freelance monotheism
The other day a friend of mine told me he had just recently read a few books by Karen Armstrong, and asked me if I had heard of her. I had not, so I looked her up online. While I'd love to check out some of her actual writings, I learned a bit about her background and ideologies. She is a fellow Scorpio (as is my favorite author Edward Said), has a degree in literature, was a former Nun, then turned Atheist as a result of bad experiences with the convent lifestyle and expectations - then changed some of her views after visiting Jerusalem. She has written about Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, and now calls herself a "freelance monotheist." She purports the theory that fundamentalist religion is a response to and product of modern culture. I would say that the "structure" aspect of organized religions certainly contributes to their disenchantment, but the notion of "freelance" would suggest the inability or decision to not commit to any of the above due to personal fears, or otherwise internal spiritual limitations.
Upon visiting Jerusalem, a person could not argue against the existence of God, and His presence in some form becomes absolutely apparent to anyone with a pulse. Atheism is not even an option once exposed to this region of the world (perhaps arguably conceivable by those separated by distance with no means to travel and no access to history books), as the history of humankind is traced back to Israel and Mesopotamia/Babylon, present-day Iraq. The notion of "freelance monotheism" is engaging in and of itself, yet offers merely a quaint literary perspective void of tactile interaction. Has she spent the night in a Bedouin village as I have, and coexisted among the hijab-sporting virgins eager to spread what they believe to be the only true way, the way of the sword?
I once thought Islam provided a legitimate religious lifestyle/belief system (seemed peaceful enough) until I witnessed first-hand the oppression of its adherents, both in societal restriction and political elitism. Islam was created out of reaction to Christianity and Judaism, because they did not approve of the way their followers behaved - and sought to create a new religion in which they could do better than these hypocrites. Yet the quest for best has forced them into a narrow mindset embracing the notion of religion, but discarding the intended focus (a personal relationship with God), resulting a socio-political battle and cultural upheaval, even against other Muslims.
If we as humans possess free will (which indeed we are born with), to freely choose Islam is to subscribe to a twisted ideology in which all other religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc) are inferior, deemed in the Quran as "infidels", who must be destroyed. Their doctrine contradicts itself as it also labels Christians and Jews as respectable, "dhimmis" or "people of the Book", yet does not discriminate among the various categories of infidels (if you are not a Muslim, you must be killed). A religion which contradicts itself could not possibly prove valid, or even loving/accepting of others. Thus a mere literary assessment can not provide a first-hand interaction with the people, who often mask their true intentions (in deceit and blatant insincerity) in projecting a "false" sense of peace or holiness. "Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to the West" is their mantra - can you subscribe to this while concurrently validating the Western religions? How then would it be possible to simultaneously embrace the three monotheistic religions as a type of new-age religious tolerance, as though hatred/killing in the name of God could also be legitimized?
To excavate some level of wisdom from the Quran is merely a recognition of that which was borrowed from the Bible and Torah. This in fact is the reason the monotheistic religions are so similar and could lend to any number of comparative studies - obviously the Torah is the Old Testament, half the Bible, and the Quran is an excessively edited version of these. Far Eastern religions appear the least controversial in comparison, as they do not attempt to negate HISTORY (which cannot be changed by any person or religious institution despite societal or political upheaval) and thus can provide an outlet for humans merely seeking inner peace and tranquility... the true "essence" of religion or spirituality.
If we can embrace the value in each religion and adopt it as our own (in terms of "freelance monotheism"), we can begin to live our lives the way in which God intended of us. The peace of Buddhism, the compassion and grace of Jesus, the modesty of the Muslims, the devotion of the Jews, and the resistance to ego, desire, and suffering in the quest for selflessness and transcendence - we may attain a greater understanding of God as Omnipotent Creator of the Universe, complete with its inherently diverse levels of human consciousness and realization of the Divine. God is peace, not war, and created us to have a relationship with Him, in order that we may transcend this earthly paradigm wrought with dissension and suffering - and to experience Him fully.
Upon visiting Jerusalem, a person could not argue against the existence of God, and His presence in some form becomes absolutely apparent to anyone with a pulse. Atheism is not even an option once exposed to this region of the world (perhaps arguably conceivable by those separated by distance with no means to travel and no access to history books), as the history of humankind is traced back to Israel and Mesopotamia/Babylon, present-day Iraq. The notion of "freelance monotheism" is engaging in and of itself, yet offers merely a quaint literary perspective void of tactile interaction. Has she spent the night in a Bedouin village as I have, and coexisted among the hijab-sporting virgins eager to spread what they believe to be the only true way, the way of the sword?
I once thought Islam provided a legitimate religious lifestyle/belief system (seemed peaceful enough) until I witnessed first-hand the oppression of its adherents, both in societal restriction and political elitism. Islam was created out of reaction to Christianity and Judaism, because they did not approve of the way their followers behaved - and sought to create a new religion in which they could do better than these hypocrites. Yet the quest for best has forced them into a narrow mindset embracing the notion of religion, but discarding the intended focus (a personal relationship with God), resulting a socio-political battle and cultural upheaval, even against other Muslims.
If we as humans possess free will (which indeed we are born with), to freely choose Islam is to subscribe to a twisted ideology in which all other religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc) are inferior, deemed in the Quran as "infidels", who must be destroyed. Their doctrine contradicts itself as it also labels Christians and Jews as respectable, "dhimmis" or "people of the Book", yet does not discriminate among the various categories of infidels (if you are not a Muslim, you must be killed). A religion which contradicts itself could not possibly prove valid, or even loving/accepting of others. Thus a mere literary assessment can not provide a first-hand interaction with the people, who often mask their true intentions (in deceit and blatant insincerity) in projecting a "false" sense of peace or holiness. "Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to the West" is their mantra - can you subscribe to this while concurrently validating the Western religions? How then would it be possible to simultaneously embrace the three monotheistic religions as a type of new-age religious tolerance, as though hatred/killing in the name of God could also be legitimized?
To excavate some level of wisdom from the Quran is merely a recognition of that which was borrowed from the Bible and Torah. This in fact is the reason the monotheistic religions are so similar and could lend to any number of comparative studies - obviously the Torah is the Old Testament, half the Bible, and the Quran is an excessively edited version of these. Far Eastern religions appear the least controversial in comparison, as they do not attempt to negate HISTORY (which cannot be changed by any person or religious institution despite societal or political upheaval) and thus can provide an outlet for humans merely seeking inner peace and tranquility... the true "essence" of religion or spirituality.
If we can embrace the value in each religion and adopt it as our own (in terms of "freelance monotheism"), we can begin to live our lives the way in which God intended of us. The peace of Buddhism, the compassion and grace of Jesus, the modesty of the Muslims, the devotion of the Jews, and the resistance to ego, desire, and suffering in the quest for selflessness and transcendence - we may attain a greater understanding of God as Omnipotent Creator of the Universe, complete with its inherently diverse levels of human consciousness and realization of the Divine. God is peace, not war, and created us to have a relationship with Him, in order that we may transcend this earthly paradigm wrought with dissension and suffering - and to experience Him fully.
posted by :: Lisa :: at 9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home