THE GOD OF CANADA

Most people in the Middle East think, as the Canadian Dan Aykroyd once said in a completely unrelated context, we are on a mission from God. People pledging allegiance to the same deity are killing each other, so I must assume that at some point the will of God became unclear. It makes problems for the entire world including Canada. The simplest explanation is assuming that your opponents God is not your God. Some claim Muslims worship a different god named Allah, which is like assuming Quebecois worship a god named Dieu. Allah is just the Arabic word for the same God of the Christians and Jews. Idiots forget this because of the complex history of monotheism. Todays monotheism began with the Hebrews. They exclusively worshipped a god named Yahweh, who unlike the Greek or Egyptian gods had no specified form. It was the refusal of the Hebrews to surrender their beliefs that allowed them to act as the seed from which the faith traditions of billions emerged. For the often conquered Israelites, it was easy to see the value of beliefs like thou shall not steal. However, people always want to feel the full benefits of religion with minimum sacrifices made on behalf of their desires. Though mostly pious, there were those who claimed to follow the laws of Moses while being corrupt. Voices of conscience were sure to emerge and point out the gap that had grown between teaching and practice. For the conquering Romans, new faith was found in the beliefs of a Jewish sect based on the legacy of a rabbi named Yeshua who had promoted reformation and renewal in the face of foreign occupation. Since the separatist Israelites were despised in the Roman Empire, the ideas attributed to this rabbi were dissociated from Judaism. The blame of the Romans for the execution of Rabbi Jesus was de-emphasized, and placed on the priestly elite among the Israelites. Most Jewish traditions were forgotten especially ones that might make people reluctant to convert (circumcision), and replaced by new traditions often inspired by what the Romans and other European peoples were already familiar with. Centuries later, for a new religious symbol they chose the instrument of execution used on the famous Jewish rabbi, and called their religion Christianity. For a book of religious scripture, Christians chose the Tanakh (Torah, Nevim, and Ketuvim). Scholars had already done extensive editing and revisions to this set of writings. For instance, the section on thou shall not steal once included a footnote that one must allow the hungry to feed on (but not harvest) your crops. This was considered an inconvenience to rich property owners, and so this footnote was dropped. To this Old Testament were added teachings that were attributed to the rabbi, but only written down decades after his death. Some of these stories held conflicting accounts of events and what was said by the good rabbi, so when they were finally compiled together there was again a heavy amount of editing, and a lot of silenced voices that objected to that editing. This book of religious writings was translated from Hebrew, to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, and finally to English, French and dozens of other languages, inevitably

leading to misinterpretations. For instance, the Jewish Bible says that Jonah was eaten by a fish. Christian kids are usually told that it was a whale. That is because that when this story was written, there was no great classification of animal species to differentiate whales and big-ass fish. This by itself might seem like a minor detail, but it has to make you wonder about what else might have gotten lost in translation. Most of the translations of these texts have been done at times when the vast majority of people were illiterate, and had to rely on others to tell them what was said. Over the centuries this has offered ample opportunities for anyone with an agenda to twist teachings around in whatever way would suit them best. Because of greed, there still remains a society of haves and have-nots, of conquerors and the conquered. More than Christianity changed the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire changed Christianity. This Constantinian Christianity became just one more tool to use to support conquest and hierarchy. Not to be confused with the Catholic Church, there are many other religious sects where the majority of the followers are practicing Constantinian Christianity. The successor states of Rome still sought to conquer other peoples, justifying their actions through saying that they must convert the natives. Obviously the new religious movement founded in the name of Yeshua was capable of the same kind of corruption that the Rabbi had seen among the elite in his own Judaic tribe. Once again priestly elites amassed large fortunes for themselves while surrounded by poverty. Again, voices of dissent sought reformation to get back to their founding principles, so now instead of one church to represent Christianity there are many. However, now even many of those churches that broke away in protest have proven that they too are capable of racism, greed, corruption, and violent fanaticism. Even during apartheid, many Afrikaners claimed to be good Christians though any talk from Jesus about love and compassion never made them willingly give up any wealth or power. It reminds me of Christian Conservatives in the U.S. I have seen bumper stickers that say, Christians arent perfect, just forgiven, and I think its a total cop-out. Any religious notion of forgiveness should not be seen as a blank check to allow an infinite number of fuck-ups. The idea of forgiveness is only so we dont give up on ourselves and others when falling short of perfection. But we should still aim for making ourselves better. Besides, if Jesus meant for forgiveness to be limited to Christians then he would have never given it to the Roman soldiers who whipped him. And what about the Jews? Christians have often been assertive in trying to convert other people, including the Jewish people, to their religion. Christians now outnumber Jews more than a hundred to one. Of the twelve tribes of Israel, ten were lost. In the last century, Hitler managed to wipe out a third of the worlds Jewish people. Why must missionaries try to destroy what is left? Yeshua should stand as proof to the inspirational power of the Torah to lead a just life. Now, because he has become associated with those that try to convert them, many Jewish people try to avoid anything to do with Rabbi Jesus like the plague.

It is not as if Judaism remains as a living relic either. Over the past two millennia it has evolved, formed new sects, and provided many great thinkers like Einstein to contribute to our expanding wealth of knowledge, both in the spiritual and secular realms. They are less like a seed for other faiths, which becomes an empty shell after a plant sprouts, and more like a strawberry bush, sending out runners that form new plants, while continuing its own existence. The world to the east was also affected by the reputation of the Israelites and their most famous member, Jesus. Even so, the religion of the Arabian tribes included a belief in a large pantheon of gods. This would have been one of the regions that the churches in Rome or Constantinople would have hoped to get to adapt to the idea of monotheism. Arabia did come to accept the belief in one god, but it did so on its own terms. Rather than simply accept others stories of the nature of God, a man emerged amongst themselves to offer an alternative version, often of the same stories, to explain the divine. Rather than use the same heavily revised and edited Bible, these stories and commandments were said again for the first time in a different book of scripture, known as the Quran. This kept them from falling under foreign influence, much to the disappointment of the Romans. Asides from appealing to the Arab people, many people in Sub-Saharan Africa, and Central and South-East Asia also converted to the faith called Islam. They moved mostly into the areas that the Christian missionaries did not reach first. As a religious community expands, corporeal issues like management become more pressing, and there can eventually be arguments over issues like political organization. Such earthly concerns split Christianity apart long before the Protestant Reformation. Being far removed from the old imperial center of Rome, the flourishing civilization of the eastern Byzantine Empire became resentful of the control of the pope, and eventually split off to form the Eastern Orthodox churches. Like the Catholics, they claimed to follow Jesus, but each church saw the other as apostates from the truth, and began competing with each other over geopolitical influence. Issues of the right of succession can also tear a community of believers apart. Not long after the death of Mohammed, Muslims chose sides depending on whether they thought the community should be lead by caliphs elected from the prophets tribe, or if the only rightful successors were the descendents of Mohammeds son-in-law Ali. This eventually split Muslims into the Sunni and Shiite sects, and caused violent infighting among people who all claim that they are the children and the servants of the same God. Each group claims to be the correct manifestation of a perfected community of faith, so acceptance of the other can often be seen as a betrayal of the truth. The original followers of each of these groups might have chosen with their own hearts and minds which was the right path. But no doubt that now, more than a thousand years later, most of the followers of each group are such because of circumstances of birth, and like so many Israelis and Palestinians would consider themselves their own worst enemy had fate chosen different parents for them.

With the multiple re-translations and revisions to the Bible, there are plenty of reasons for critical minds to question the authenticity of what they are told are divine commandments. Since the entire Quran was written down in one lifetime there would seem to be less wiggle room for interpretation, and yet there is still plenty of debate among scholars about how to apply its teachings in real world scenarios. Many Muslims also use a secondary book called the Hadith, which like the Bible has gone through many different forms, and like the Bible has had different versions promoted by authorities. Therefore, like Christianity, Islam has eventually broken up into more than just two large sects. Also, like Christianity, many have given lip service to religion, over-emphasizing or under-emphasizing certain portions to suit their own interests. Due to the lack of unity in the Muslim world and frequent foreign invasions, many nation-states in the region are weak and impoverished, unlike the caliphates of old. The Christian-European powers, having recovered from the Dark Ages in a large part from adopting the knowledge preserved and the technologies developed in the Muslim World, set out to send their missionaries all over the world. Christopher Columbus showed that the stated mission of spreading the gospel could be used for a thinly veiled excuse to promote conquest and enslavement. Even today, missionary groups look for tribes in the Amazon that have never been exposed to the outside world before, just to tell them that everything they believe is wrong. Being unsatisfied with just sharing the stories of the Bible, they often try to get them to abandon their whole way of life. Missionaries even try to make them adopt western clothing, as if Jesus ever wore button-up shirts. In China, missionaries could convert hundreds of millions, without threatening Confucian thought. But in isolated hunter-gather communities, a single village could represent an entire chapter of the human legacy that they are trying to snuff out. Missionary efforts often seem like a strange mix of philanthropy and cultural genocide. Christian missionaries not only entered the pagan lands that Muslim missionaries had not yet reached, but also the lands populated by the descendents of converts to Islam. Much of the Muslim world eventually found itself under the colonial rule of those who believed that theirs was a false faith. As it has elsewhere, the wounds inflicted by imperialism persist in the post-colonial world as shown by where the centers of power and influence lie in the world are. Longing for better days has helped create a lot of resentment towards foreign influence, and a desire to resist it, sometimes violently by a choice few. There are hard-line Islamic fundamentalists, who want to rid their culture of all foreign elements, but even the caliphates of old used the wisdom of Western thinkers like Socrates to strengthen their own foundation of knowledge. In their search for purity they are forgetting their own history. Fundamentalists interpret their faith as demanding full head coverings for women.

It should also be noted that the Judeo-Christian tradition says something about having modest dress that has often been interpreted as head coverings for women. And yet, today dress like the hijab is seen as a definitive difference between Muslims and non-Muslims. I think a lot of Christian fundamentalists would try to enforce such a dress-code if they didnt have the Muslims to provide a sense of it being a foreign custom. There are still places in Eastern Europe where women wear traditional dress that includes head scarves, even if those scarves are obviously European in design. Muslims from different parts of the world have different kinds of head coverings after-all, just as they have different mosque designs. It would be arrogant of both non-Muslims and Muslims to think that they all dressed as though they were living in the Sahara. Likewise, if they were not aware of the existence of western Christians, and their scarf-less women, there might be a lot more Muslims who would be willing to accept the idea that women could still be observant of Islam, even if they exposed their hair. It is clear that it is completely in reaction to western norms that full face veils like the burqa and the niqba have been adopted by a few Muslim women to show that they are superdevotees. Even some of the most conservative Muslim clerics state that there is no commandment in the Quran to wear such dress. For some people in the Muslim World, it is not enough to say they want to remove foreign interference. Some say that they want to interfere in the lives of the rest of us. Just as some Christians believe that it would be the will of God for all people in the world to be Christians, there are Muslims who hold firm to the belief that Islam will one day rule the world. Fearing their interference on our lives, we keep trying to interfere in theirs. This helps to divide the whole world into rival camps that could help to decide where the battle lines are drawn in future wars, even though we all claim to want to serve the same all-loving God. On top of all that, just as many Sunni and Shiite Muslims would feel just as right in their own beliefs had they been born into the other group, so would many Christians and Muslims feel just as righteous had they been raised in the others faith tradition. There are obviously both positive and negative manifestations of religion. The desire to easily tell the difference between the good and bad often leads us to assume that some religions are true and some are false. For instance, there are a lot of Christians who assume that Islam is a misguided faith, and that assuring the victory of truth in the world is a simple matter of mass conversion. Many Muslims would agree, except that they think it is the Christians who are on the wrong path and need to be redirected. Both Islam and Christianity have over a billion followers each (though if even a quarter of the self-proclaimed adherents to either faith truly lived the best qualities of these religions I would be impressed). Obviously neither religion is going away, despite what we may wish. This may be a frustrating fact to whoever believes that they belong to the more perfect religion, but I think that unless the worst Muslim/Christian still lives their life better than the best Christian/Muslim, trying to claim which religion is better can only distract us from our duty to be better people. Some say that all religions have

truth in them, as lakes, ponds and rivers all have water in them. Others will of course point out that lakes, ponds and rivers have different amounts of water in them, so not all religions might have the same amount of truth in them. Well, I say that all that matters is how much positive potential you drink up. *** Religious proselytizers are a lot like many vegans. They are both self-righteously annoying. When it comes to evangelical vegans I am especially annoyed by ones who were raised by crunchy vegan parents. They have no idea what it would be like for someone else to change their own diet, because they have never changed themselves. It is the same way with missionaries who were born and bred into their belief system. They might like to parade around the converts that they convinced to let go of the beliefs they were raised in, but had they been in their shoes they cant be sure they would be willing to make the same leap of faith. The personality characteristics that make them devoted to their religion of birth could have also made them devoted to another religion had they been born into that one instead. If their beliefs really are the one true faith then they have certainly been given the vadge advantage. My involvement with the Jewish Student Union in college made me more interested in re-discovering my own religious background, so I began attending meetings of the Christian Fellowship. I admit that there was a lot of good energy in those meetings, at least until people became vocal about their objective of trying to make everyone believe what they believe. I see great hypocrisy in someone who claims to be humble, but also claims to know how the creator of the entire universe wants not only themselves but every other single person to live their life. It was when I heard them pray to God to bring back to them those who stopped attending their meetings that I decided to join the ranks of the defectors. The fallibility of evangelists can be seen when people from two different religious sects clash. My friend saw his mother, who is a Born-Again Christian, use the Bible to argue belief with some Jehovahs Witnesses, who were using the same book to try and prove that they were undeniably right and that it was she who was obviously wrong. To witness that must be like watching a bird attack its reflection in the mirror. At least the Jewish people I knew were able to realize that they followed Judaism because they were born and raised into Judaism. Recognizing that not everyone is born into that faith, they could see that their religion might not be for everyone, and to each their own. For many believers of multiple religions it is not enough to adopt such a laissez faire attitude about faith. If they truly believe they are right, they feel like they must get others to believe that they are right as well. This can often be done out of a sense of compassion for others, hoping that they can save their souls, and they hope that others will want to be saved. I certainly hope I can obtain whatever salvation there might be, and for evangelists hearing those words must be like a shark catching the scent of blood. They

could try to sell me on their beliefs, but with such a multitude of different people all feeling like they alone are right I know that whatever I do, someone is going to be convinced that I am going to hell. I can understand the crisis of belief that someone like Joseph Smith had, not being able to decide whether he should be Catholic or Protestant. I can understand him coming to the conclusion that both had become flawed, and that a third option was needed. However for the rest of us things can just become more confusing about what we should believe. Many of his modern day followers never struggled with the doubts he had, and they just accept what they have been raised to believe. Some of them come from families that have been Mormons for generations. Had they lived when Joseph Smith was alive they might have joined the mobs who accused him and his followers of heresy. Those in the mob might have claimed to be followers of Jesus, but had many of them lived in his time they might have helped to nail him to the cross. *** What about the non-western religions? Even if someone can see a common thread between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they might not see a reason to be accepting of faiths like Hinduism. The Quran makes no mention of Hindus, so there is nothing to conclude that they are People of the Book. To make monotheists even more doubtful of the validity of such religions, it is easy to perceive them as idolaters. Like our own predecessors, they have a whole pantheon of deities to focus their worship on, who come in an uncountable number of forms that are depicted in paintings and sculptures. That is certainly a big no-no in Islam, where artwork, although elaborate, forbids trying to depict the divine. Christians and Jews are also familiar with the story of a golden calf, which sounds a lot like something that could be found in a Hindu temple. There are indeed some Hindus that make their devotions just for show. For them, they are not done with purity of heart, but rather with ego, thinking only of their own material fortunes. Some Hindu nationalists use their Hindu identity to persecute people who follow other religious practices. Hinduism has been used by some to justify a rigid class hierarchy called the Caste system. One of the appeals of a certain Hindu sect, which became so popular that it is now known as a separate religion called Buddhism, was its rejection of the caste system. But even within Buddhist societies there can be an elaborate hierarchy, and the leaders of Buddhist nations often only pay lip service to its values. Buddhists from rival sects, even monks, despite their belief in non-violence, have been known to fight each other for control of sacred sites, just as Christian sects fight to control the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. All that this proves is that there is at least a couple ways that Hindus and Buddhists can be like western religious groups. But Gandhi was a Hindu, so even before I knew anything about Hinduism I saw that it must have been possible for someone to be a Hindu and to live a righteous life. Although it might seem like idolatry, Hinduism is usually pretty good about seeing the forms of its deities as metaphor. In Hinduism you have a wide choice of forms

to perceive the divine in, but adherents accept them as metaphor and recognize them all as part of a single universal spirit called Brahman. Brahman in its entirety is beyond anyones comprehension, which sounds to me a lot like God. Ultra-nationalist Hindus want to tear down mosques in India and put up Hindu temples in their place. I think it would be more productive if they just perceive every mosque as a temple devoted to Brahman. I am sure that the secrets of the universe extend well beyond the ability of even Stephen Hawkings comprehension. We can still probably understand enough of it to live our lives in a proper manner though. To make the truth understandable to us we use stories and symbols, to make what we cant perceive as being real to us, and that is fine. If God is infinite then God can take any form that we can best relate to. We of the western religions often conclude that God is formless. However, something that can be of infinite forms could seem formless, if you always try to perceive it in its entirety. But even we filter out the divine from this formlessness to find a form that we think will work best for us. For some reason, a lot of Christians picture God as this old white guy with a beard, a perception that we no doubt adopted from the top-god of the ancient Greek pantheon, Zeus. The truth is that we are all Hindus, even if we dont know it. We all choose how we want to see God. It is only idolatry if you think the same forms will work best for everybody. To think that everyone must be restricted to using the same perceptions is an insult to the divine. How can a being that created the entire universe be restricted to a Caucasian human form with male genitalia? The hypocrisy comes when we criticize others stories and call them superstitious without seeing that our own stories can be fanciful as well. The Holy Trinity comes to mind. I can accept the Trinity as a metaphor for all of the different levels of human perception that an omnipresent God would extend through; the knowable, the tangible, and the unimaginable. Many accept it more literally. If people want to believe in such stories then that is fine, but they are doing the same thing that Hindus are doing, and are certainly in no position to tell other people that they cant believe in theirs. Judaism and Islam have been more stringent on forbidding what they consider to be graven images. Even so, they have symbols and use names to describe the divine, and they can still be possessive of them. Many Muslims choose to refer to God as Allah even when they are talking in English, to emphasize their Muslim identity. They can do that, although they should realize that this has helped ignorant Christians in the West assume that they were worshipping a different God. There has been a push in the predominantly Muslim country of Malaysia to forbid any religious groups besides Muslims from using the name Allah to refer to God. Ironic, considering Christian Arabs were calling God Allah long before Islam came to South-East Asia. Muslims should remember that the Quran says that God has many names. They should remember, as I said before, that there is no set architectural style for mosques, or one type of Muslim cultural dress. Such things should certainly never get in the way of being pious. Even if

graven images are forbidden, I think that if anyone insists that everyone must use the same names, customs, and superficial cosmetic features, without thinking of the deeper principles of their religion, then they are being idolaters. The distinction between monotheism and polytheism becomes a little fuzzy. If Christianity can claim to still be monotheistic despite having the Holy Trinity, then surely there is a way to see Hinduism, with its Brahman, as also monotheistic. Often it is a matter of words used that means the difference between a belief in demi-gods and a belief in saints and angels. Often times it is just an issue of calling God by a different name. Again, God has many names. Maybe there is only one true religion, but then all of the different faiths could be that religion called by different names. Muslim fundamentalists talk about how they want Islam to rule the world. Islam means to submit to God, and there are certainly people of all religions who are trying to do that. According to Islamic history Jesus would be considered a Muslim, even though the prophet Mohammed had not been born yet. Moses would also be considered a Muslim, along with the people he led through the desert. They were Muslims, even though the present Quran had not yet been written. There might not be anything wrong in wanting Islam to rule the world, but to accomplish that one might need to be willing to see the Muslim in the Christian, the Jew, the Hindu, etc. If worship in the Temple Mount is to be restricted to adherents of Islam, then it is important to remember Islam was originally not a title, but simply a word. Worship in such a place should not be dictated by the rigidity of customs, but by the purity of intention. *** As far as whether one should look for the word of God in the Quran, Bible, Bahagavad Gita, or elsewhere, I can only say this. Putting the truth of the universe into words is difficult, because words are a human invention. The difference between the truth and words used to explain the truth are like the difference between a tree and a photograph of a tree. They are a very limiting representation of what is real. Just as a tree will not look the same in photographs taken at different angles, the truth about the divine can be described in ways that are seemingly contradictory. Our language is like a two dimensional space, and the divine is like a three dimensional object, and trying to accurately describe it in terms we can understand is impossible. With the realm of the divine it could be possible that the Great Spirit can exist as a trinity, a single being, or even as nature itself, all simultaneously. This might sound impossible to us, but only due to a lack of imagination on our part. We put so much emphasis on what book we think people should be reading, but it doesnt matter if you only read with your eyes. Doing so is like watching a 3-D movie without any glasses on. You must also read with your heart. And your brain, dont forget the brain.

*** Whenever the followers of a religious movement have proven themselves to be fallible, someone assumes that all that needs to be done is to start a new religious movement, and somehow that will succeed in finally making the perfect religion. Christians think Christianity fixed what they saw as wrong with Judaism. Muslims think Islam fixed what was wrong with Christianity. Mohammed is viewed as the final prophet, which makes it more difficult for a new religious movement to come along and claim that it will fix any problems in Islam. Considering human nature, I think it was probably for the best that Mohammed declared himself the Seal of the Prophets. Not doing so would have allowed a lot of cult leaders to emerge, falsely claiming to have communed with the divine in order to control people for their own selfish interests. Even so, I like the saying never put a period where God has placed a comma. This is meant to say that God is still speaking, and we should listen rather than assume we already know all we need to know. In spite of all our attempts at perfecting our faith, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all proven that they can have people who call themselves adherents and yet somehow get the message wrong. It makes me wish that I could find another option. I have been fairly impressed by some of the things I have heard said about the Bahai religion. It is open to the idea of universal timeless truths, as well as a continuous series of prophets, for interpreting how to apply those truths in a continuously changing world. It not only validates the stories and values of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, and any other religion that honors the same God. It reveres Abraham, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, Buddha, as well as its own founders, the Bab and Bahaullah. Claiming that they can all be right can promote peace in a world where religion is often used as the pretext of war. And it is very focused on promoting world peace, with the unity of all people and all religions, and I have to admire that, even if I am not sure about their own support for having a world government and universal auxiliary language. But I had to wonder if Bahais saw themselves as the replacement for all of the other religions of the world. They certainly respected other religions, but I have had to wonder if it was like the respect Jews for Jesus has towards Judaism; valuable but incomplete. Is everyone supposed to now believe in the divine calling of Bahaullah? That certainly wont go well with a lot of people. Muslims who want Jews and Christians to accept Islam as a more refined version of their religion certainly have resisted claims that Bahai could be a more refined version of their own. The founders and the followers of this religious group have faced a lot of persecution in Muslim lands. It makes me wonder how many of these Muslims would have treated Mohammed if they were among the pagan leaders of Mecca who exiled him into the desert.

Having formed in the late 19th Century, the Bahai faith is very new, and has fewer than 6 million followers in the world. Most Bahais I have met are very committed to their religion, being enthusiastic about it and being pious to represent their faith well to others. I imagine I would meet people just like them if I was to meet the followers of Mohammed that followed him into exile. Many Muslims are still like this, as are many Jews and Christians, but after centuries of people being born and raised in these faiths it is easy for many to use that label but not live the best aspects of the faith. I have met people who were Bahai but admit that it was only because their parents were, and they are not really practicing. They were still good people, but it makes me wonder if generations from now if it will be more common to see people who call themselves Bahai and yet somehow justify persecuting others and engaging in unnecessary violence, as people in other religions are known to frequently do. I have met some Bahais who basically said that they considered themselves enlightened, and felt that it was their duty to enlighten others. Noble, but it made me uneasy because of some of the other people I have met that speak like that. Also, I think efforts at making theirs a universal faith might be like the efforts to make Esperanto a universal language; valiant but not impartial enough in its origins to be successful. What I mean by this is that it is too culture specific to be embraced equally by the entire world. Esperanto was meant to be an amalgamation of many languages, but they were all still European languages, and despite what Europe thought, it was not center of the whole world. The Anangu people of the Australian outback see Uluru (Ayers Rock) as the center of the world, just as the Lakota people do with the Black Hills in South Dakota, but for the rest of us who live elsewhere, we can not be expected to adopt the same perceptions. Despite claims of being universal, not everyone in the world can be expected to see Vatican City or Mecca as the center of the world. Despite being more ecumenical, the Bahai faith is not free from being place or culture specific. Its special use of the Farsi language, used in Persia where the faith was founded, proves this. Also, it puts a lot of emphasis on the Zoroastrian religion, an indigenous faith of Iran, even though it has less than a million followers. Although Bahai doesnt do so to as great an extent as some religions do, there is still evidence of a founders bias. There are also disagreements within the Bahai community that are evident by the sects within the religion. If any of them claims that they are right and all the others are wrong, I will be confirmed that even with a new religious movement, history will repeat itself all over again. However, from looking at these inner divisions, Bahais could potentially get a better understanding of the turmoil between other religious groups. For instance, there is a small group known as the Biryanis, who accept the Bab as a prophet of God, but do not accept Bahaullah as the one prophesized to succeed him. If any Bahai feels animosity towards the Biryanis because of this, they will know how Christians feel about the Jews. There are also different Bahai sects that split off early on, because of disagreements over who was supposed to inherit the duties of managing Bahaullahs religion. There is a group that calls itself the True Bahais that does not recognize some

of Bahaullahs descendants as the rightful heirs for taking up the mantel of the faith. This could help Bahais to have a better understanding about the strong disagreements held between the Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam. There is also a group called the Reform Bahais. They still follow the teachings of Bahaullah, but they do not recognize the authority of the Universal House of Justice. The UHJ is kind of like the Bahai Vatican, except that its members are democratically elected. However they still have a lot of power over religious interpretation, and defining Bahai rules and regulations. Not everyone who calls themselves a Bahai is willing to accept this type of centralized control. This could help Bahais to understand the shaky relationship between the Catholic and Protestant churches. It would greatly impress me if these different Bahai sects can not let their disagreements over details of succession and such distract them from the one central tenet of their faith, that there is no higher form of worshipping God than to be of service to fellow human beings. Somewhere in all major religions this is mentioned, but has been largely forgotten, which is why Bahaullah felt the need to reiterate it once again. If Bahais want to really honor the memory of their founder, they will not let history repeat itself, and they wont let disagreements take emphasis off of what really matters. Also, for those who might like to think of the Bahai faith as a more refined version of other religious traditions, and would like others to think so as well, I have this to say. Unless even the worst Bahai lives their life better than the most pious adherent of every other religion, there is no basis for making such claims. Once again, claiming to be better than others will only get in the way of you bettering yourself. *** Let us assume there is a God, and there are universal truths people should follow, which is why so many people in the world are religious. It doesnt take much courage for someone to call themselves a follower of a faith tradition that is centuries old. To do so is often the status quo in our own time, but every faith tradition was once new, and had these faithful followers been around to witness their birth, they might not have been willing to make such a radical leap of faith to chart a new path of spirituality. Just as it is with new opposition political movements, the earliest professed followers of any religious movement are usually outcasts. Later it becomes more obviously prudent for those with wealth and power to count themselves as believers to protect and expand their own fortunes and influence. With time, as the new faith becomes the established faith, the added social benefits of profession multiply and it becomes harder to determine who is truly genuine in their belief. This doesnt mean that newer faith traditions tend to be more right. Any universal truths would surely be timeless. With time, it does become easier for people to claim to be adherents of a religion and fail to embody the better values. This is evident from the extremist minority in Northern Ireland who claim to proudly identify as Catholic or

Protestant, but would use that identity as a reason to hate and fight each other. However, people can still follow some of the oldest traditions and live righteously. I am sure Jesus would approve more of Jewish people who use the laws of Moses as inspiration to live charitable lives than he would of people who praise him every day as Lord and Savior, but never do anything to help their fellow human beings. This doesnt mean that the oldest religious traditions are the right traditions for everyone. Sometimes, for some people to learn ageless universal truths they must hear them as if they were spoken for the first time, using new words and new traditions to give them meaning. This is why some people can live better lives by changing their religion regardless of which tradition they grew up with or which tradition they accept. New faith traditions can also help keep the older ones honest. I think Martin Luther might have inadvertently saved the Catholic Church by providing competition that forced the Vatican to be more appealing to faith customers who now had a choice where they could shop. *** Religion is popular because there is a natural need for the comfort and answers that it provides us in an uncertain world. Many claim no need for belief in such matters of spirit, but among them many rely on the presence of religious kooks to turn them off from religious belief, and there are plenty of such kooks to observe. To be fair, all religions have some members who are insane. It would also be unfair to assume that all members of a religion are sheeple. For centuries people have justified discrimination against Catholics by accusing them of being the mindless slaves of the Vatican. This can not possibly be true because Catholics form the single largest religious group in Canada, and even in the United States there are scores of Catholics that have managed to practice their faith but been able to support progressive causes and be open minded. There are certainly Catholics with regressive thinking, but I find that people who would blindly condemn all of the Catholics in the world will themselves engender the same closed-minded attitudes that a fraction of Catholics might possess. They might proudly identify as Protestant, but I am guessing that if they had lived during the time of the revolutionary reformer Martin Luther that they would have joined the Vatican in accusing him of heresy. A classmate of mine from Utah once assumed that everyone going to the Hooters restaurant in Salt Lake City must have been from the non-Mormon minority. That is like assuming that no Jews eat bacon. Every religious group has its share of non-practitioners, and I found it insulting for him to assume that only religious groups other than his own had them. In fact it was the second most offensive thing I ever head him say (the first being that he thought it was silly that Canada was trying to have an identity of its own).

Religions are so big that they have too much diversity and variety of thought to condemn or praise their followers in their entirety. Many sects however are more selective in their make-up. But even with religious sects, it is wrong to condemn all their members in their entirety. I know it is easy for progressives to do so with groups like the LDS church, but we should be aware that there are groups of practicing Mormons that support marriage equality, even if their leaders do not. Still, I would have to be pretty nave if I didnt presume that I would be more likely to find a Republican majority at a Mormon church than at a Unitarian one. Some religious sects have been established out of spite, been founded by a delusional megalomaniac, or because someone saw them as a good money making scheme. This doesnt mean that you can not find any followers amongst these sects who manage to live good lives, but I think for the sake of defending the better values left to us from the Age of Enlightenment, we should resist all efforts by their leaders to spread their influence. I see the proliferation of some religious sects as having more positive socialpolitical consequences than others. For instance, I would rather see more Muslims follow paths like the liberal Sufis or the Alevis than the hard-line Wahabbis. I dont give much thought to supposed threats to my freedom from Muslims though, not because I am more prejudice against Christianity, but because I have no reason to feel threatened by Muslims. People in Egypt might have a reason to worry about Islamists taking over, but we in the West certainly do not. Even if a few extremists might occasionally succeed in committing terrorist attacks, only our own governments have the power to take away both our lives and our freedoms. For the same reasons, I perceive no threat to my freedoms from ultra-Orthodox Jews in North America but I am extremely disturbed by how they are trying to politically take over Israel. Conservative politicians have talked so much about the fear of Islamofascism but it seems to me that we need to worry more about Christofascism taking away the freedom of people in the U.S. and Canada. Because Christians are in the majority in the West, many have the sense of entitlement to mold our society as they see fit, and even try to give non-Christians second class citizenship. I know we are supposed to respect everyones choice of beliefs, and perhaps I could if they had no effect on my own life. Unfortunately, those of the religious right do two things that make me uneasy: they vote, and they breed. Such Christian fundamentalists threaten to reverse the Era of Enlightenment, by trying to follow scripture without giving any consideration to the times we are living in. A lot of people still take the be fruitful and multiply thing very literally, despite the human population being over one hundred times larger than when those words were first written, with food and fresh water shortages starting to become a big problem in much of the world, not to mention how many places have had their natural beauty turned into suburban hell holes. To want a large family so much that you will ignore the population problem, and do nothing to offer a home to any impoverished orphans is a sin, and I shouldnt need a holy

book to say so. Plus, if there were more adoptions, perhaps more people would see that as a viable alternative to abortions. I know people who were becoming doctors, so obviously quite educated, but still planning to have around half a dozen children, because their churches told them to. It is disturbing that they could ignore the evidence that they must have come across at some point in their studies that we are running out of resources and running out of room. They are also helping to raise a large portion of the next generation, many of whom could vote with the same dangerous absence of reasoning. To ensure this, many of their parents are taking them out of the indoctrination of public schools. They will instead be taught in religiously sponsored settings where they can be protected from things that their parents consider dangerous, like rational thought, tolerance of differing beliefs, and undeniable scientific fact. I dont mind if people choose not to believe in evolution, but their same religious convictions that trump common sense makes most of these same people deny that either overpopulation or global climate change are real problems, and that I certainly do mind. *** Beyond the endless debate over which religion is the most right, there is the endless debate of what role religion should play in the political state. The struggle between church and state has been an endless struggle in the U.S. Officially we have no state religion, just as we have no official language, but when the nation as a whole is predominantly English-speaking Christians this again has created the same kind of passive-aggressive attitude towards minorities. Many claim outright that this is supposed to be a Christian state, and this demand usually comes from the same people who try to demand that everyone speaks English. The Christofascists are at no time more annoying than during the Holidays. To reflect our multicultural nature, recognizing that not everyone shares the same religion or celebrates the same holidays, it has become common place around December to see officially sanctioned seasons greetings to say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas. Even when a spruce tree is placed in a public square, and decorated with multicolored lights, it is usually referred to as a holiday tree. Despite the fact that this ornamented evergreen has its origins as one of those pagan traditions, and Jesus would have never laid eyes upon it, Christians are very covetous in claiming this as one of their symbols. And honestly, anyone who isnt Christian is still probably going to see it as a Christmas tree regardless of what you call it. It is not as if I havent recognized any hypocrisy myself in attempts at political correctness. I sensed a double standard in college, when adjacent to banners that said Happy Holidays there were banners that said Happy Chanukah. I have also wondered if the menorah I saw in front of City Hall, next to the holiday tree was a holiday menorah.

My grievances dont seem to compare to the outrage by Christian Conservatives however. They have fought tooth and nail to get the state to go back to using Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. They make sure to say Merry Christmas to others as often as they can, even putting it on bumper stickers. However, I know that when they say Merry Christmas what they really mean is fuck you liberals and nonChristians. You might as well replace the manger in Nativity scenes with a hand giving the middle finger. Using a secular seasons greetings might seem to some like an insult to the spirit of Christmas, but what they are doing is a thousand times worse. A few years ago, some people on a New York City subway were going around saying Merry Christmas to everyone as loudly as they could. When someone responded by saying Happy Chanukah they beat the crap out of him while yelling keep Christ in Christmas! Somehow I dont think they made Jesus proud. The Merry Crusaders have also threatened retail stores with boycotts if they did not change from saying Happy Holidays to Merry Christmas. Their efforts have paid off, because big box stores now say that in their commercials. A lot of jewelry stores at the mall now display the nativity scene, and I am assuming that this is due to having similar pressure put on them. Yet, these big box stores still sell products that were made with sweatshop labor, pay their employees slave wages, and destroy communities by putting mom & pop stores out of business. Also, those jewelry stores probably still sell diamonds that have been used to fund civil wars in Africa fought by child soldiers. Although judgment is not mine to make, to put so much effort into superficial matters while ignoring these larger issues, it is of my opinion that they are guilty of idolatry. In Canada, it is still common to say Merry Christmas, but since this is a continuation of a centuries old tradition, rather than a reaction to modern attempts at political correctness, I feel like Canadians are more likely to use this seasons greeting with the original intent. There is a beautiful Christmas song by Bryan Adams, and if someone can say Merry Christmas in the same spirit that is expressed in that song, than no one of any religion should take offense. Canada indeed looks like it has not been as afraid to include religious symbolism in the state. God is mentioned in the national anthem. There is a Church of Canada, a division of the Anglican Church that views the British Monarch as defender of the faith. In the legislative assembly of the Quebec parliament there is even a crucifix above the governor generals throne. Yet, because this is due to the continuation of tradition, rather than a neo-conservative counter-revolutionary movement, it doesnt really bother me. Most Canadians dont belong to the Church of Canada, and because there is complete freedom of worship, they are no less Canadian for it. Many western countries have an official church, but like Queen Elizabeth II in Canada, their authority over the nation is purely symbolic. People in such countries are often actually better than the U.S. at separating religion and politics, because the symbolic national church, like a symbolic

despot, gives them something to focus their resistance on, to ensure that they preserve their liberty in the face of the threat of tyranny or theocracy. Canada has also given the religious traditionalists the gift of symbolic recognition, which helps to tame the beast, so that they dont try as hard to meddle in the personal lives of others. When I saw the crucifix on the throne in the parliament of predominantly Catholic Quebec, I took it to mean this far you can go, but no farther. The state can acknowledge the religious heritage of those who founded the nation, but thanks to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 2(a), it can not give second-class citizenship to everyone else. For those of us who promote secularism, I would suggest not kicking the hornets nest, and instead let the babies have their bottle. *** One of the oldest corruptions of faith has been the effort to try and link obedience to God to obedience to mortal authorities. Governments try to take advantage of religion for their own devices. I would have thought that with the Revolutionary War that the U.S would have realized that it was time to finally abandon the medieval concept of the divine right of kings. But I have heard ultra-religious people say that they supported George W. Bush because he was a God-fearing man. They used this to blind themselves to eight years of failed leadership, and it scares me to think that people could use religious arguments to justify such poor decisions. Some of the worst acts of inhumanity have been committed with the belief that they had divine sanction. I am not against the idea of God, or trying to create a world that an all-loving God would approve of. But trying to create a religious state with no room for secularism has always backfired, leaving no place for the sacred. Trying to universally enforce stringent codes of moral conduct has never worked. Many politicians who have preached about family values have had secret extramarital affairs. When caught they claim that they will be forgiven because they are Christian. I imagine that if they did manage to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the same politicians would use their money and influence to still attain abortions for their mistresses and daughters, to uphold the illusion of moral infallibility. I have heard stories leaked from people working in hospitals near convents about nuns coming in for abortions to dispose of the evidence that their chastity was a lie. Apparently, they believe that two sins hidden is better than one exposed. Although I am not suggesting we condone hedonistic behavior, I have noted that the opposite extreme of demanding abstinence, like the Catholic Church does of its clergy, has not worked so well. It is only after the sex-abuse became well known that the Church tried to deal with it instead of covering it up. Too often, those in authority only care when the people are aware.

Any state that claimed to be a religiously moral utopia has been a lie. I would rather have a secular government, because the truth is we can at best only guess what the will of God is. Even so, trying to enforce secularism everywhere means that forces trying to challenge that secularism could be at work anywhere trying to undermine it. We could hope that all of the area that made up the British-mandate of Palestine could be a perfectly secular state, but the founders of Pakistan had the same hopes for their own country, and look at the state they are in today. If I can be allowed my own space, I would be open to theocrats having some space to implement their own social experiments. I know that they think that they should be given all of the space in the world, since Gods realm is endless. The Ayatollahs probably wouldnt agree to limit their authority to only part of Iran. But anytime theocrats have been given endless power they have let it go to their head, enforcing their will with cruelty and violence, making the lands they control seem less like heaven and more like hell on Earth. With restricted scope, religious authorities are more likely to remember the virtue of patience, and better emphasize the good aspects of their faith to a populace that is given a choice whether to follow them or not. If I truly believed that Bush was making a country that God would be more approving of I would have supported him. But I do not have faith that such politicians will get us to the golden land, since there seems to be more effort put into getting a nativity scene in front of City Hall than making sure that everyone in the community is fed. The Ayatollahs might be baffled that politicians who would like to nuke Iran feel they are doing the work of the same God that they have committed themselves to. As far as doing the will of God, I will admit to them that we have failed, but so have they. *** Anyone who is truly proud to be Canadian should resist Constantinian Christianity and all other forms of religious fundamentalism. It doesnt mean you have to be anti-religious. I saw a glimmer of hope when a renowned evangelical college in Ontario cancelled a visit by George W. Bush after many of its students protested. I am glad that they can see that anyone who defines morals as go to war and screw the poor is against their values, whether you define them as Christian values or Canadian values. Canadas own home-grown hottie Evangeline Lilly is Christian, but I would consider her a real Christian. Peace, equality, and social justice are what concern her the most. She also believes that if she is going to have a lot of children then she should adopt, rather than add to the overpopulation problem. Plus, I really have to respect someone who can carry a Bible without acting like a giant douche. ***

Despite all of the failed attempts that have been made, I know that a lot of people will still hold the belief that they are on a mission from God to try and make a world that God would be more approving of. Hopefully they can see that as meaning the same thing as working towards a world where everything is as it should be, a goal just about everyone can agree on whether they believe in God or not. Many think that it to make a world more to Gods liking they must try to get others to adopt the same religious beliefs that they do. Hopefully they will notice the limits of their ability to do this, and how some fanatical efforts lead to violence and persecution that only takes us further from what an all-loving God would want to see the world as being. The challenge of propagating any religion is similar to the more secular agenda of making a better world, which I will touch on next.