of their religion.  To say that I am recovering from some religion would be to say that religion was a bad thing which in my case is not true.  But it is also fact, now, that I have become an agnostic.  I do believe that there is some sort of power that permeates the universe but I cannot assign that to a supernatural being or any being at all.  I am unconvinced but not unconvinceable.

When I was a kid I was informed of the laundry list of reasons I would end up in hell if I did any of those things.  I did not question such things.  I had problems with the Catholic Church starting at age 15.  When I reached 21, or there about, I temporarily divorced myself from it.  I looked around at other religions for a while and then settled back on Catholicism.  It was the religion I was most comfortable with.  Still, I was holding onto what I had been taught where God was concerned.

In Boston there is a corner, Tremont and Park Streets, that is known as brimstone corner.  That is because the ministers who used to rule at the Park Street Church frequently elaborated in a “fire and brimstone” manner.  That is, they were constantly reminding their followers of the terrible place hell is and how they were bound to end up there if they did not do as they were instructed.  It seems that the Catholics were not the only ones preaching in such harsh terms.

I have since decided that if God does exist, and he exists at “the Father,” which implies parenthood, then he necessarily takes on the accepted roles of parenthood.  That leaves only the question of what are those roles?  As a parent I know that I love my children unconditionally and without exception.  I could not more disown them or forget about them than I could turn lead into gold.  But we are presented with the God character who does both!  How does that make sense?  Many are presented with this “vengeful God.”  Really?  Why would any parent want vengeance on his own children?  Again, it is illogical.  The only aspect of such thinking I find at all plausible is the one that offers a God who punishes his children.  That is something a parent would do.  But even so, were any of my children to break my most important rules I would never have a punishment that permanently pushed them away from me.  What kind of loving person does that?

Now that brings up the “loving and forgiving God.”  If there is a God this is the only incarnation that makes any sense at all.  We as parents do not reward bad behavior but we do not ever condemn our children to anything that is remotely hopeless.  Why would we?  Would that not make us bad parents?  Would that not be setting a bad example?

I do strongly believe in Jesus and his teachings.  Now that may sound as a bit of a contradiction but I can assure you, it is anything but.  Jesus was a real person who did walk this earth.  He set as good an example of how to live a good life as anyone who has ever lived.  He instructed people to follow his example and his example was always above reproach.  You can take his philosophies and apply them in the absence of a religious following and you still have excellent advice.

I think all people would do better if they looked at the Bible as a collection of semi-historical recollections and philosophies.  If you look at the Bible that way then it becomes very easy to explain and accept most things that are in it.  The authors of both old and new Testaments were never the writers of the same.  Remember, in those days, scribes were used to take down the words of authors.  Scribes, being human, made mistakes.  And the authors, even in their most conscientious attempts to relate events and the words of the people in those events, had to rely upon their own recollection.  Being human, they did not have perfect recollections particularly of events they did not witness.  Most books of the Bible were written long after the events described had occurred.  I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Bible, I am only saying that words are most often the author’s own interpretation of events or of the words of others.

I do believe that if you read any paragraph, particularly in the New Testament, you must ask yourself what the overriding sentiment of that paragraph, or series of paragraphs is.  Then you need to ask yourself, could there be a second or third interpretation of the same words.  If you are honest about it, you necessarily have to agree that there are indeed many possible interpretations and that what we as an individual think to be true is all right for us but we cannot, in good conscience, decide that ours is the best or only interpretation that is right.

It is my belief that the major religion in the world today, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are far to rigid in their beliefs of what this God is.  As of today, none have proven to me that there is a God, much less what we should think of such a being.  They do not make a compelling argument about this “all loving” being.  I honestly believe that their descriptions of this God, if he were to materialize on Earth, could easily be brought up on charges of abuse and neglect.  But I cannot see that such a God can actually exist.  My God sounds a lot like Jesus.  I think he could also, if I understand him properly, be Mohammad.

Finally, I believe that if there is a God, he has had nothing to do with any floods, lightning bolts, military victories or losses, temples being built or destroyed, people being punished on Earth or people being rewarded.  My God, if you could ask him the question would respond, “Look, I got everything started.  I love each of you equally and no one more than another.  I have never interfered with anything you have done.  To the contrary, I have been interested in seeing how well you all play together.  How do you think you have been doing?  Have you been taking good care of one another?”