A Matter of Faith

I recently came across an old article from Emerson College’s newspaper, The Berkeley Beacon that I had responded to back in 2008.  The article had something to do with an album just released by someone named Jon McLaughlin, whom I’ve never heard before or since, but I digress…  The author of the article, Ben Collins, wrote a fun article which playfully critiqued the artist’s record label for not properly categorizing Mr. McLaughlin’s work as Christian Rock (which apparently the album clearly is).  But I was struck by the number of comments to the article from people who daftly tried to fumble their way through some kind of quick defense of the artist against the writer (who was simply questioning the surety and practice of the artist’s record company.  In short, the writer of the article came under attack by a band of students professing the faith who felt it their duty to weigh in.  Here was my response: (and yes, that's the Flying Spaghetti Monster above):

This is in response to the “Most Recently Commented” section of the Beacon’s website.  One article seems to stand out as it has continued to receive comments: Ben Collins’s February 1, 2007 article “Jon McLaughlin makes piano rock for God”.  In Mr. Collins’s piece, he ruefully ponders the significance of an artist whose own record label is misrepresenting the work as anything but the Christian rock that it is.  Quite simply put: Mr. Collins wrote a sound piece that was witty, whimsical and meaningful.  Island Records, the label for singer/songwriter McLaughlin, knows that Christian rock is not really a selling point to anyone else excepting overly-squeamish parents and their offspring who have no discernable taste for culture beyond the church pews (as evidenced here by the numerous “but God loves you anyway” themed responses posted by others to this article). 

The religiosity in this country has become so vitriolic in its detest of those it excludes that it seemingly has to celebrate its mediocrity by mimicking "mainstream" entertainment.  Music, for example: Rock, Country, Rap, you name it, all of them now have religious themed versions of these classes of music.  But let's face it: religious music just isn’t that interesting to most of us in the mainstream because it really seems to only have one note: religion.  If you love God: great.  Sing a song if you must.  But when the song you sing is about one subject, don’t be surprised when some people excuse themselves from the monotony.  Don't get upset when listeners who happily have managed avoiding being preached to, are the ones returning a product with "Come on, what the hell is this?"  We're glad those certain students at Emerson who wear their religion like a badge with privileges, like to stick together and protest any silly attempt at a perceived smear of their religion.  I'm just wondering why all of these people who are trying (ineffectually, it should be noted) to indicate Mr. Collins’s foibles, haven't also chosen to post on topics that actually matter beyond the thin arguments centered around the "Christians under attack" debate.  The same notion that at best points out the ironic idolatry that your overly fortified, religious organizations have become (the very idolatry against which your religion preaches); and at worst: indicates the silliness of us all when we take things entirely too seriously. 

At the time of this writing, there are already 12 individual posts of comments to Mr. Collins’s humorous article on a music album, where so many other pieces on the Beacon’s site can’t seem to average more than a couple respectively.  Someone printed “God” and you wrongfully assumed that the very article was speaking directly to you.  A mistake that so many religions seem to make.

Don't get me wrong: your faith is your faith, and maybe it can be a beautiful thing.  But it can also be annoying when you feign persecution where others are simply pointing out exactly what you believe: no one is perfect.  So, enough with the saber rattling.  It’s great that you guys have gotten together to protect your religious ideals from these fictitious marauders of your faith.  No one here cares what your beliefs are except you.  Why?  Because it’s your faith, no one else’s.  And when other people say “it’s not cool to be Christian”, they say it because it really isn’t cool.  And, those of us saying it probably are tired of being pitied by a group of people who think they’ve got the mainline tapped for God, while you’re slipping on the ice just like the rest of us.  No, Christians are not cool precisely because cool is rebellious, and ambiguous and unpredictable with a flawed and roguish attitude.  It’s hard to be cool when you profess a secret knowledge of things that others may not know (and apparently don’t get to appreciate unless they’re “in the club”).  It’s like showing up at school wearing a red shirt and laughing at everyone else for not knowing it’s “I Just Made Up That Today Is Red Shirt Day” Day.  Christianity in this country, however, is the know-it-all who insists she’s right and if others don’t get it, then they are easily dismissed with a vapid “Eh, sucks to be you, but I’m going to heaven!” attitude; or are given the “I’m sorry you just don’t understand like I do.”

Christian groups and organizations that try to popularize and mainstream the pulpit by injecting it into “cool stuff that young people will really like” are just lame.  It’s establishment.  And nothing is less cool than when the establishment tries to be hip.  And what Christians don’t understand is that when they buy music and books and movies and videogames that are tailored for them, they’re contributing to the commercial stature of a religion, at this point, that is making itself a much more malignly consumable commodity (I seem to recall something about Jesus and money changers somewhere in here).  And these artists who create these works may be filled with whatever profound, divine purpose they claim, but when people say God has called them to do something, you’ll have to forgive (and aren’t you supposed to) some of the eye rolling around you, when apparently that same God just told somebody else to kill his neighbors with high-explosives.  And excusing such a difference by saying that some are graced with the “true” sense of God’s will while others are confused, is just as self promoting as a stripper hanging upside-down on a pole by nothing but the strength exerted by her buttocks.  And let’s face it, when an artist is so moved while simultaneously getting paid a great deal of money when around them so many have nothing, it leaves some wondering why everyone is so busy singing about the greatness of a deity that so readily allows its followers a willful dismissal of the needs and differences of others.  I’m not speaking about hypocrisy, I’m speaking about the blissful ignorance in which so many live, yet question in others.  Okay, I guess I am speaking about hypocrisy…     

One poster went on to say: “we should all live our lives for Him [God Almighty]”.  Such a bold statement… if someone could actually say what that means without using the same, tired, overly-reverenced, sanctity-laced, scripted, references that convey a surety where there actually is none (the December 7th post by “Scott” being true to form).  Too often, the Christians of this country espouse the holy rhetoric that few of them understand and even fewer seem to follow.  This is a result of far too much dogma and too little thought and concern.  This is the flaw of so many religious people: working from a script.  We all, actors especially, love working from the security of something written down and spelled out for us.  It’s good and it’s safe to have a reference or foundation to which we’ve been handed.  It’s far easier to revert and rely upon the handy sound bites such as: “Our lord and savior, Jesus Christ…” and “God loves you;” and my favorite: “You may not believe in God, but he believes in you.”  These are language pitfalls in to which too many religious people fall.  It sounds awkward and complacent and so very meaningless to those of us who begin to wonder if we’ve crossed the border into Stepford.  It’s robotic and rigid and pre-recorded… and highly indicative of someone who has failed to put independent thought behind the use of such terms.  These lines are tired and therefore legitimate cause for concern and questioning.  Do you know or do you believe?  Do you understand the difference between the two?  And if you say that you know something, is that hubris or hope?  These questions are very important and always relevant to this argument.  But then, this is my interpretation.  And I am willing to openly admit that this interpretation is flawed because I acknowledge my limitations (which are tested constantly by people with too much religious vagary and allusions to guidance when their arguments are entirely self-referencing). 

And it’s not just Christians, of course.  Any group that proclaims absolutist beliefs and gives greater merit to their universal applications are just as guilty as Christianity of being unforgivable.  Islam is a fascinating religion, but the fervor of descent against cartoons and now teddy bears, is an overly severe and misplaced declaration of war against others who may simply speak editorials about a religion that has seemingly walled itself against all others.  All religions should have tolerance for other faiths precisely because there are those who believe differently.  And “insulting religion” is not a crime.  It’s not even possible.  In fact, questioning religion and even jabbing it is probably a pre-requisite for freedom from religious tyranny (and it’s certainly a requirement for a good “[insert-varied-religious-trio-here] Walk into a Bar” joke).  Secularism is the only recourse as a true tolerance of religious beliefs and political beliefs (systems, both of which have proven to be prone to despotism and cruelty, especially when paired together).  But to enact fundamentalist legislation (or to even weasel it in a la Christian Conservative movements) makes a potential enemy of everyone and a decided enemy of anyone with ignorance or even willful dislike of a religious system.  People make wars on people, not religions.  Religions are too often the excuse for such wars.  No, your religion cannot be damaged in any possible way (unless an over volted Tom Cruise is your spasmodic spokesperson – but don’t get me started on brainwashing…).  Muhammad (the prophet, not the bear), Islam, and dare I say the Islamic nations and governments of the world have not been harmed in any way in the naming of a toy, the drawing of a cartoon, or the writing of a book or a blog.  Those of the Islamic faith who would seek the head of anyone they claim as an insulter and nonbeliever, is akin to someone taking violent offense at the insulting of his/her mother’s questionable sexual practices.  Yes, it’s pointedly unfriendly, but it’s ultimately just a bunch of words that do no actual damage to someone or his/her mother.  The best way to handle someone who does this is to dismiss them utterly while questioning their merit.  But to take the head of the person who insulted someone’s mother is unforgivably extreme (and probably indicative of far greater psychological issues that include overly-heightened levels of insecurity).

Look, the problem isn’t that people have faith; it’s that they have religion.  Yes, I said it.  Religions are things to be questioned because they are propagated by man, and therefore utterly flawed and quite readily misused by the same.  This is why the founding fathers of the United States of America insisted and bled for the separation of church and state.  Too often the religious right chooses to misinterpret history by proclaiming that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.  This is not only utterly ridiculous, but it’s propagandist rhetoric that is dangerously misleading.  This nation was actually founded on the principles of Greco democracy and Roman republicanism.  It should also be stressed that the founding fathers were predominantly deists, and therefore knew they were sidestepping any religious landmines by fully proclaiming that there was no place for organized religious beliefs in the existence of our nation’s government.  These people long ago recognized the corruptive nature of organized religions and the inevitable dangers they posed on men seeking power in governmental bodies.  Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, all the biggies… did not consist of the greatest mind pool in the history of nation building just to have it all dismissed and rewritten by a generation of knee-jerk zealots who have organized in a crusade to “fix” the perceived problems of the world by infusing some Christianity into things.  It’s de facto prosthlitizing under the guise of legitimate politicking… and when it’s done with such rigor and force it’s also called fascism.  And when piety prevents one from recognizing his/her own inherent evil, then it is neither pious nor forgivable for men to proclaim divinity in the judgment of others (another Jesus quote comes to mind here).               

Look, your faith is supposed to be something entirely different and utterly untouchable than this muckity, tangible world that is so easily ruined and tainted.  Your faith essentially could be equated to the soul.  The soul is the essence of something pretty unexplainable; a life force that seems to be beyond the physical realm; the eternal portion of a being.  Your religion, however, is just a body or a vehicle for that soul while here on earth.  So no one can really attack your faith, because that transcends attack.  If it can be attacked, then your faith is being confused with your religion and is therefore insufficient in its fortitude and therefore just as inappropriate as those you think attacking it.  At this point, your faith is no longer your own, and you’ve more than invited others to point out your fumblings toward some “other worldly” state.   

It should be pointed out to some online posters to this article their failure to notice that Mr. Collins and the leftist, anti-Christ, liberal mongering, Martian cohabitating, socialistic/communistic seething, subversive, majority at the Beacon decidedly and rightfully managed to place Mr. Collins’s piece in the “Arts and Entertainment” section of the Beacon (an accident, I’m sure, seeing that the Beacon’s true intention was to recruit Satanists for stealing your freedoms and forcing Spanish upon your children at school).  Look, it’s music.  If you like it, fine.  If not, fine.  But if you’ve got a column and something interesting to say, then it’s amazing how many other things those waxing religiously can choose to read instead… or simply enjoy the piece for its merits and choose to disagree.  Music, after all, is subjective… sort of like religion.  Bravo, Mr. Collins for giving a well written and thoughtful piece of writing.  If anything, you’ve proven the ability to provoke a dialogue while successfully spell checking your work. 

So when Mr. Collins aptly wrote a review of a CD and questioned the content and the manner in which it was peddled, he hardly warranted a visit from the church bake-sale brigade telling him that while he’s entitled to his opinion, he’s simultaneously wrong.  And though this was not explicitly stated, it’s always somehow implied that those of the “non-card-carrying” type are ill-fated and doomed to other places reserved for the lesser and “non-worthy” of us all.  Why?  Because in religion there always has to be recourse or a price to be paid when some imposed standard is not met.  Patriotism, America’s other abused religion, also likes to be painted with the same broad brush.  But then, when you’ve only got black and white with which to paint, trying to create a rainbow is where an artist can choose to trust in or prey upon the patron to find it in the picture.  A matter of faith, perhaps?  Who knows?  But then isn’t that the point?