If You Read Only One Thing . . .
about religion this year, make it this. Whatever your religion is, or isn’t.
That got me going, “Where on earth is this coming from?” Here’s the answer. Much more here.
I wish I had come across this 30 years ago, but it didn’t exist then.
Also, as I read on, it’s probably too politically liberal for me (86 percent Democrat). If only it were as freethinking politically as it is religiously.
Ambiance 
karen said,
September 13, 2011 at 8:05 am
“The common message, though, is this: To stay involved as Jews, young people don’t have to buy into conservative, top-down organizations. And American Judaism isn’t fading away, even if some of its institutions might be. The next generation, meeting in rented halls, is devoted, progressive, and casually unwilling to be bound by conventional wisdom.”
Out of curiosity(& ignorance)- would this classify as a cult, if not really following any set way of worship? W/out any ~professional~ laity?
It’s almost as if they get the good, warm fuzzies of being together, being Jewish and– are they sharing God, or their heritage? Almost w/out anything required of their actions but to show up?
IDK. It doesn’t sound like religion, does it?
amba12 said,
September 13, 2011 at 8:12 am
You’d have to read more. They are in fact very traditional in terms of their learning and prayer and observance. Not so traditional in terms of allowing the women to study and pray alongside the men.
It’s probably the word “progressive” that set you off. Me, too. I wish they went their own way politically as much as they do religiously. That aspect of it would have put me off. But the combination of gender equality with observance does not. Nor does the combination of particular identity with human universalism. That you could be what you are and still give humanity priority, not be clannish and closed off and superior — that I like.
mockturtle said,
September 13, 2011 at 9:00 am
I certainly agree that the meanings of the terms humanist and liberal have been perverted and politicized. And he is certainly correct that, as many thinkers over the centuries have observed, God has placed a certain moral compass within us–a part of His character and image, as the Apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 1. This liberalism toward our fellow man that He has implanted in our consciousness is perverted by man’s sinful nature, whether within a religious context or without. Simplistic as it may sound, it is that simple. We humans have not changed over the millennia. Nor are we likely to.
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 10:16 am
To me, it’s just a lot of words, trying to sound humane and compassionate. It’s so typical of religious and political ideology in our era. Morality and the ideal of loving all humanity, regardless of anything, are mixed up with religion. Religion is equated with compassion, and nothing can be considered religion unless is focuses on morality and humanism — ignoring what religion has always really been about. It makes religion something that even atheists can relate to, because mystical beliefs and experiences are irrelevant. All that matters is “loving” humanity indiscriminately.
But can love really be indiscriminate? Don’t we love certain people for certain reasons?
I used to say I never felt hatred for anyone, but that was only because I had been brainwashed into progressivism and humanism. Never feeling hatred means never really feeling love. Being a good anesthetized progressive modern consumer of electronics. But now when I feel like I hate someone I just say it. Even if I know the hatred is just for the moment, I admit that I feel it.
I hate the people responsible for 9/11. I don’t love them. That’s just progressive BS to pretend we love all humanity, no matter what. Hey, let’s face it we hate them whether we admit it or not, whether we know it or not.
And it is so typical of Jews to mix their religion in with humanism and universal progressivism. That’s one reason the religion is dying out.
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 10:27 am
“We humans have not changed over the millennia. Nor are we likely to.”
You are assuming that religion is somehow supposed to make us tolerant and loving of all humans, no matter what. I don’t think that is the point of religion. I don’t know how that idea even got started. I think anyone who claims to be tolerant and loving of all is a hypocrite, and/or indifferent. Maybe a Buddhist monk who meditates all day can feel universal love for all creatures (and WHY should we only love humans, that I really don’t understand). But living in this world means loving and hating, cooperating and competing, tolerating and no tolerating.
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 10:33 am
For example, do you think any of the American Indian religions taught them to love all humans, regardless? I really doubt it. And they cared as much about other animals as about humans.
I definitely prefer that kind of religion over our antiseptic anesthetized progressive humanism.
mockturtle said,
September 13, 2011 at 11:41 am
RealPC, how you inferred what you posted from my remark you quoted is totally beyond my comprehension. :-\
Tom Strong said,
September 13, 2011 at 12:06 pm
The parallels with Evangelical Christian bible-study groups are interesting. Those aren’t usually apolitical either, of course. For human beings, it seems to me, religion & politics are usually intertwined whether we like it or not.
amba12 said,
September 13, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Real, the progressivism is not what appeals to me, as you probably know; it anything it’s a drawback (I would rather keep politics out of it, but as Tom says, fat chance). What I am responding to is that there are two broad streams in Judaism. One is extremely clannish, “stick to your own kind,” and the other, to which I (involuntarily) belong, could find “your own kind” anywhere on earth. I’m not saying that all people are “my own kind,” I’m saying my friends are, and that they are a very diverse bunch. The idea of drawing a line around your traditional tribe and not relating to anyone from a different ethnic, national, religious, or economic background seems so over to me. Yet people are building those barriers higher, out of fear that there will be chaos and meaninglessness without them, I suppose. I belong to the non-tribal tribe, that’s all. Paradoxical that is. It is a very distinct stream of Judaism, the idea that God didn’t mean for us to hole up in a ghetto and hold ourselves apart from and above all others. If we were “chosen” as the myth says, it was to go out and carry certain ideas, such as the possession of an inner moral compass, to everyone. And, no, the world is not perfectible, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying to act decently, encounter by encounter, when possible.
mockturtle said,
September 13, 2011 at 12:22 pm
The abolitionist movement was largely Christian and became politicized later. Most of these well-intentioned reforms started out with a sincere desire to improve society and serve God and fellow man. Politicians, being the opportunistic bastards that they are, have always appropriated these causes and use them for their own gain.
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“God has placed a certain moral compass within us–a part of His character and image, as the Apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 1. This liberalism toward our fellow man that He has implanted in our consciousness is perverted by man’s sinful nature, whether within a religious context or without. Simplistic as it may sound, it is that simple. We humans have not changed over the millennia.”
First, you are assuming God planted liberalism toward our fellow man. Then you assume our sinful nature prevents us from being liberal towards our fellow man. I don’t know what you mean by “liberal” but I guess you mean humanistic compassion for all, or something like that.
In the Old Testament, God did not tell Moses to be “liberal” towards his enemies. That God wasn’t a liberal humanist or a pacifist. Of course, that was just the ancient Israelites’ conception of God.
But you won’t find many “liberal” gods anywhere, except in our era. I’m not sure when that began exactly.
In ancient times, people worshiped their gods in order to get benefits. The gods made their crops grow and helped them kill their enemies. It was pretty selfish.
Ancient and primitive people loved their family and their tribe, and hated their enemies. That was pretty simple, and in agreement with basic human nature, and nature in general.
Then Jesus and Buddha gave us a different message — their message was (part of it anyway) to not care, or discriminate, but love all humans.
It wasn’t because they were liberal humanists trying to create a peaceful utopia on earth. It was because they hated life here, and wanted to help people escape this world.
So now the life and nature-hating ideas of Jesus and Buddha have evolved into liberal progressive humanism.
Just my own twisted view of things. But I think it does make sense.
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“The idea of drawing a line around your traditional tribe and not relating to anyone from a different ethnic, national, religious, or economic background seems so over to me.”
Because we can’t go back to the old form of tribalism. But we still form tribes, they just aren’t based on ethnic, national, religious, or economic background. And we also deny that we form tribes and pretend we love everyone equally.
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 12:31 pm
And my whole point in general is that nature is not evil, and our human nature is not evil. What is evil, to me, is pretending we are above all that. I would rather hear someone say “I hate the radical Muslims who attacked us on 9/11” than the hypocritical BS you often hear from “liberals.”
karen said,
September 13, 2011 at 12:35 pm
At my Mom’s- lost my comment.
Real-caring for animals doesn’t stop them from hunting/eating them, though, eh? They don’t worship animals, they revere/respect them- same w/their enemies. They scalped them. Besides- i don’t think in terms of a One World religion– we have numerous differences in the existing Faiths, as it is:0).
I just wondered, amba- who exactly was in charge, if no leadership or no ~professional~ laity. No Rabbi? Isn’t that just a ~feel good~ gathering of like minds trying to do something new? The appreciation of women as equal- is progress, as is the love of a fellow human w/out judgement, but, what is required of people, then, to make them become better citizens- better, more moral, humans?
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 12:53 pm
“caring for animals doesn’t stop them from hunting/eating them, though, eh? They don’t worship animals, they revere/respect them- same w/their enemies. They scalped them.”
My point was I don’t see why “humanists” care so much about only one species, their own. Nature is much more than just humans. And I can care about all of nature without being a vegetarian or a pacifist. Killing and eating is part of nature. It’s natural, it’s ok!
We pretend we’re so peaceful and nice because we buy cows already killed and chopped up. And we let our gigantic military protect us, while we pretend to be peaceful.
We are insulated from the realities of nature, and at least conservatives seem to be somewhat aware of that. Progressives are hypocrites in denial, it seems to me.
amba12 said,
September 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
In ancient times, people worshiped their gods in order to get benefits. The gods made their crops grow and helped them kill their enemies. It was pretty selfish.
Ancient and primitive people loved their family and their tribe, and hated their enemies. That was pretty simple, and in agreement with basic human nature, and nature in general.
Then Jesus and Buddha gave us a different message — their message was (part of it anyway) to not care, or discriminate, but love all humans.
It wasn’t because they were liberal humanists trying to create a peaceful utopia on earth. It was because they hated life here, and wanted to help people escape this world.
So now the life and nature-hating ideas of Jesus and Buddha have evolved into liberal progressive humanism.
I love it. Religious history in a nutshell.
amba12 said,
September 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“We” pretend we love everyone equally? Speak for yourself! (And I know you’re NOT speaking for yourself.)
What is worth doing, IMO, is seeing that what you hate in others, some splinter of that, at least, is also in yourself.
amba12 said,
September 13, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Karen, you’re saying authority is needed to keep people honest. Of course authority itself is human and liable to become dishonest.
This is a really complex subject that has to do with America and the fact that people came here to get away from oppressive authorities. In the process they threw over authority, even in the family, a process that probably started with immigrants needing to shed their parents’ ill-adapted “old country” ways, but was taken to the extreme by my generation (there was “the Greatest Generation,” and then there was just “the Biggest Generation,” and fill in any colorful epithet you like after “biggest”), so that kids have no respect for their parents. And I learned from visiting Jacques’ world that there is always a little bit of fear in respect (the German word for respect, “Ehrfurcht,” means literally “fear of honor” — isn’t that great?!). Easy to abuse that kind of authority, on the one hand; easy to lapse into chaos and self-indulgence without it, on the other, and waste your life. Authority is especially important for kids, short of damaging their spirits it helps them “shape up.” They build that structure into themselves and it helps them survive and thrive as adults. But it is a fine line. Every good thing comes with its shadow.
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 1:33 pm
“What is worth doing, IMO, is seeing that what you hate in others, some splinter of that, at least, is also in yourself.”
Well yes, and if we’re really honest we should hate ourselves. Sometimes, at least.
amba12 said,
September 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm
:)
Tom Strong said,
September 13, 2011 at 3:01 pm
It wasn’t because they were liberal humanists trying to create a peaceful utopia on earth. It was because they hated life here, and wanted to help people escape this world.
So now the life and nature-hating ideas of Jesus and Buddha have evolved into liberal progressive humanism.
This. Wins the thread.
Of course I differ markedly from realpc in my interpretation of the latter event – I think that latter development is mostly a very good thing. Which is why I’m all in favor of humanism being an uncompromising commitment in all religions.
karen said,
September 13, 2011 at 3:50 pm
“We pretend we’re so peaceful and nice because we buy cows already killed and chopped up. And we let our gigantic military protect us, while we pretend to be peaceful. ”
Uh, you, maybe. We recently butchered(had her butchered)a really nice 1/2 Angus named Juno– organic prime meat. If i’d have known at the time that her hide was worth about 40bucks- i’d have kept it. I cried muchly– it was this, or buy the packaged stuff. Also, we have direct ties to our military next door and around town(& in family) and when we recently helped a friend move, he had more guns and ammo than i’ve ever seen. 25 guns. Hell, he’s his own militia– and not that tightly wrapped, either!!! I just hope he’s sober when we need his fire power.
Amba– #9 = word. #16 = understanding:0).
Being Catholic, i’m used to a(n)hierarchy and it doesn’t bother me. Of ‘course, i’m a worker bee(drone, if you must) and don’t mind someone w/better organizational skills to be in charge. Like, my Mom. That lady knows her stuff!!
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 4:01 pm
“Of course I differ markedly from realpc in my interpretation of the latter event – I think that latter development is mostly a very good thing.”
You missed my point, because I never said caring about humans is bad. I meant that it is not the foundation of religion, and it is not reality. If someone says they care about all humans that’s just words. It’s meaningless and hypocritical and judgmental.
We all care about someone and something in some way. And we are all very limited in our ability to do much about it.
karen said,
September 13, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Real– people should try caring- regardless… regardless of any sense of gut reaction, otherwise. That’s the challenge of humanism. Put our differences aside and do something good for someone somehow. Or, anyone.
I think Mother Theresa is a Saint because of that(or should be, soon).
We put our gut reaction in the back seat and help carry the crosses of our fellow men.
“Karen, you’re saying authority is needed to keep people honest. Of course authority itself is human and liable to become dishonest.”
Not, honest, per se-(sp- whatever-), just… focused? On the same page? Of course, the 2nd sentence is a definite gamble. That’s where the faith comes in;0).
Speaking of humanism– there’s a neat post on abortion on Anchoress. Haven’t had a chance to view it and have got to run.
karen said,
September 13, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Maybe i’m wrong– thinking of Charity? Humanism is acceptance because we all share the same world?
realpc said,
September 13, 2011 at 5:22 pm
“Real– people should try caring- regardless… regardless of any sense of gut reaction, otherwise. That’s the challenge of humanism. Put our differences aside and do something good for someone somehow. Or, anyone.”
When you say that, it implies that we don’t just do it naturally. We all care about someone and we all put our differences aside all the time, if we want to be part of society. It is perfectly natural, and we don’t need religious leaders to tell us. Only sociopaths don’t care about anyone.
Just saying it to someone implies that you think they don’t do it, so it’s judgmental. It’s just another way to feel superior.
I am not criticizing you personally Karen, just trying to explain what I mean, which as usual no one understands.
But caring about everyone equally is not possible, or even desirable. And Mother Teresa had a certain path in life that I do not think we should all try to follow. There are other ways to be a good person besides complete self-sacrifice.
That was her thing and she was famous for it. I do not think complete self-sacrifice is what society needs from everyone. Then there would be no artists or scientists, or anything, except self-sacrificing mothers.
I do not think the message of Christianity is that we should all try to be Mother Teresa. First of all, you would set yourself up for failure because you are not a nun who is supported by a wealthy church.
And secondly, you would have to abandon and ignore your family. It is more loving, I think, to care for your own family, and your own community than try to care for the whole world.
And it is also loving to care about yourself. Mother Teresa was sort of a strange person with her own ego problems. We should not feel guilty if we are not her.
mockturtle said,
September 13, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8,9
karen said,
September 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Heh– not #16— #18!
wj said,
September 13, 2011 at 10:18 pm
For human beings, it seems to me, religion & politics are usually intertwined whether we like it or not.
In fact, it’s inevitable, and for a relatively obvious reason. Both religion and politics are, to a large degree, about us interacting with the world around us. And I suspect that you will find a really strong correlation ebtween which religion a person has and what their political beliefs are. For example, if your faith emphasizes rules and punishments, you are probably going to be polticially conservative. If your faith emphasizes treating people right and redemption, you are probably going to be politically liberal.
Note that a) these are not hard and fast rules, they are tendencies. they are, I would argue, strong tendencies, but still admit of exceptions. Not to mention that you may belong to a religion which has a theology where the emphasis goes one way, but personally focus on the parts of the faith which go the other.
Note also that b) their applicability depends strongly on what you mean when you say “liberal” or “conservative.” Me, I am what one of my friends refers to as “a tolerant conservative.” When she first said that, I wondered why she thought it unusual. Eventually, I figured out that when she said conservative, she meant socially conservative (or, as she might have put it, a bigot). Whereas when I said conservative I primarily meant fiscally conservative — even though I am relatively conservative in that I belive that actions have, and ought to have consequences.
So, most evangelicals tend to emphasize the rules and punishments of the Old Testament, even though as Christians they might be expected to focus on the Golden Rule. Which makes it predictable that they will tend to be politically conservativce as well. You see the same thing among Catholics; those whose faith focuses on sins and the rules around them tend to be conservative; those whose faith focuses on ministering to others tend to be more liberal politically. From my (admittedly limited) knowledge of Judiasm and Islam, it appears a similar trend appears. Salafists, for example, are focused on lots of rigid rules for behavior, and politically are conservative (if not reactionary). Etc.
amba12 said,
September 13, 2011 at 10:43 pm
wj, I disagree with you about redemption. I think a belief in the need for redemption, the belief that we are sinful, goes with conservatism. Liberalism descends from “all’s for the best in this best of all possible worlds” Rousseau, who idealized the state of nature and thought society was the source of all ills (and treated his own kids like crap).
One thing I like about the Jewish tradition is that it has never regarded the natural world as evil. That seems to come from Greek gnosticism (?). It does regard the natural as needing reunion with and infusion with the divine. That translates to “humanizing” nature through awareness. But we may not be the only species that can do that, therefore “humanizing” in quotes.
mockturtle said,
September 13, 2011 at 11:38 pm
You’re right–the Gnostics developed the ‘anti-nature’ approach. It was never part of Christianity which is–if I may be so bold–an extension [or fulfillment, if bolder] of Judaism.
realpc said,
September 14, 2011 at 9:47 am
“It does regard the natural as needing reunion with and infusion with the divine. That translates to “humanizing” nature through awareness. But we may not be the only species that can do that, therefore “humanizing” in quotes.”
Thank you for avoiding human-centrism. But I think we may be the only animal that needs reunion with the divine, because we’re probably the only ones that have giant egos that cause us to become disconnected.
realpc said,
September 14, 2011 at 10:00 am
“most evangelicals tend to emphasize the rules and punishments of the Old Testament, even though as Christians they might be expected to focus on the Golden Rule.”
NO NO NO. No. Evangelicals may (wisely) acknowledge punishment and consequences, but their focus is on the mystical aspects of Christianity. Progressives tend to ignore the mystical aspects, and all they have left is the humanistic. Because Jesus did advise his followers to love each other, and their enemies as well.
Progressives (liberals, whatever) are incredibly ignorant regarding what conservatives think or believe.
And BTW, the Golden Rule is useless, because it says to treat people the way we like to be treated. We should try to treat people the way THEY like to be treated. The Golden Rule is the source of many relationship catastrophes.
amba (Annie Gottlieb) said,
September 14, 2011 at 10:16 am
But I think we may be the only animal that needs reunion with the divine, because we’re probably the only ones that have giant egos that cause us to become disconnected.
I would guess that any animal that is aware of death and capable of wonder is already reinfusing nature with the divine. We can suspect such in elephants, dolphins, and other great apes, for starters. I once heard a pack of coyotes cheer the sunrise, which kinda made me wonder.
BTW, the Golden Rule is useless, because it says to treat people the way we like to be treated. We should try to treat people the way THEY like to be treated.
LOL. For just a trivial example of that, think of when someone gives you a present (music, book, clothing) that’s in THEIR taste, not yours.
realpc said,
September 14, 2011 at 10:51 am
“For just a trivial example of that, think of when someone gives you a present (music, book, clothing) that’s in THEIR taste, not yours.”
That kind of mistake happens all the time. It’s easier to just buy them something we like, instead of doing the hard work of trying to imagine being the other person.
So I never could understand why the Golden Rule is considered useful. It can only be useful for things that are true of all humans.
realpc said,
September 14, 2011 at 10:52 am
“I would guess that any animal that is aware of death and capable of wonder is already reinfusing nature with the divine. We can suspect such in elephants, dolphins, and other great apes, for starters.”
I agree. We probably are not as special and unique a species as we congratulate ourselves on being.
mockturtle said,
September 14, 2011 at 11:43 am
Since it has been shown that CROWS are more intelligent than chimpanzees, it’s time to rethink the ‘higher species’ bit. I don’t know how to post a link on this forum but here’s the URL. This is just one article of many on this subject: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14745-crows-make-monkeys-out-of-chimps-in-mental-test.html
mockturtle said,
September 14, 2011 at 11:44 am
Oh, wow! The link created itself. ;-)
realpc said,
September 14, 2011 at 11:47 am
And there was a parrot who could speak and understand English. He wasn’t just “parroting,” he was like a little tiny person. Adorable. He was owned by a scientist and he was her research project. But they really loved each other.
amba12 said,
September 14, 2011 at 11:56 am
Crows. Parrots. Octopuses. Lobsters.
realpc said,
September 14, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I believe ALL animals are intelligent, and ALL animals, and plants are consciousness, and the entire universe is alive and intelligent and conscious. Eventually, science will have to admit this is true.
When I hear the birds calling and answering each other, it seems obvious to me they are communicating some kind of complex information.
Of course, I have no idea what they are saying, but I know they are saying something.
The whole universe is alive and conscious and intelligent, and live evolves because life is alive! How incredible that mainstream science thinks otherwise.
wj said,
September 14, 2011 at 1:11 pm
NO NO NO. No. Evangelicals may (wisely) acknowledge punishment and consequences, but their focus is on the mystical aspects of Christianity.
real, you may well be more knowledgable concerning evangelical Christianisty than I am. (Admittedly not an enormous hurdle.) But I have to say that, watching national politics toady, people who represent themselves as Evangelicals are showing very little interest on the mystical aspects of Christianity. And lots of focus on rules, forcing others to conform to the rules that they like, and otherwise focusing on the mundane at the expens of the mystical.
That may merely reflect a minority or Evangelicals. But definitely a LOUD minority. So you can see where I might have gotten such an impression. Thank you for the correction.
karen said,
September 14, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Like—- abortion, wj?
I can think of nothing more mystical or magical than the creation of a child w/in it’s mother’s womb. Knit- sayeth the Bible.
And i’m such a minority Evangelical that i’m a Catholic:0).
Yup- i opened door #2.
realpc said,
September 14, 2011 at 3:48 pm
wj, you are talking about evangelicals in the context of politics. I agree they are very irrational, focusing on things like gay marriage and birth control. Those things have nothing at all to do with Christianity or religion in general.
mockturtle said,
September 14, 2011 at 4:34 pm
If the‘evangelical’ politicians focus on those issues, it’s only because they think it’s politically expedient to do so. Years ago, George Wallace ran for governor on a segregationist platform not because he was a racist but because the party told him it would be suicide not to. Later, he ran for president on a third party ticket and broadened his base by emphasizing ‘states rights’. And you all know how to tell if a politician [or a lawyer or a salesman] is lying: His lips are moving.
I would hope that all of you are discerning enough to know that politicians and televangelists do not represent evangelical Christianity.
realpc said,
September 14, 2011 at 4:44 pm
” would hope that all of you are discerning enough to know that politicians and televangelists do not represent evangelical Christianity.”
I agree. When the average evangelical goes to church I doubt the first thing on their mind is gay marriage.
LouiseM said,
September 14, 2011 at 4:47 pm
From my point of view, treating people and loving them as ourselves are two different behaviors. To confuse the two and present “treating” as love misses the unique quality of love that involves an openness to understand and a willingness to give up part of one’s self, agenda, ego, or life for another. All the while remaining in balance internally (respecting and loving oneself while accepting the shadow as well as the light within)
I have great respect for animals and the gifts of grace, service, devotion and awareness they offer with their presence and being. To me they often reveal attributes of something bigger, greater or beyond their animal selves.
We experienced this with our dog, who would some times be devoted to doggish pursuits, some times communicate without words as a talking beast, and some times serve as conduit of goodness, inviting us into a deeper understanding of loyalty, faithfulness and acceptance.
With the parrot story, the researcher was Irene Pepperberg and the parrot an African Gray named Alex. The story, first covered in National Geographic, was turned into the book, Alex & Me: How a Scientist and a Parrot Discovered a Hidden World of Animal Intelligence–and Formed a Deep Bond in the Process. I’ve read both, shared parts with our children and passed the article on to a friend who’d developed a special relationship with a wild squirrel.
What formed between Alex the parrot and Irene the human was a relationship, and where there is relationship, understanding and respect, love is present. I would not go so far as to say they “really loved each other”, but a deep bond was definitely formed.
The thought I appreciated from the article was this: All religious traditions contain the raw material to generate and cultivate lives of enormous beauty and moral sensitivity, and the raw material to generate and cultivate unspeakable ugliness and moral obtuseness.
wj said,
September 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I agree that I was thinking in the context of politics. And that may well be an oversimplification. Not to mention the possibility that politicians are mis-representing themselves as evangelicals — although in that case I would innocently expect that true evangelicals would be loudly denouncing those trying to hijack their faith for political purposes.
P.S. MT, quite true. Did you know that, in his first election, Wallace ran as someone opposed to seregation? So not actually a racist. But, when he lost that election, is reputed to have said (sorry for the language): “They out-niggered me. I’m never going to be out-niggered again.” And he wasn’t. Worked in Alabama, but not so much in the country as a whole.
mockturtle said,
September 14, 2011 at 5:13 pm
I did know that. George Wallace is an interesting story. Politics is all about power and the players will do anything to get and keep it. It is truly Faustian.
amba12 said,
September 14, 2011 at 11:27 pm
We were JUST talking about this . . . and now, an article about whether dolphins know they are mortal.