In light of our discussion of politics and religion in class,
this article is quite timely. One of my favorite things is when two (oppositely) extreme groups meet up again at the other side, so to speak. In this case, concerning charities. Often liberals are unwilling to work with religious charities, when, if they did, they could potentially be doing the most good. I'm currently reading this book, entitled Good Book, which is about all of the interesting stories, etc found in the Bible. Some of the most striking things are the very different ideas that people have about morality as it was practiced in Biblical times and as it is practiced today. In another post, perhaps, I will have to delve deeper into the fascinating leaders in the Bible and the choices they made (example: Moses and God believe in and practice the separation of church and state, because it will lead to a more stable religion and government?!), but for now, I have to say that I'm definitely expanding my comfort zone as well as my knowledge base.
Back to the New York Times article, and one of the most fascinating paragraphs in the piece:
"In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn’t so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49.)
Hmm. Imagine if sodomy laws could be used to punish the stingy, unconcerned rich!"
Indeed! That's something we might all be able to get behind.
I love your point about becoming more open-minded as a key to becoming a more holistic thinker. I just bought a book called The Case for God, which is by a former Catholic nun. Comparative religion, especially by a Christian or Catholic voice, used to make me cringe. I guess we all need an ancient kick in the pants from philosophy's roots.
ReplyDelete