The Case Against Religion
Albert Ellis on what's wrong with religion. First he lists (and explains at the link) traits of the psychologically healthy -- as self-interest, self-direction, tolerance, acceptance of uncertainty, flexibility, scientific thinking, commitment, risk-taking, and self-acceptance. Then he asks:
Now, does religion—by which again, I mean faith unfounded on fact, or dependence on some supernatural deity—help human beings to achieve these healthy traits and thereby to avoid becoming anxious, depressed, and hostile?The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t help at all; and in most respects it seriously sabotages mental health. For religion, first of all, is not self-interest; it is god-interest.
The religious person must, by virtual definition, be so concerned with whether or not his hypothesized god loves him, and whether he is doing the right thing to continue to keep in this god’s good graces, that he must, at very best, put himself second and must sacrifice some of his most cherished interests to appease this god. If, moreover, he is a member of any organized religion, then he must choose his god’s precepts first, those of this church and it’s clergy second, and his own views and preferences third.
NO VIEWS OF HIS OWN
In a sense, the religious person must have no real views of his own; and it is presumptuous of him, in fact, to have any. In regard to sex-love affairs, to marriage and family relations, to business, to politics, and to virtually everything else that is important in his life, he must try to discover what his god and his clergy would like him to do; and he must primarily do their bidding.
Masochistic self-sacrifice is an integral part of almost all organized religions: as shown, for example, in the various forms of ritualistic self-deprivation that Jews, Christians, Mohammedans, and other religionists must continually undergo if they are to keep in good with their assumed gods.
Masochism, indeed, stems form an individuals’s deliberately inflicting pain on himself in order that he may guiltlessly permit himself to experience some kind of sexual or other pleasure; and the very essence of most organized religions is the performance of masochistic, guilt-soothing rituals, by which the religious individual gives himself permission to enjoy life.
Religiosity, to a large degree, essentially is masochism; and both are forms of mental sickness.
In regard to self-direction, it can easily be seen from what just been said that the religious person is by necessity dependant and other-directed rather that independent and self-directed. If he is true to his religious beliefs he must first bow down to his god; to the clergy who this god’s church; and third, to all the members of his religious sect, who are eagle-eyedly watching him to see whether he defects an iota from the conduct his god and his church define as proper.
If religion, therefore, is largely masochism, it is even more dependency. For a man to be a true believer and to be strong and independent is impossible; religion and self-sufficiency are contradictory terms.
Here's more from Ellis:
Religion, with its definitional absolutes, can never rest with the concept of an individual’s wrong doing or making mistakes, but must inevitably all to this the notion of his sinning and of his deserving to be punished for his sins. For, if it is merely desirable for you to refrain from harming others or committing other misdeeds, as any non-religious code of ethics will inform you that it is, then if you make a mistake and do commit some misdeeds, you are merely a wrong-doer, or one who is doing an undesirable deed and who should try to correct himself and do less wrong in the future. But is it is god-given, absolute law that you shall not, must not do a wrong act, and actually do it, you are then a mean, miserable sinner, a worthless being, and must severely punish yourself (perhaps eternally, in hell) for being a wrongdoer, being a fallible human.Religion, then, by setting up absolute, god-given standards, must make you self-deprecating and dehumanized when you err; and must lead you to despise and dehumanize others when they act badly. This kind of absolutistic, perfectionistic thinking is the prime creator of the two most corroding of human emotions: anxiety and hostility.
If one of the requisites for emotional health is acceptance of uncertainty, then religion is obviously the unhealthiest state imaginable:
Since its prime reason for being is to enable the religionist to believe a mystical certainty.
Just because life is so uncertain, and because millions of people think that they cannot take its vicissitudes, they invent absolutistic gods, and thereby pretend that there is some final, invariant answer to things. Patently, these people are fooling themselves—and instead of healthfully admitting that they do not need certainty, but can live comfortably in this often disorderly world, they stubbornly protect their neurotic beliefs by insisting that there must be the kind of certainty that they foolishly believe that they need.
This is like a child’s believing that he must have a kindly father in order to survive; and then, when his father is unkindly, or perhaps has died and is nonexistent, he dreams up a father (who may be a neighbor, a movie star, or a pure figment of his imagination) and he insists that this dream-father actually exists.
The trait of flexibility, which is so essential to proper emotional functioning, is also blocked and sabotaged by religious belief. For the person who dogmatically believes in god, and who sustains this belief with a faith unfounded in fact, which a true religious of course must, clearly is not open to change and is necessarily bigoted.
If, for example, his scriptures or his church, tell him he shalt not even covet his neighbor’s wife—let alone have actual adulterous relations with her!--he cannot ask himself, "Why should I not lust after this women, as long as I don’t intend to do anything about my desire for her? What is really wrong about that?" For his god and his church have spoken; and there is no appeal from this arbitrary authority, once he has brought himself to accept it.
Very interesting observation on the need for certainty. I'd add to that the need to have all the answers in one place. My mom is extremely religious, and I remember once when I was a kid I asked her what she'd do if she found out that something her church told her wasn't true. She said she would throw away all the literature, disassociate herself from the church, and never go back. Of course that will never happen, because her church dictates what she is and is not allowed to read, which means she's usually only allowed to read what they themselves write. (Which is really boring, because it's the same thing. Over and over and over and over ...) Books along the "I got out" line, written by former members, are strictly forbidden, for example, since that would be "apostate" literature.
But aside from that eyeroll-inducing aspect of it, what's with the idea that something must be 100% absolutely right in every respect or it must be rejected in its entirety? I can sit down and read an essay by Ayn Rand and agree with most of it. Does that mean I have to agree with ALL of it? I think the philosophy of Ayn Rand is one of the best out there, but once in a while I can read something she's written and think, 'Okay, girl, now you've gone completely crackers.' I think you've just got to meet lots of people and read everything you can get your hands on and sift through everything until some of it starts to agree and make sense. The idea that you're going to find all the answers wrapped up and tied with a bow in one tidy place is unrealistic, not to mention lazy. When I think back about my mom making that comment, it highlights how great of a NEED she had to believe it, though, and logic and reason did not have to apply.
Pirate Jo at February 9, 2006 7:32 AM
I've been reading a book by the psychologist Martin Seligman in which he very thoroughly reviews observational and experimental evidence on the determinants of happiness. As someone who has no interest in -- indeed, no ability to be interested in -- adherence to religious beliefs, I was a little dismayed to read:
"The causal relation between religion and healthier, more prosocial living is no mystery. Many religions proscribe drugs, crime, and infidelity while endorsing charity, moderation, and hard work. The causal relation of religion to greater happiness, lack of depression, and greater resilience from tragedy is not as straightforward. In the heyday of behaviorism, the emotional benefits of religion were explained (away?) as resulting from more social support. Religious people congregate with others who form a sympathetic community of friends, the argument went, and this makes them all feel better. But there is, I believe, a more basic link: religions instill hope for the future and create meaning in life."
... for the sake of argument.
Lena
Lena at February 9, 2006 8:22 AM
"In the heyday of behaviorism, the emotional benefits of religion were explained (away?) as resulting from more social support. Religious people congregate with others who form a sympathetic community of friends, the argument went, and this makes them all feel better."
Then again, people who surround themselves only with other people who share their dogma end up becoming more and more extreme in their beliefs.
Pirate Jo at February 9, 2006 9:07 AM
"people who surround themselves only with other people who share their dogma end up becoming more and more extreme in their beliefs."
That sounds feasible. But evidence for that did not emerge from Seligman's review of the literature.
Lena at February 9, 2006 9:17 AM
> First he lists (and explains
> at the link) traits of the
> psychologically healthy
Who says 'psychological health' is the highest virtue?
Crid at February 9, 2006 9:35 AM
Definitions, please!
Lena at February 9, 2006 10:25 AM
Exactly
Crid at February 9, 2006 10:41 AM
But, it's false hope for the future, which often causes people to waste their lives while hoping for what's to come. More later. Jetlagged (yes, just got to France today) and must go to bed.
Amy Alkon at February 9, 2006 1:58 PM
Last time I checked, no one has proven the impossibility of divine revelation.
What do I need for happiness? According to Nietzsche, or, perhaps, Zarathustra, the happy life involves (if I remember correctly) a Yes, a No, a Straightline, and a Goal. The kicker, of course, is that for 1001 civilizations there have been 1001 goals. If we are born after God is dead, how do we choose a goal, without being conscious of our choice? If we are concious of our choice, how do we avoid the idea that all choice is arbitrary? If we are self-concious, how can we avoid nihilism? Thus, nausea and the Last Man.
Fritz at February 9, 2006 4:32 PM
Amy, while you're there, pick me up a copy of Wednesday's Charlie Hebdo. I'll paypal you for it, lemme know how much.
crid at February 9, 2006 4:35 PM
Folks, Ellis' definitions are at the link Amy has posted. That's the link to his "position paper" or "proposal" for a hypothetical postulation.
I have no doubt that Dr. Ellis is a good therapist and has probably helped lots of people.
However ...
First, there are typos in Dr. Ellis' opinion piece. Second, he doesn't quote any collegial sources newer than 1961. Third, he gives us no statistics and no references to scientific studies of the effects of religion on mental health. Fourth, I think that his hypothesis is weak and that if he conducted a research study on this topic, conclusions based on the data would not support his hypothesis. (That's my little hypothesis.) This document is his opinion, simply.
Just because a doctor says it, doesn't make it gospel. :)
(Yes, I am in the midst of earning a Master's degree in mental health counseling and working on research methodology this semester, in case you wondered where I was coming from.)
Harris Pilton at February 9, 2006 5:23 PM
"Last time I checked, no one has proven the impossibility of divine revelation."
Yeah, and no one has proven the impossibility that Almond Joy tumbles out of my ass on a regular basis either.
It's not my job to test anyone else's silly null hypothesis.
Lena at February 9, 2006 7:23 PM
Sorry, Crid, I don't shop for people while I'm there (you're person 20 who's asked)...I hope you understand, but I'm here a little over a week, and I was hoping to have a vacation of sorts and not just sit in cafés writing my column!
And very funny Leen...my first laugh of the morning.
Amy Alkon at February 9, 2006 10:05 PM
Then get one for yourself. Either you'll be glad you did, or you won't want to visit again.
And I'd bet Almond Joy DOES tumble out of Lena's ass on a regular basis... not that anyone would recognize it
Crid at February 9, 2006 10:10 PM
Since I'm in research mode for a currently running study proposal, I thought I'd toss in these longish quotes from peer-reviewed scholarly journals.
From: Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Religion and psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 165-167.
"Psychologists have built an impressive stock of knowledge about many spheres and forms of behavior, including learning, aggression, love, sexuality, mental illness, coping with stress, attitudes and influence, competition, first impressions, relationships, helping, and too many others to name. However, some areas remain strangely neglected, constituting holes in our field's understanding. Religion is one of these.
Why has religion been neglected? Two answers stand out. Stark and Bainbridge suggested one in their classic 1985 work, The Future of Religion. They pointed out that religiosity tends to have a strong negative correlation with education. Researchers are themselves highly educated and tend not to be religious. More important, they tend to spend most of their lives at universities, where they are surrounded by other highly educated people. This may cause such people to get the false impression that religion is a rare, marginal phenomenon. Even if they occasionally meet a religious person at a university, the person tends to be an exception and, knowing this, tends to keep his or her religiosity under wraps. All of this differs radically from the experience of living among people who all embrace a common religious faith and share the assumption that certain religious truths are fundamental to the nature of reality.
The other reason is that the psychology of religion at times has been monopolized by people with strong personal feelings about it. Because religion was never a popular, so-called hot topic that attracted the attention of a great many energetic psychologists, the only people who undertook to study it were those who were personally invested in it—usually because they themselves had strong religious beliefs or, in some cases, because they were personally hostile toward religion. These patterns probably tainted the study of religion as highly biased and defined it as something that people would do only out of some inner drive.
One major advantage of taking the study of religion out of the hands of people with strong personal investments is that it becomes possible to acknowledge tradeoffs. In psychology and in the social sciences generally, many things are intertwined such that benefits and costs are linked. In life, one often must accept the bitter with the sweet. However, the study of religion has been reluctant to acknowledge this, probably in part because personally motivated researchers wanted to depict religion in all favorable or all unfavorable terms. Pargament's (this issue) article is an important, marvelous contribution because it scrupulously recognizes both the costs and the benefits of religious coping. In my view, adopting a balanced approach such as Pargament's will prove to be essential if the psychology of religion is to be any more than a marginal sphere of biased inquiry."
And from Pargament, K. I. (2002b). The bitter and the sweet: An evaluation of the costs and benefits of religiousness. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 168-181.
"Is religion helpful or harmful? The best answer to the question is one both familiar and frustrating to psychologists: It depends. In this article, I suggest that when we take a closer look at religious life, a richer picture emerges. Religion has both costs and benefits to people. The value of religion depends on the kind of religion, the criteria of well-being, the person, the situation and social context, and the degree to which the various elements of religious life are well-integrated into the person's life.
Psychologists have tended to view religion from a distance, and from a distance, religion appears to be a global, undifferentiated, stable process. As we move closer to religious life though, a different picture emerges. Religion can be seen as multidimensional, interwoven into situations and contexts, and shifting over time and circumstance.
More specifically, five conclusions can be drawn from the current empirical literature:
1.Some forms of religion are more helpful than others. A religion that is internalized, intrinsically motivated, and built on a belief in a greater meaning in life, a secure relationship with God, and a sense of spiritual connectedness with others has positive implications for well-being. Conversely, a religion that is imposed, unexamined, and reflective of a tenuous relationship with God and the world bodes poorly for well-being, at least in the short-term.
2.There are advantages and disadvantages to even controversial forms of religion. For example, fundamentalism has been linked both to greater prejudice toward a variety of groups and to greater personal well-being.
3.Not everyone experiences the same benefits from religion. Religiousness is more helpful to more socially marginalized groups (e.g., older people, African Americans, women, poor people) and to those who are more religiously committed.
4.Religion is more helpful (and possibly more harmful) in some situations than others. Religious beliefs and practices appear to be especially valuable in more stressful situations (e.g., death) that push people to the limits of their own personal and social resources. Some evidence also suggests that religion is particularly helpful to Roman Catholics dealing with controllable life stressors and to Protestants coping with uncontrollable life events.
5.The efficacy of religion depends on the degree to which it well integrated into peoples' lives. Those who benefit most from their religion are more likely to (a) be part of a larger social context that supports their faith; (b) apply means that are appropriate to their religious ends; (c) select religious appraisals and solutions that are tailored to the problem at hand; and (d) blend their religious beliefs, practices, and motivations harmoniously with each other. On the other hand, well-being is more likely to suffer when religion is fragmented, that is when (a) religious identity is not supported by the social environment; (b) means are used that are disproportionate to religious ends; (c) religious definitions and solutions are inappropriate to the problem; and (d) religious beliefs, practices, and motivations lack coherence with each other.
These conclusions represent only initial insights into religious life. To develop a better understanding, studies of religion from a distance are no longer sufficient."
Clearly, Dr. Ellis falls into the "hostile towards religion" camp. I wonder if he has any sense of how unbalanced his views are?
Harris Pilton at February 10, 2006 4:13 AM
Miss Pilton --
It sounds like you lean more toward the religious-positive camp. I really don't have any problems with individuals taking advantage of the psychological benefits of religion. I struggle (moderately) to maintain a sense of hope and purpose in my life, and my attitude in general is "whatever gets you through the night, it's all right."
Even if Amy was correct that religion "causes people to waste their lives while hoping for what's to come," I think it's okay for people to waste their lives -- because we're all dead in the long run and no one gets any extra brownie points at the end for not wasting it.
There are perspectives other than psychology for evaluating the costs and benefits of religion. I'd urge you to read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, if only to add balance to your viewpoint. (But I don't think that you sound fanatical! You sound groovy, actually.)
Leener Weener
Lena at February 10, 2006 6:52 AM
Regarding Ellis' hostility to religion: Ellis is giving his opinion, not doing a study.
Amy Alkon at February 10, 2006 11:58 AM
Indeed, that's how I read his position paper - it was a hypothesis based on personal prejudices.
Personally, I have always disliked organized religion for many of the same reasons that Dr. Ellis mentions, but also because of the effect it has had on how people (mis)treat one another.
But I also have deep respect for the benefits that humans find in having a spiritual belief system. So I would like to see a more balanced scientific inquiry continue on this topic.
There are no brownie points at the end of life for having been totally rational in every instance and for conjugating every human experience according to proper scientific methods. Equally, there are no brownie points for denying onesself pleasure or love or one's heart's desire.
Harris Pilton at February 10, 2006 1:45 PM
"In regard to self-direction, it can easily be seen from what just been said that the religious person is by necessity dependant and other-directed rather that independent and self-directed."
I wonder, is Mr. Ellis familiar with the term "Christian Existentialism"? I suspect he is and that his use of the word "religious" is very specific. ...but maybe not.
When's the last time you heard someone use the term "Mohammedan"? It's either an interesting slip by an intellectual (unlikely), or a substantive slight, suggesting that the people who call themselves "Muslims" are actually following a man. Ellis seems to ignore the choices people make when they choose a religion or when they choose any religion at all. It's almost as if he doesn't believe that the choice to live in accordance with Islam, for instance, can be a self-directed choice.
...but it can be.
Ken Shultz at February 10, 2006 5:54 PM
"There are no brownie points at the end of life for having been totally rational in every instance and for conjugating every human experience according to proper scientific methods."
At the end of life, there are no brownie points at all (whatever that is, anyway). A rational approach to life keeps you aware of this and encourages you to choose wisely, as your time is very limited.
Harris, I have just one question regarding the irrational approach to life: Have you ever heard of a spiritual belief system that does not promise you some sort of afterlife?
Also, being "totally rational", as in acting like a robot, is totally opposed to the hedonist lifestyle that most rational thinkers are allowed to have. OTOH, "Denying onesself pleasure or love or one's heart's desire" is usually the first or second thing any kind of organized religion or "spiritual movement" is going to demand from you.
Having said that, I'm off to having a ball with my beloved hobby now... :-)
Rainer at February 12, 2006 3:34 AM
"Also, being "totally rational", as in acting like a robot, is totally opposed to the hedonist lifestyle that most rational thinkers are allowed to have."
Indeed. And not only do you not have to deny yourself pleasure, you get it without the guilt that usually accompanies it for religious people. My main concerns: Whether it will hurt somebody else, and whether I'm living life to the fullest, since it appears this life is all I get, and then I'll be eaten by worms. Period. End of story.
PS As, it appears, will all of you. So I suggest you avoid wasting time in "houses of worship" and go out and live while you can. This includes having a lot of sex. Religion, of course, says that's wrong. Um...why is it wrong? It's fun, it's good for you, and it sure beats punching somebody in the eye.
Religion also teaches you not to think, just to obey. That's the only way they can get you to believe really stupid, irrational crap so you'll waste your life as a member of their particular team -- and pay for the privilege. It all comes down to fear, power, and money.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2006 5:01 AM
"Have you ever heard of a spiritual belief system that does not promise you some sort of afterlife?"
Zen Buddhism -- at least as it's presented by Suzuki Roshi in "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind."
Lena at February 12, 2006 6:26 AM
"And not only do you not have to deny yourself pleasure, you get it without the guilt that usually accompanies it for religious people. My main concerns: Whether it will hurt somebody else, and whether I'm living life to the fullest, since it appears this life is all I get, and then I'll be eaten by worms. Period. End of story."
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. I really don't understand why religious people think that godless people are prone to lead amoral lives. Insulting, isn't it?
@Lena: You're right, I hadn't thought of Zen Buddhism. A long time ago I have read a book by another Suzuki (Daisetz T. Suzuki, "Living by Zen"), which was mostly about Zen meditation, with lots of Koans in it. Never learned to meditate from it, though, mostly because I can't seem to stop thinking while I'm awake. (I have made several attempts over the years.) Do you know how? And if you do: Is it worth another try?
Rainer
P.S.: Amy, every time I see your photos and read your blog items on Paris I'm reminded of the fact that I haven't been there in ages with only about 600 kilometres to go. The flights are cheap if I don't want to drive, so what's my excuse? Have a lot of fun!
Rainer at February 12, 2006 4:20 PM
Rainer -- I've tried meditation too, but I could never get the hang of it. Heroin seems to do the trick every time, though. Try it! Lena
Lena at February 12, 2006 6:21 PM
"This includes having a lot of sex. Religion, of course, says that's wrong. Um...why is it wrong? It's fun, it's good for you, and it sure beats punching somebody in the eye.
Religion also teaches you not to think...BLAH BLAH BLAH"
Go over to http://www.newadvent.org/, the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you want reasons, arguments, and discussion, they’ll be more than happy to fill you in on all the details. Use the search function to look up all sorts of neat topics like doubt, obedience, chastity, virtue, and faith. You can also get the whole rundown of the resurrection and the Virgin Birth (not exactly what you think!). If you’ve got time on your hands there is nothing like “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality.”
You don’t have to believe it. Just realize that if you want a palliative to the rather stupid idea that the religious are stupid, or unthoughtful, or ignorant of the world, you don’t have to go much further then the exhausting arguments of some of the smartest theologians around.
Fritz at February 13, 2006 8:49 AM
Oh yes, I just can't wait to cuddle up with the Catholic Encyclopedia to read all about doubt, obedience, chastity, virtue, and faith. And then hurl myself off a cliff.
Lena at February 13, 2006 11:48 AM
Wow, Lena, you've got snarky down. Can you do petulant too? How about bitchy?
Fritz at February 13, 2006 11:53 AM
You bet I'm bitchy. But really... who the hell wants to read all about chastity and obedience? Life's too short, babe!
Lena at February 13, 2006 3:17 PM
Life's too short indeed. So I took a very short look at this Catholic encyclopedia. The definitions on topics like "atheism" run endlessly before they even get started to define anything. An entry on sex doesn't seem to exist, though. Figures. (Does that mean sex doesn't exist for catholics?)
@Lena: Why should I take heroin? (Why should anyone?) As we agreed, life's too short. Don't want to make it any shorter. ;-)
Rainer at February 13, 2006 3:54 PM
"Does that mean sex doesn't exist for catholics?"
Well, the priests in Boston seem to be humping up a storm with the pediatric population.
About the drugs: I was just being silly, Rainer (so what else is new?) I've tried all sorts of nasty substances in my life, but I don't even drink alcohol anymore. Chocolate is my drug of choice!
Lena "Just Say No" Cuisina at February 13, 2006 3:58 PM
"who the hell wants to read all about chastity and obedience?"
Some of us like to have some idea of what we're talking about before we prattle on and on and on... Willful ignorance is not an attractive characteristic, dear.
Rainer: try chastity and marriage. They'll set you straight. "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" will set you straighter.
Fritz at February 13, 2006 4:34 PM
You'll never hear me prattling on and on and on about chastity or obedience. I promise!
Lena at February 13, 2006 4:43 PM
I almost forgot to ask: Does the "the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" section of the Catholic Encyclopedia include oral sex tips for priests? Or is that information included in the section on "The Care and Feeding of Altar Boys: How to Maintain the Firmness of the Scrotal Sac"?
Lena Cuisina at February 13, 2006 9:10 PM
Lena,
Please, read it and find out.
Fritz at February 14, 2006 8:13 AM
There was so much fluff in there about the wonders of God's creation, etc, it took a while to find the bottom line position on the pastoral care of homos. I think its truth value is ZERO, and I don't find it particularly compassionate:
"To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.
"As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God."
Lena at February 14, 2006 11:26 AM
Truth value aside, my point is that this a principled position, taken by principled people, who have put a lot of thought, over a great many years, into this statement. You don’t have to believe it, and you can certainly call into question all of its axioms, and you can even claim that the conclusions it draws are wrong, but please, don’t ever call it stupid or unthoughtful. Because it’s not. And, because it’s written by academics, for other professionals, it’s not going to have a warm and fuzzy tone.
You should stick with snarky. It works for you.
Fritz at February 14, 2006 12:34 PM
You don't think the style of the homo text was warm and fuzzy? It was all sweetness and light.
Lena at February 14, 2006 3:37 PM
A person who is in a position to draw up his own set of criteria of mental health, and then slag any state of mind that doesn't correspond in all particulars, is making things much too easy for himself.
It often strikes me that the people with the most cynical and disrespectful views on religion are those with the least first-hand knowledge of it. Like watching people doing yoga and deciding from the appearence of the poses that it's a clownish, pointless activity.
David at February 15, 2006 12:57 PM
Um, David, Ellis is in a pretty good position to draw up criteria for mental health. Read a bit of Ellis before you decide how "too easy" he's made it for himself.
The people with the most disrespectful views of religion are those who have brains and use them. You see any proof of a god? I don't think he'll be having tea with you next Tuesday.
Amy Alkon at February 15, 2006 3:08 PM
What Is There Beyond Knowing
by Mary Oliver
What is there beyond knowing that keeps
calling to me? I can’t
turn in any direction
but it’s there. I don’t mean
the leaves’ grip and shine or even the thrush’s
silk song, but the far-off
fires, for example,
of the stars, heaven’s slowly turning
theater of light, or the wind
playful with its breath;
or time that’s always rushing forward
or standing still
in the same – what shall I say –
moment.
What I know
I could put into a pack
as if it were bread and cheese, and carry it
on one shoulder,
important and honorable, but so small!
While everything else continues, unexplained
and unexplainable. How wonderful it is
to follow a thought quietly
to its logical end.
I have done this a few times.
But mostly I just stand in the dark field,
in the middle of the world, breathing
in and out. Life so far doesn’t have any other name but breath and light, wind and rain.
If there’s a temple, I haven’t found it yet.
I simply go on drifting, in the heaven of the grass
and the weeds.
Lena at February 15, 2006 11:05 PM
Leave a comment