I walked in with a six-pack. “Oh, yeah,” my mom said.

After an hour of chit-chat, potato chips and two MGDs (my parents were still nursing their first), there was a lull in the conversation and I jumped in. “So…I wanted to talk to you guys about religion.” My dad’s eyes somehow perked up and lowered simultaneously.

I had left the religion of my upbringing (Jehovah’s Witnesses) several years prior to this talk with my parents, but it never seemed quite official, and wouldn’t be official until I had told them my decision. Of course they knew, but it was never discussed. No one had the guts to bring it up. In this religion, you can’t just leave the faith behind, you must also leave family and friends.

“We’ve never really talked about it and I think it’s important that you know how I feel about God and religion.” My dad nodded ever so slightly and squinted. I’d love to know what was going through his head at that moment.

“I have a hard time believing that any one religion holds a monopoly on truth. How do you know what to accept and what to reject? I believe it’s impossible to really know.” I was relieved that the conversation was finally going to take place after 10 years.

Dad nodded. Mom shifted in her chair.

“How do you know you have the truth?” I asked.

“Its good that you don’t accept anything blindly,” dad said. “I know we have the truth because we do the preaching work. It’s in the Bible.”

“But lots of Christians evangelize,” I countered.

“Every one of the Jehovah’s Witnesses preach. You won’t find that in other religions. But if you don’t believe in the Bible we have a different problem.”

“I don’t.” I glanced over at mom. She looked concerned and supportive, the corner of her mouth smiling. She’s mom, that’s what she does.

I explained to them that I don’t believe the Bible is God’s direct word. I think it is inspired by God, much in the way that a sunset or a beautiful woman inspire a poem. The sunset didn’t write the poem, but there would be no poem with the sunset. I was proud of that example.

I also said that I believe the book of Genesis is simply a way of explaining the origins of the earth in such a way that could be understood by a particular people at a particular time, and that I can’t believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

“The earth isn’t 6,000 years old, it is eons old,” my dad said. “The six days of creation aren’t literally six days, they are time periods. It is man that is 6,000 years old.”

“But according to the Bible, animals were created after man,” I said. “How do you explain dinosaur fossils that are dated millions of years ago, not to mention pre-homosapian fossils?”

Just then the next door neighbor, also a JW, knocked on the door. Apparently it was official congregation business, because my dad and the neighbor took off to talk in private.

Just me and my mom. I told her that I never really believed; only to the extent that you believe what your parents teach you. I never owned it, I never felt it.

My mom told me that for years she just went along with the belief system, going through the motions. Then one day she was going through a rough time with her Multiple Sclerosis, and my brother was having some serious problems with his Epilepsy. She got down on her knees and said, “now is the time, Jehovah. If you are there, I need you now.” She felt a warm feeling come over her. For the first time in her life she was sure. It was like she was born again, in her 50s.

When she told me that it blew my mind. I thought she was a rock of faith, but she was a skeptic most of her life. It’s a common story, I suppose. Hard times cause people to find God, or create him.

“That’s exactly what I want to feel,” I said. “I’ve prayed in the past. I don’t know if anyone is listening but I ask God to show himself to me. I want to feel what you felt. I don’t have that kind of faith. I don’t think I ever will.”

Dad came back and said, “I don’t,” referring to how do you explain pre-homosapien fossils. “Sure there are irregularities, but there are so many holes in evolution. If you believe in evolution, I would say that you have more faith than I do. It is much easier to believe that God created everything than to believe in evolution.”

It’s easier, sure, I wanted to say. But I would call it intellectual laziness.

“What else, besides the preaching work sets Witnesses apart from other Christians?” I asked.

“Jehovah’s name,” he said right away.
“You mean the tetragrammaton?” I said.
How did you know about the tetragrammaton?”
“I study religion. I read a lot. But his name is not necessarily Jehovah. Wouldn’t it be more like Yahweh?”

He went on to talk about the global brotherhood of JWs that you won’t find in other religions. It’s kind of hard to argue with that.

I would have liked to explore more theological topics with my dad, but at this point I was just avoiding the main reason I had come to visit.

“What is the purpose of disfellowshipping?” I asked. “Is it a punishment, or is it a way to keep the congregation clean?”

“It’s to keep the congregation clean, but we hope it is also a wake-up call.”

When one is disfellowshipped from the congregation, you are cut off from associating with current members, family included.

“Disfellowshipped persons made a commitment and rejected it,” my dad continued. “It’s like someone who gravely disrespected his father. His brothers and sisters would not want to have anything to do with him.”

“But people change their minds. People grow,” I said. “I was baptized at 14 years old. How am I supposed to make a life long commitment at that age?”

My dad didn’t really know what to say to that. I continued:

“So do you view me as tantamount to being disfellowshipped?” I hadn’t been officially disfellowshipped from the congregation at this point.

My dad paused, this was what I have been waiting for. I offered, “because if you do I would welcome it. It is only fair.”

“If you live a life that warrants disfellowshipping, then Jehovah has already disfellowshipped you,” he said.

“I’m out then,” I said. “And it’s too bad. How is disfellowshipping a wake-up call? If I was disfellowshipped I would totally denounce this evil organization that rips family and friends apart. It wouldn’t make me want to come back. It would push me further away. How is cutting someone off helping them?”

“Well it is scriptural,” he said. “But regardless, you are my son and although I won’t be inviting you over for a meal or anything like that. I will always be here for you if need anything.”

I looked at my watch and it was time to go. It was good that we finally talked. I think they understood me. I hugged them both and walked out the door. I’m sure they prayed for me when I left. I’m out. I’m free. It feels good.

What I believe isn’t important. The fact that I can put order to my thoughts, sort them into opinions and fan them into beliefs is hardly impressive. In fact, such thinking is unavoidable. It’s what our highly evolved human brains do. They compare and contrast and judge in an endless attempt to make sense of the world around us. Believing is as automatic as walking or talking or sneezing, and about as noteworthy.

There was a time when I considered my beliefs to be something more than just an assemblage of thoughts. I mistook them for something much more important. I thought they were me.

At various times in my life I believed I was a Catholic, a Unitarian, an agnostic and a secular humanist. I was a liberal, a feminist, an environmentalist and a pacifist. I took on new identities in search of a higher self and, down deep, I think, to distance myself from certain vulgarities that characterize the human condition – qualities like greed and aggression. By connecting certain thoughts, by cobbling together new identities, I convinced myself and others that those unwholesome human traits couldn’t possibly define me. They defined thieves and rapists and murderers. I was above all that, and had a portfolio of beliefs to prove it.

I was not alone in my quest adopt a new identity. Everyone in the world was doing it right along with me. Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists. Socialists, Communists and Greens. Progressive Unionists, Christian Democrats – some crafting identities the way college freshmen craft double majors. We were all attempting to rise above our inherited animal nature, but rising above it didn’t make it go away. We were still greedy and aggressive despite our deeply held beliefs. We were walking contradictions, projecting our inner conflicts onto the world; in fact, we were the world, and that’s why it was such a bloody mess.

Having wandered from one belief system to another, I thought I had explored life’s biggest questions, but I was only asking questions for which my beliefs had provided me pat answers. I had yet to ask myself the most radical questions, the ones that would eventually smash my beliefs to bits. They were questions no one seemed to be asking, questions like:

If a clash of beliefs can be found at the root of all the violence in the world, then shouldn’t we question their validity – not the validity of any particular belief, but belief itself?

Separated from our beliefs, would we lose our moral bearing? Would we fall prey to our baser instincts and rock the world with depraved acts of violence? Or is this precisely the behavior we exhibit under the hypnotic spell our beliefs?

Imagine a city whose buildings have been leveled by an earthquake. That’s the image I had of my mind after my beliefs had been toppled. I felt like I could see forever in every direction. The towering thought structures that stood as my beliefs no longer blocked my view of the world. I felt a disorienting sense of freedom. Liberated from the beliefs that had conferred my identity, I felt blissfully anonymous. I was a person without a suffix, without an –ist to affirm my existence. I had unwittingly joined the only club that matters. It numbers in the billions, doesn’t charge dues and welcomes career criminals. It’s called the human race.

It’s been years since I disposed of my beliefs, and I have yet to turn into a sociopathic killer. On the contrary, I’ve developed a deep affection for my planet mates now that I’m not measuring them by the yardstick of my beliefs. Gone are the walls of thought that prevented me from seeing who they really are. Gone are the lectures I’d give in an attempt to raise their consciousness. And gone, mercifully, is my compulsion to cast them as evil so that I can appear virtuous.

However sacred or profound, a belief is nothing more than a thought, and thought is never the thing it describes. It can only hint at the wonders it attempts to touch. Sermons about love garble love’s ineffable beauty. Speeches about unity clank after the first syllable. Courting belief is a prescription for a virtual, not a virtuous life.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. first delivered A Christmas Sermon on Peace on Christmas eve 1967, a few months before his violent death.

As relevant now as it was 43 years ago, here are excerpts from the simple yet profoundly moving address.

This Christmas season finds us a rather bewildered human race. We have neither peace within nor peace without. Everywhere paralyzing fears harrow people by day and haunt them by night. Our world is sick with war; everywhere we turn we see its ominous possibilities. And yet, my friends, the Christmas hope for peace and good will toward all men can no longer be dismissed as a kind of pious dream of some Utopian. If we don’t have good will toward men in this world, we will destroy ourselves by the misuse of our own instruments and our own power. Wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete….

…if we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical, rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone; no nation can live alone, and as long as we try, the more we are going to have war in this world. Now the judgment of God is upon us, and we must either learn to live together as brothers or we are all going to perish together as fools….

…It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality….

…we will never have peace in the world until men everywhere recognize that ends are not cut off from means, because the means represent the ideal in the making, and the end in process, and ultimately you can’t reach good ends through evil means, because the means represent the seed and the end represents the tree….

I’ve seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and I’ve seen hate on the faces of too many sheriffs, too many white citizens’ councilors, and too many Klansmen of the South to want to hate, myself; and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must be able to stand up before our most bitter opponents and say: “We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws and abide by the unjust system, because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good, and so throw us in jail and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities at the midnight hour and drag us out on some wayside road and leave us half-dead as you beat us, and we will still love you. Send your propaganda agents around the country, and make it appear that we are not fit, culturally and otherwise, for integration, and we’ll still love you. But be assured that we’ll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.

Read the entire transcript here.

7 GOOD THINGS

1. Charity
While people spend more on frivolity over the course of the holiday season, they also give more to charity than at any other time of the year. According to a survey by Convio, 74% of Americans will make a donation to charity this year during the holidays, with giving expected to exceed $48 million.

Hanukkah tradition emphasizes charity with the tzedakah box in the home, used to collect coins for good cause. Charity is not only recommended but it is an obligation.

Whether giving is done out of obligation, guilt, as an end of the year tax break, or simply out of the goodness of peoples hearts, it is done abundantly during the holidays, and that can only be a good thing.

2. Music
Everyone has a holiday song or two that they look forward to hearing this time of year. You listen to the radio patiently wading through cheese and the obnoxia for that one song that sends goosebumps up your arms and shivers down your legs.

3. Family Time
They are your family. Stop complaining. Grin and bear it. With enough eggnog you may have a good time.

4. Tradition
No two families celebrate the holidays alike, and that’s a good thing. My brother-in-law refuses to put a star on his family’s Christmas tree in an attempt to “remove any trace of religiousness” from the holiday. Author Bruce Feiler’s family congregates the Friday after Thanksgiving for their turkey dinner. The following afternoon they squeeze in all 8 night of Hanukkah. “Flying multiple families across the country twice within the span of a month made little sense. Why not shift Thanksgiving dinner by a day to reduce the hectic-ness, avoid crowded airports and give the biscuits more time to rise? And as long as we were together, why not go ahead and light the Hanukkah candles, sing a few off-key melodies and exchange presents?”

By taking the time-tested, standard traditions of the holidays and adapting them to the needs, tastes, and beliefs of individual families, it creates more meaningful, individual, and (dare I say) pure holidays experiences.

5. Light
Nearly every culture and spiritual tradition has a holiday or festival that incorporates light into the celebration. Not coincidentally, these light festivals all fall on or around the winter solstice, when daylight hours shorten and darkness is prolonged. Yet, darkness is not a bad thing. It serves to give the fires that we light all the more beauty.

Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas, and countless other winter holidays borrow heavily from ancient pagan winter solstice celebrations with the common theme of birth and rebirth. The lighting of candles, lanterns, trees, or houses seems to remind us that darkness always makes way for light. The sun always comes back.

6. The Power of Religious Myth
The holidays are based on stories, really good stories. The Maccabees, the virgin birth of a king, a peaceful meal between puritanical colonizers and wild savages, even Santa Claus is a good story for Christ’s sake! But what’s truly fascinating about these stories is the power that they hold to grab us fully and transform the way we see the world and live in it. That’s mind-blowing power.

If only we could simply see the stories for what they are. If only we could be fascinated by the wonderful stories for a time, see them through child’s eyes, but then put them back on the shelf and return to being adults.

7. Advent
Advent was a great idea introduced in the 4th century as a time of preparation for Christian Epiphany. It wasn’t until the 6th century that Advent become associated with preparing for Christmas. But still, a good idea. A serious time, a quiet time, a time for spiritual preparation and anticipation for the birth of Jesus. Because, you see, Christmas doesn’t start until December 25th.

Oh, how I wish Advent really existed. I long for the peacefulness of Advent when I’m trying to do some shopping at the mall in December. I long for the seriousness of Advent when I listen to the radio the day after Thanksgiving and find my station hijacked by Bing Crosby (I love “White Christmas”, but it’s too soon). The problem is we don’t like to “anticipate” or “prepare.” Now damnit! The Friday after Thanksgiving has officially become Christmas season. There is no quiet anticipation. It’s loud and stressful. That’s why Advent would be a good thing, if it truly existed.

4 BAD THINGS

1. Music
Although there are songs that we love to hear during the holidays, it seems that they are very few and very far between. For every Pogues “Fairytale in New York,” there are a thousand Kathy Lee Gifford ditties.

2. Gift Giving
Christmas, in particular, is about shopping. “Jesus is the reason for the season” is bull-crap. No one asks if you drew closer to Jesus this Christmas, they ask you what gifts you got.

It’s OK, in my point of view, that Christmas has evolved into a secular holiday. Hardly anything about the traditions of Christmas has anything to do with Jesus anyway. But what’s not OK is the obligation to buy a coffee mug for your co-worker whom you barely know. It’s not OK that kids expect and demand a thousand dollars worth of electronics for Christmas. It’s not OK that we throw out mounds of plastic and paper that’s only purpose was to be ripped open. Seriously, why would I want a Bath & Body Works gift set? The singing wall-mounted Bass fish doesn’t really go with my decor.

But wait, you say. At least it’s good for the economy. Eh, probably not.

3. Anxiety and Stress
You have to buy the perfect gift. Did I forget anyone? She’s gong to hate my gift. Will the Turkey come out OK. How am I going to afford all of this? Should we take out a Christmas loan from the credit union. Do you think the lights will ignite the tree while we are asleep? Hide the alcohol from Grampa. This is my first holiday since mom passed. How will I cope?

Is the joy worth all the stress?

4. Preachy Naysayers
Who me? Yes, I’m a naysayer. My wife puts a Grinch ornament on the tree just for me. But I’m certainly not as bad it gets.

There are those who preach God should be more prominent during the holidays. Then there are those who say religious holidays have no business being shoved down reasonable people’s throats.

But it is what it is. It’s not going away. People can choose to participate or they can decline. Preaching doesn’t change people’s minds, it just annoys.

American Atheists preach it.

Catholic League responds

This week’s Saturday sermon comes from Marc from Marc and Angel Hack Life.

Katie, a close friend of the family, is just 21 and already publicly out of the closet. “I am deeply attracted to women. I’m a lesbian,” she admits openly. She has been involved in two long-term, intimate relationships in the last three years. Both relationships were with women her age. When I asked her why she lives this lifestyle, she said, “Because I feel like myself, completely alive, when I’m with another woman. I can’t feel this way when I’m with a man.”

Ryan, one of my grade school buddies, is now a Roman Catholic priest. He has chosen to follow a life of abstinence, instead devoting himself wholeheartedly to God and the principles of his faith. When I asked him why he chose to follow this path, he said, “Because I find peace and abundance through my faith. It keeps me connected and allows me to make a difference.”

Another friend, Courtney, an amateur bodybuilding competitor, is addicted to working out. “I can’t go a day without it,” she says. So she enters to the gym every morning at 5AM, performs a solid hour of weight training, and follows it up with another hour of cardio before heading off to work. When I asked her why she partakes in such a rigorous workout routine, she said, “Working out makes me feel alive, energized and at peace. It’s a way of life.”

A fourth friend, Antony, is a remarkable chef. He currently works at a fine Italian restaurant, but plans to open his own café in the near future. Antony struggles with an obvious vice; he enjoys eating as much as he enjoys cooking. His doctor recently told him he is nearly 60 pounds overweight. When I asked him why he isn’t more concerned with his weight as it relates to his health, he said, “When I cook, I feel free… free to be human, free to be creative, free to be me. When I eat what I cook, I experience the fruits of my labor. There’s nothing more satisfying than that.”

How fascinating. Human beings draw on sexuality, faith, exercise, and cooking to achieve the same thing, a feeling of being alive, free, connected, self-fulfilled and at peace.

The Meaning of Life
Personal development gurus, psychologists, politicians, philosophers, bloggers and various members of my social circle have frequently concluded that the future of humankind as a whole is in jeopardy because we all pursue life’s meaning in fundamentally incompatible ways. I firmly oppose this conclusion.

Life’s meaning, in my experience, is about the feeling of being alive, free, connected, self-fulfilled and at peace. Whether we use sexuality, faith, exercise, or cooking as the means to attain this experience, we’re all in pursuit of the same thing.

Human Beings Overshadow Their Labels
When I asked my lesbian friend if she could relate to a Catholic priest, she said no. And when I asked my exercise-obsessed, athletic friend if she could relate to a chubby, Italian chef with no desire to maintain a healthy bodyweight, she said no. In both cases, I wasn’t surprised with their answers.

I then conducted a little social experiment: I invited all four friends over for drinks at my condo this past Friday evening without informing them that the others were coming. The outcome was rather insightful.

When they transcended their informal labels (e.g. lesbian, priest, athlete, and chubby chef), and instead became real, live human beings occupying the same room together (e.g. Katie, Ryan, Courtney, and Antony), they all discovered powerful similarities among themselves as human beings that vastly overshadowed the vague differences they experienced as informal labels.

A Universal Struggle
I believe the worst thing we can do as human beings is to interpret our own pursuit of life’s meaning as fundamentally incompatible and dissimilar from the pursuits of others. Our basic pursuits in life aren’t that different. Thus, labeling them as different only isolates us from each other, which ultimately stifles the progress we can achieve together as a whole.

The best thing we can do is to accept the fact that labels mean nothing, and realize that the seemingly nonsensical choices of others actually do make a lot of sense if we have the patience and fortitude to uncover the reasons behind these choices. In doing so, we will likely expose the same universal struggle that drives our own pursuit: To feel alive, free, connected, self-fulfilled and at peace.

Photo by Fady Habib

President Barack Obama’s nomination of Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health is good news for scientists, for people of faith, and for all Americans. Dr. Collins, a preeminent geneticist and devout Christian, is highly qualified for the job because of his skills and his values.

In the 1990s he led the Human Genome Project at NIH, which helped unlock the human genetic code, a key to finding cures and treatment for a wide range of diseases. Collins also knows how to translate complex scientific concepts into plain English, which is essential given the rapid pace of technologies that affect our lives. Collins is a person of deep faith—the nation’s top scientist believes in God.

This last quality is important, for it signals that the hyped conflict between science and religion has no place, either symbolically or pragmatically, in the work of the Obama administration. And certainly there is a lot of work to do, especially in Dr. Collins’ particular policy area of interest—personalized medicine—potentially one of the most important fields of science to emerge from the Human Genome Project for everyday Americans.

Suddenly, the war between religion and science seems so “last century,” a sort of obsolete appendage that has no function in today’s world. It is true that the politicizing of certain conservative religious creeds by the Bush administration—funding abstinence-only programs in schools when factual evidence showed their ineffectiveness, for instance, or limiting the use of U.S. aid funds overseas if the recipients offered abortion counseling—did real damage and should not be minimized. But the overstepping of narrow sectarian beliefs, which was pervasive in the last administration, did not represent the authenticity of diverse faith traditions in America.

What’s more, the yell fests that have raged on TV, radio, and print, pitting atheist scientists against literal creationists—or whatever the polarized extremes happened to be—seem increasingly unhelpful to the challenges that face all of us, whether atheist, agnostic, doubter, seeker, or believer.

This is not to say that religion and science will not again be used against each other, or that creating an alliance between the two is easy. But these realms are not as oppositional as they once seemed. Most major religions continue to be shaped by advances in science, incorporating new understandings of how the world works to broaden and deepen their comprehension of the divine.

Dr. Collins understands all this. His intellectual curiosity, scientific expertise, ethical depth, and commitment to alleviating suffering make him the right man for the job. And he’s very good at explaining his faith and his science to everyday Americans. What more could the senators who need to confirm him to the post need to know?

Article also appears at The Center for American Progress.спални

Some people are quick to ridicule faithful religious adherents. But me? I envy them. I envy the ability to believe that there is something out there just for you – a plan or a specific place. It’s comforting aspect cannot be overstated. The mental peace that comes with having a direction for your life is amazing. I know. I used to believe. Strongly. Wholeheartedly.

And though I don’t regret where I am now, sometimes I wish for simpler times. Complete faith. It reminds me of childhood – how my parents took care of everything – clothing, food, shelter. I may have wanted more or different stuff, but my basic physical needs were met without me worrying about them. They were just there.

It was this great community that I belonged to. It gave me an identity, an instant support group, friends. Kind of like a gang. It was a constant thing. I could go to church every week and if I wanted more, Wednesday and Friday nights too. I could participate in a culture that I was a part of. There was a wonderful sense of belonging and love. Even if I didn’t get along with everyone and vice versa we all shared something in common: our faith.

And now, life is more complicated. I used to think the phrase “ignorance is bliss” was the most ridiculous statement ever. But I get it. I can’t change how I feel, what I know or who I am. I can go through the motions, but the connection is gone.

I still like going to church. Not for the sermons (no offense to my pastor friends) but because of the fellowship. It’s nostalgic, comforting, and fun. It provides the familial aspect that I miss. I even wanted to get involved at one point – teach Sabbath school – but then I realized that it’s more than slightly hypocritical to teach what you don’t really believe. And so I don’t. But it’s hard.

Especially the friends part. You always expect opposition from your parents – completely normal. But it’s different when your friends say they’re worried and praying for you. Being the heathen is a totally different experience. And while I appreciate their concern it does get on my nerves sometimes. Amazingly parents are more supportive than some of my friends. Who knew?

I still pray – though sometimes it’s more like talking to myself and hoping someone is listening. I haven’t completely given up on the idea of God. If I’m scared, deliriously happy, or just plain miserable I reach out. The truth is I don’t know whether He or She or It exists in the way I was taught. I have serious doubts. Same thing naturally extends to heaven or hell. Seems more likely that it’s been taught for centuries to keep people in line, behave a certain way for reward or escape retribution.

I don’t want to do something because I’m scared or want a crown and my own mansion. I want to do it because it’s the right thing to do. And I think that’s where religions are great – pretty much all of them have the same basic moral code: be good to your fellow man. That’s great stuff. Unfortunately it doesn’t just stop there.

Maybe I’m too blessed, too educated, too jaded. Maybe I have had too much time to think about it. Maybe I need to have an uber-traumatic experience to bring me back into the fold. I probably have to hit rock bottom or the bottom of the barrel or something to realize the truth. At least that’s what I’ve been told. I certainly don’t have the answers. I feel unsettled, uncomfortable, and slightly scared about where my life is going. It would be so much easier if I just believed like I used to.

But I don’t.

Nicole Franklin is a 27-year old, recovering Christian and apathetic law student. She lives with her Scottie puppy Tyler in Nashville, and comes up with brilliant ways to save the world at least once a week. She loves hard, eats well, and dances in her sleep.

Leo Babauta compiled this list of tips for living the golden rule in daily life. Religion teaches the rule, but it’s so not about religion.

One of the few rules I try to live my life by, and fail every day trying, is the Golden Rule.

I love the simplicity of the Golden Rule, its tendency to make I interact with happier … and its tendency to make me happier as well.

It’s true: the rule of treating others as you would want to be treated in their place will ultimately lead to your own happiness.

Let’s say that you apply the Golden Rule in all of your interactions with other people, and you help your neighbors, you treat your family with kindness, you go the extra mile for your co-workers, you help a stranger in need.

Now, those actions will undoubtedly be good for the people you help and are kind to … but you’ll also notice a strange thing. People will treat you better too, certainly. Beyond that, though, you will find a growing satisfaction in yourself, a belief in yourself, a knowledge that you are a good person and a trust in yourself.

Those are not small dividends. They are huge. And for that reason — not even considering that our world will be a better place if more people live by this rule — I recommend you make the Golden Rule a focus of your actions, and try to live by it to the extent that you can.

I will admit that there are strong arguments against the Golden Rule, that there are exceptions and logic arguments that the Golden Rule, taken to extremes, falls apart. I’m not concerned about that stuff. The truth is, on a day-to-day basis, living by the Golden Rule will make you a better person, will make those around you happier, and will make the community you live in a better place.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at some practical tips for living the Golden Rule in your daily life:

1. Practice empathy. Make it a habit to try to place yourself in the shoes of another person. Any person. Loved ones, co-workers, people you meet on the street. Really try to understand, to the extent that you can, what it is like to be them, what they are going through, and why they do what they do.

2. Practice compassion. Once you can understand another person, and feel what they’re going through, learn to want to end their suffering. And when you can, take even a small action to somehow ease their suffering in some way.

3. How would you want to be treated? The Golden Rule doesn’t really mean that you should treat someone else exactly as you’d want them to treat you … it means that you should try to imagine how they want to be treated, and do that. So when you put yourself in their shoes, ask yourself how you think they want to be treated. Ask yourself how you would want to be treated if you were in their situation. John F. Kennedy did that during the controversial days of de-segregation in the 1960s, asking white Americans to imagine being looked down upon and treated badly based only on the color of their skin. He asked them to imagine how they would want to be treated if they were in that situation, and act accordingly towards the blacks.

4. Be friendly. When in doubt, follow this tip. It’s usually safe to be friendly towards others. Of course, there are times when others just don’t want someone acting friendly towards them, and you should be sensitive to that. You should also be friendly within the bounds of appropriateness. But who doesn’t like to feel welcome and wanted?

5. Be helpful. This is probably one of the weaknesses of our society. Sure, there are many people who go out of their way to be helpful, and I applaud them. But in general there is a tendency to keep to yourself, and to ignore the problems of others. Don’t be blind to the needs and troubles of others. Look to help even before you’re asked.

6. Be courteous in traffic. Another weakness of our society. There are few times when we are as selfish as when we’re driving. We don’t want to give up the right of way, we cut people off, we honk and curse. Perhaps it’s the isolation of the automobile. We certainly don’t act that rude in person, most of the time. So try to be courteous in traffic.

7. Listen to others. Another weakness: we all want to talk, but very few of us want to listen. And yet, we all want to be listened to. So take the time to actually listen to another person, rather than just wait your turn to talk. It’ll also go a long way to helping you understand others.

8. Overcome prejudice. We all have our prejudices, whether it’s based on skin color, attractiveness, height, age, gender … it’s human nature, I guess. But try to see each person as an individual human being, with different backgrounds and needs and dreams. And try to see the commonalities between you and that person, despite your differences.

9. Stop criticism. We all have a tendency to criticize others, whether it’s people we know or people we see on television. However, ask yourself if you would like to be criticized in that person’s situation. The answer is almost always “no”. So hold back your criticism, and instead learn to interact with others in a positive way.

10. Don’t control others. It’s also rare that people want to be controlled. Trust me. So don’t do it. This is a difficult thing, especially if we are conditioned to control people. But when you get the urge to control, put yourself in that person’s shoes. You would want freedom and autonomy and trust, wouldn’t you? Give that to others then.

11. Be a child. The urge to control and criticize is especially strong when we are adults dealing with children. In some cases, it’s necessary, of course: you don’t want the child to hurt himself, for example. But in most cases, it’s not. Put yourself in the shoes of that child. Remember what it was like to be a child, and to be criticized and controlled. You probably didn’t like it. How would you want to be treated if you were that child?

12. Send yourself a reminder. Email yourself a daily reminder (use Google Calendar or memotome.com, for example) to live your life by the Golden Rule, so you don’t forget.

13. Tie a string to your finger. Or give yourself some other reminder throughout the day so that you don’t forget to follow the Golden Rule in all interactions with others. Perhaps a fake golden ring on your keychain? A tattoo?

14. Post it on your wall or make it your home page. The Golden Rule makes a great mantra, and a great poster.

15. Rise above retaliation. We have a tendency to strike back when we’re treated badly. This is natural. Resist that urge. The Golden Rule isn’t about retaliation. It’s about treating others well, despite how they treat you. Does that mean you should be a doormat? No … you have to assert your rights, of course, but you can do so in a way where you still treat others well and don’t strike back just because they treated you badly first. Remember Jesus’ wise (but difficult to follow) advice: turn the other cheek.

16. Be the change. Gandhi famously told us to be the change we want to see in the world. Well, we often think of that quote as applying to grand changes, such as poverty and racism and violence. Well, sure, it does apply to those things … but it also applies on a much smaller scale: to all the small interactions between people. Do you want people to treat each other with more compassion and kindness? Then let it start with you. Even if the world doesn’t change, at least you have.

17. Notice how it makes you feel. Notice how your actions affect others, especially when you start to treat them with kindness, compassion, respect, trust, love. But also notice the change in yourself. Do you feel better about yourself? Happier? More secure? More willing to trust others, now that you trust yourself? These changes come slowly and in small increments, but if you pay attention, you’ll see them.

18. Say a prayer. There is a prayer on the Golden Rule, attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea, that would be worth saying once a day. It includes the following lines, among others: “May I gain no victory that harms me or my opponent.
May I reconcile friends who are mad at each other.
May I, insofar as I can, give all necessary
help to my friends and to all who are in need.
May I never fail a friend in trouble.”

In 2001 Sam Harris was a graduate student in neuroscience. But like so many people, 9/11 radically altered his life. Seeing affluent young men kill themselves and others in the name of their God led him to conclude there was something fundamentally wrong with many of the world’s religions. The fruit of his effort to expose and confront what he interprets as the violence, sexism, homophobia and inherent irrationality of the world’s largest faiths became a best-seller, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Unsurprisingly, Harris was flooded with angry hate mail, typically from people who identify as deeply religious. He decided to respond en masse with his follow-up effort, Letter to a Christian Nation (Vintage), another best-seller. Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation triggered a flood of media coverage. I spoke with Harris about his thoughts on religious fundamentalism, atheism, and terrorism.

You started writing The End of Faith right after 9/11, I wondered if you could talk about what inspired you to do that?

Sam Harris: It really was my immediate response to September 11th and continues to be my response to the fact that every time I open the newspaper, fully half of the news, often unacknowledged, is coming out of the religious divisions in our world. We are continually bearing witness to how maladapted and unnecessary these religious ideas are.

Besides writing, what can one do to push the rationality agenda?

I think it has to come from media of all types. What we need essentially is a Fahrenheit 9/11 scale wide-release documentary on this subject.

Your book proceeds from looking at the polling data on people who think that God created the Earth in seven days, which is staggeringly high; and then the percentage of people who believe that God directed evolution, which is also staggeringly high, as compared to the percentage the people who accept the scientific consensus about evolution, which is very low. But at the same time, science is winning the battle over teaching evolution in schools. It seems to me that this would be unsustainable in a democratic country if 90 percent of people actually found scientific evolution offensive. So how do you explain those numbers?

There’s a margin of error and there are subtle differences in polls. For instance, a recent Gallop poll found that 53 percent of Americans believe the universe is 6,000 years old and we evolved not from prior species but from Adam and Eve. The percentages are always massive, something like 70 percent believe in hell, 68 percent believe in Satan. There are so many specific questions being asked, it’s not just “Do you believe in God?” that I do trust the poll results, but I find them no less shocking.

It’s important to point out that this is a significant minority. This is not a majority. Something like 45 percent of us go to Church every week or more and believe very literalist things. If 44 percent of people claim to believe that Jesus is coming back in their lifetime, that is an eruption of medievalism in the heart of our democracy that I think should trouble everyone.

But there’s another 45 percent who are moderate in their beliefs, and do accept evolution. But many of them think that evolution has been guided by God. What that means in its particulars is that it’s difficult to spell out and no doubt, there are many millions of people who pay lip service to God guiding evolution, but what they really mean is that the universe is vast and mysterious and there is some kind of energy out there that maybe we don’t understand.

But if you poll people on a Friday and ask them what they are doing over the weekend, the percentage of people who say they are going to Church will be higher than the number who actually go. Isn’t it possible that these numbers skew a little bit toward religion simply because Americans feel some obligation to answer that way, for the same reason majorities say they would vote for an African-American or a Jew, but never do in the voting booth?

But what’s interesting is that they would not vote for an atheist. The same poll run with the subject of atheism produces very different results. An atheist is the only person who could not get a majority of his own party, if you stipulate that he is a qualified candidate. And that’s not true of Muslims, or Jews, or homosexuals. And so I just think there are many reasons to believe that atheism is the most reviled variable around which someone can organize in this culture.

We’ve run a lot of articles on CampusProgress.org about how you can be a good Christian and accept homosexuality, or reproductive freedom, or evolution. What do you think?

It’s a bit of a paradox. On one level I want to support these people and I argue that we do need more interfaith dialogue, more religious moderation. So religious moderation is the goal on one level, and it’s certainly better than religious fundamentalism.

But religious moderates are just reliably deluding themselves about as to where their moderation is coming from. Their moderation is not coming from looking more closely at their holy books. It’s not coming from God. It’s not coming from a plausible reading of their texts. It’s coming from the hammer blows their religious tradition is suffering from modernity. It’s coming from a collision with science and secular politics and a larger world of discourse, which is eroding the basis for their religious certainty. The reason we’re not burning religious heretics on street corners under the name of Christendom, Christianity now, like we were in Europe for five centuries, is because Christianity has been mastered and subjugated by post-enlightenment discourse to a significant degree.

Unlike most atheists who say religion can be interpreted by bad people to support their beliefs, you actually think religion is the source of bad beliefs, such as martyrdom in Islam.

If you want to explain why there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of suicide bombers in the Muslim world, I think you really need look no further than the doctrine of martyrdom and jihad that is professed ad nauseam in these jihadist circles and probably even wider circles within Muslim discourse. It explains it. And it explains why this behavior is actually sometimes independent of education or economic opportunity, or even independent of having a history of being mistreated by Western powers or anything else. It explains why we have some psychologically healthy, well-off, well-educated, and unmolested people blowing themselves up or flying planes into buildings. We really do have that in the Muslim world, and it is behavior that is utterly inexplicable without reference to what these people actually believe.

So you’re saying is that if the world converted en masse to Jainism or Quakerism that there would in fact, be much less terrorism, crime, or war?

There is no question that behavior would be different. There’s no question if your core religious belief, which trumps all others, is that non-violence is the most important thing, don’t kill people under any circumstances, not even in self-defense. If your daughter is getting raped by pirates, you are simply to watch because it is worse for you to lift a finger against the pirates. If this is the way you view the world, and I am not saying this is a good way to view the world, it has very different behavioral consequences. You know what someone who really believes that is going to do in various situations of oppression. They’re not going to blow up little kids in pizza parlors, on buses, or in discotheques just to make their point.

The funny thing about you saying Islam is to be blamed for the terrorism originating in the Middle East is that it puts you in agreement with neo-conservatives and also Christian American zealots.

It’s an interesting paradox of sorts. My argument is really orthogonal to our political discourse. What I say about Islam lines up much more to what neo-conservatives and even Christian lunatics say about Islam. And what I say about Christianity lines up with what liberals and people who think that Islam has been basically misconstrued say about Christianity. It’s a bewildering conversation to have when you try to have it in the midst of our normal political polarities. I find it inconvenient that the people who see the problem of Islam most clearly in our society are our own religious demagogues. That’s scary because we don’t want that. We don’t want religion playing both sides of board in that game. And it’s starting to. It’s certainly playing the board on the Muslim side. And there are many Christians who are angling for a showdown for biblical reasons. That’s what I’m worried about. Until liberals admit that there are tens of millions of people far scarier than Dick Cheney in the Muslim world, they’re just out of the conversation.

This article was originally published in Campus Progress.

For over two decades, the Muslim Public Affairs Council has been a leading national voice on behalf of the Muslim American community. MPAC works with policy leaders, law enforcement agencies, the entertainment industry, and others to shape policies and public opinion concerning Muslim Americans. MPAC also works within Muslim American communities to develop strong leadership and encourage civic participation.

Safiya Ghori-Ahmad is MPAC’s government relations director. She talks with Sally Steenland of the Center for American Progress’ Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative about the challenges facing Muslim Americans in a post 9-11 nation, the images of Muslims in the media, and her community’s hopes for the new administration.

Sally Steenland: Safiya, you’re the Government Relations Director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council here in Washington D.C. Can you tell us about MPAC—why it’s needed, not just for the Muslim community, but for all of us?

Safiya Ghori-Ahmad:The Muslim Public Affairs Council came about in about 1988, so we have been around for about 20 years. We originated in Los Angeles as the public relations wing of the Islamic Center of Southern California, and we’ve grown to expand our offices around the country. MPAC operates on the core belief that we’re trying to create a shift in U.S. policy, and that requires more from our community, but it also requires building bridges and coalitions with other groups at the grassroots and national level. We are trying to build those bridges, but we’re also trying to create a stronger voice in the media. There is a void of thoughtful analysis of the Muslim American community, of the issues at play.

Sally Steenland: Let’s talk about some of the policy issues you are working on and some of the media issues as well. I know that you have an office in Hollywood, and you have a project on Islam. What do those projects do?

Safiya Ghori-Ahmad: We instituted our Hollywood bureau about a year ago. We had been seeing a shift in public opinion of Muslims. A lot of what you see in the movies and TV is a Muslim playing the role of a terrorist. That becomes a formidable concept in the minds of Americans –that this is what Islam and the Muslim community represent. So we decided to create a Hollywood bureau which serves as a bridge between the Muslim community and the entertainment industry. We reach out to filmmakers, writers, actors, Hollywood professionals, and we talk about the issues that pertain to the Muslim American community. We also look at scripts and review shows, so we are able to say, “Look, this is how you portrayed a Muslim. Maybe you could do this instead or maybe you could show them praying in this way, in a more positive light.” And it’s actually been really positive. We’ve seen a lot of feedback from our Hollywood partners in asking us and seeking our advice.

“Project Islam’ is a program we implemented a few years ago [to equip] communities with the skills to address difficult questions….our religion [was] put in the spotlight after 9/11 and [we] were questioned about issues that are difficult—about polygamy, the role of terrorism or jihad. Sometimes our community members aren’t prepared to answer those [questions].

Sally Steenland: When you work with Hollywood and in communities so that there’s a more accurate reflection of who Muslims in America really are, what do you think some of those obstacles are?

Safiya Ghori-Ahmad: There are very few positive images of American Muslims portrayed on a broader level. So you’ll see Osama bin Laden tapes being played over and over again, where he is calling for jihad on America, but you don’t see, for example, an organization called Green Muslims that helps save the environment based on an Islamic perspective. Or you don’t see groups like MPAC that are calling out against terrorism and violence in any and all forms.

There’s a disconnect between what people are seeing and [who] Muslims [are.] Also, we’re still dealing with post 9-11 repercussions. We’re seeing an increase in employment discrimination, in cases where our community members are being questioned unnecessarily by the FBI and law enforcement.

Sally Steenland: Can you give us a sense of what a pre-9/11 world was and what a post-9/11 world looks like for the Muslim community in America?

Safiya Ghori-Ahmad: A lot of my work deals with young Muslims, and the reason we’re trying to engage [them] is because many who are reaching college age right now don’t remember a pre-9/11 world. They were very young when 9/11 happened and all they’ve seen is the backlash. They’ve seen Guantanamo, they’ve seen Abu Ghraib and this is what they’re beginning to understand of U.S. foreign policy or domestic policy. What we’re trying to do is to include them to be engaged citizens, to work with government officials, to engage their local law enforcement, to be active citizens.

Some of the post-9/11 repercussions have to do with “home-grown terrorism.” I know that the Senate and various government agencies are extremely concerned about young American Muslims who are born and raised here becoming radicalized and then carrying out acts of violence on U.S. soil. This is something that hits a nerve with a lot of us because it raises you to a suspect class. You’re born and raised here, but your allegiance to this country is still in question because you could be affiliating with terrorist groups or messages that are calling for violence.

Sally Steenland: If you could advise the Senate committees that are holding hearings and the FBI and the police forces that are working on this—and maybe in some cases you are—what would you say?

Safiya Ghori-Ahmad: I think the language that’s being used is extremely problematic. These hearings are called ‘Violent Islamic Radicalization,’ ‘Violent Islamist Jihadization.’ You are pushing people away from dialogue and discussion by language like that, because you’re equating violence and terrorism with our religion. Just like other religions, there are bad people carrying out acts of violence in the name of their religion…we don’t ascribe to those beliefs, but immediately are linked.

I have pushed the Senate Committees to change the language that’s coming out of our government to a more friendly, engaging atmosphere that brings young Muslims in….they’re always talking about young Muslims who are becoming radicalized, but they don’t have young Muslims testifying. They don’t have [them] coming forward to represent their own community.

Sally Steenland: Have you seen any hopeful signs based on your work?

Safiya Ghori-Ahmad: MPAC has testified before Congress on these issues, and I think they are reaching out to [us] and other Muslim groups for feedback, ideas, engagement….but in some ways, like the language issue, we’ve pushed for the last eight hearings for them to change the title, and that hasn’t been effective. But they’re trying to engage us and there’s hope with the new administration that there will be a shift.

Sally Steenland: What are your hopes for the new administration?

Safiya Ghori-Ahmad: On the campaign trail where we reached out to the American Muslim community [with] the get-out-the-vote initiative, I saw that so many people felt a change in rhetoric, a shift in the tone of the government in how they are going to engage the Muslim world and Muslims in general. Young [and] older Muslims felt like they were being included in this message of change and hope.

Sally Steenland: If you had to give us a snapshot that was reflective of the realities of Muslim American communities, what would you say?

Ghori-Ahmad: There’s always a preconceived notion that when you say “Muslim” you’re thinking South Asian, Pakistani, Indian, or Arab; but in fact the majority of American Muslims are native born, so they’re African American Muslims; they’re indigenous. About 35 percent are indigenous Muslims, which is more than the other groups. Arabs come in at about 24-25 percent, then South Asians at about 18 percent, and so you’re seeing this shift, especially[with] young American Muslims, where we’re not as affiliated with our ethnic background. Many times you’ll ask young Muslims where they’re from and their first response is, “America.”

Steenland: I want to go back for a minute and talk about some preconceptions people have and some things people say that they may not be aware of. One of the things you hear people say is, “He’s a moderate Muslim” or “She’s a moderate Muslim.” And that word “moderate” is meant to be a compliment, and I think you would probably say it is not. What’s wrong with saying that?

Ghori-Ahmad: I am one of those people who don’t like being called a moderate or progressive Muslim because moderation, to me, is a mainstream term. Moderation is inherent in our religion, in the Qu’ran, in what we’re taught all our lives. You can be an American and you can be a Muslim at the same time. Right now the definition has taken on a political twist where, after 9/11, you’ll see groups use “moderate Muslims” to portray themselves as a watered-down version of being Muslim.

Steenland: Can you talk about any generation gap that exists in the Muslim American community?

Ghori-Ahmad: I definitely think there’s a generation gap in our community right now. Often times our parents came here as immigrants, or if they are indigenous, their main priority was to build Mosques and community centers as a place for worship and gathering as a community. …..you’re seeing a shift in our generation into civic engagement and political activism. That’s a divide. The elder generation doesn’t think that is a priority. It’s sort of the immigrant mentality where, “we’re here, we want to make money, we want to have families, and we want to have a place to pray.”

But we’re seeing a more nuanced understanding of being an American Muslim in our generation where we’re trying to get more involved, whether politically or civically. I think that has caused rifts in some communities. Additionally, you’re seeing a void in some Mosques where the leadership is still the elder generation and you don’t see as many young Muslims stepping up to the plate to take leadership roles in their communities. Now that’s not universal, but those are some issues that are definitely inherent in the community right now.

Steenland: Let’s say you’re coming from a traditional community….Can you talk about the desire and appeal of assimilating and being an American, but at the same time, the appeal of tradition and of deeper roots within one’s own circle?

Ghori-Ahmad: I definitely think there is a conflict that probably many young Muslims feel in terms of, how far can we go? And these are issues we’re trying to have addressed in our Mosques and with our leaders…you do see that struggle and you’re constantly questioning, “Am I American? I’m South Asian at home.” You speak a different language, you pray five times a day, you dress differently, you eat different foods, and then it’s like you’re two lives.

I think everyone comes to a point, usually in college, where they reconcile those two identities and begin to understand what being an American Muslim is, and that you can be both. You can wear your jeans and go to the movies and talk about sports, and at the same time you can still make time to pray five times a day, you can make sure that you’re following the traditions that are set forth by the religion.

Steenland: If you had to list some of the top issues facing the Muslim American community this year, what comes to mind?

Ghori-Ahmad: Unfortunately we’re still dealing with post-9/11 issues. We’re still engaging with federal agencies and members of Congress to address issues like the Patriot Act, to address the ramifications of legislation that adversely affects the community. On the flip side, we’re also hoping that our community is beginning to understand and engage in the civic process at a more enhanced level. I think that this election brought the community to the forefront in terms of voting and volunteering for campaigns, and that was a good thing…. But we need to see more of that on the local and the grassroots [level].

Another issue is shifting from foreign policy to domestic policy. You can ask our community members, “What’s the most important issue to you?” and for the most part – this isn’t even a generational issue – you’ll hear, “Palestine” or “Kashmir” or “Afghanistan.” I think that we – MPAC – we’re trying to shift the focus from foreign policy to domestic policy because health care is just as important to us; we’re living in America. Immigration is just as important. There’s a host of domestic issues that are equally important but may not get the kind of relevance in the community that they should.

Steenlandcarrier to noise ratio: I have one last question, and that has to do with your hopes for the next four years and beyond. If you had a wand and could help shape the Muslim American community in this country, what would you like to see and what are your hopes?

Ghori-Ahmad: I really do hope that we’re going to see a more diverse administration. We’re already seeing that, but I hope to see more Muslim Americans involved in the political process, more engaged, and not just in the law enforcement field. We’re not just here to talk about national security, but to address a whole host of issues and be looked at as equal stakeholders in the progress of America and the economic outlook for America. I do think we can look beyond 9/11 and the level of suspicion that we’ve seen ourselves cast in for the last few years and move beyond that. I hope for the next four or eight years that this administration will bring change to where our community will begin to feel like they’re a part of the system.

This interview also appears on Center for American Progress.