Reflections From a Murky Pond

The “Golden Rule” states that one should do unto others as he would like them to do unto him. This may be the best piece of evidence for a universal absolute moral code. Just about every religion in existence exhorts their followers to practice this simple ideal. A few examples are listed below:

Buddhism (500 BCE)

Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.

– Udana-Varga, 5, 18

Christianity (50 CE)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

– Matthew 7:12

Confucianism (600 BCE)

Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto other that you would not have them do unto you.

– Analects, 15, 23

Islam (622 CE)

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

– Imam An-Nawawi’s 40 Hadiths, 13

Hinduism (1500 BCE)

This is the turn of duty; do naught unto others which could cause you pain if done to you.

– Mahabharata, 5, 1517

Judaism (1800 BCE)

What is harmful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

– Talmud, Shabbat, 312

Taoism (300 BCE)

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

– T’sai Shang Kan Ying P’ien

Zoroastrianism (600 BCE)

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.

– Didistan-i-dinik, 94, 5

If this stricture were limited to only the Abrahamic faiths - and possibly Zoroastrianism - I would write it off as nothing of note. Each of those faiths builds upon its predecessor. The Golden Rule is not so limited however. Even religions and philosophies with little or connection or exposure to the Abrahamic faiths include essentially the same stricture.

While this alone is not proof, it seems to be enough evidence to support postulating a universal absolute morality.

In truth we are all delusional. Our God(s) are made in the image of Man.

From Wikipedia:

The God Delusion is a 2006 book by British biologist Richard Dawkins, holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig’s observation in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that “when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.”

Now I don’t subscribe to Dawkins’ philosophy. None of his evidence addresses the root cause of Life. It only provides a basis for a scientifically understandable methodology for the progression of life. A lack of evidence is not reason for dismissal, only flatly contradictory evidence would be so.

I will say though that all of our Gods are delusions. They are solely the constructs of Man.

Now please don’t get me wrong, I do not deny the existence of a god-head. I deny Man’s understanding of it. I believe that Man cannot - not in any meaningful way - understand the divine. We see the God(s) through the lenses of our own inadequacy.

All of our holy books and oral histories have been passed down through so many translations and edits that they no longer carry the unabridged Word. Worse, all of these strictures have been interpreted and reinterpreted in the light of Man’s understanding and conceit.

There are 6 billion of us, each with our God(s) created in our minds to help us strive towards understanding some fraction of the God(s)’ true nature and mind. I find this a delusion that is worth perpetuating.

I have my faith, but I accept that I know only the most infinitesimal fraction of the nature of my Gods. I know only what they chose to reveal and that only through the lens of my own imperfect understanding.

A lot of people have strong opinions about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor. Many Blacks stick by him and many Whites decry him as bigoted and anti-American. The simple fact is that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is one of the current leaders of the Black Liberation Theology movement along with James Cone and Dwight Hopkins, who are considered the founders of contemporary Black Liberation Theology.

Since Wright is a fully committed and passionate advocate of this system of belief it would be best to define him in the context of that theology.

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

– James Cone
A Black Theology Of Liberation

There you have the distillate of Black Liberation Theology as announced by the movement’s founder in 1970. It’s a angry, exilic theology with a core doctrine centered on fear and hate.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a pastor and when he speaks he speaks as such - as he has firmly said. Black Liberation Theology is what he speaks and preaches. His words should be judged on this basis. His actions should be judged on their merits and effects.