The Pageless Book

Everyone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force.
- Flavius Josephus, 37 AD - 100 AD.

Omnitheism. It’s one of those words I like to throw around that no one quite understands. From an etymological standpoint the word is no different then pantheism in that both “pan-“ and “omni-” means “all” in Latin and Greek respectively. “Pantheism”, which is the worship of all things as collectively being God, is a well established word in the English language. This is in contrast with “Omnitheism” which can only be found sparely used by a handful of people on the internet and does not have a definition from an authoritative source.Why use a word that has so little history to describe my religious inclinations? It may seem silly, but I don’t believe any of the other words properly describe how I view the Divine. I’m not saying that there has not been others throughout history who share my particular understanding of the Divine. I’m not saying that I invented the word “Omnitheism” either, as there are currently at least three or four people who could lay claim to that title, none of whom are myself. I am going to work towards giving this word a proper definition that everyone can understand and appreciate, that clearly differentiates it from other religious terminology.

So what is Omnitheism? There are two ways in which you can define this word. One method of defining this word by dropping large theological concepts into the collective laps of my readers and elaborating on them with the eloquence of an 18th century philosopher. The benefit of defining a word this way is appearing intelligent and well educated to the two, or maybe three, readers that might be able to follow my train-wreck of logic. Seeing as I do not yet have a theological degree, I don’t see the point in trying to fool with break-teeth words; I would probably end up using the words incorrectly anyway.

The other method of definition looks at how we relate to the Divine and practice of our spirituality. This method, unlike the other, would give you an idea of what Omnitheism looks like. This is the method I want to use because I want to give you a working understanding of what it means to be an omnitheist. No pretense, no twelve syllable words, and no bull.

As you may have guessed, Omnitheism is a melting pot of religions and philosophies. Omnitheism is the belief that no single religion, philosophy, or science can ever accurately explain or describe in full the nature of reality, the nature of the human experience, or the nature of the divine, yet each contributes to an over-all understanding of such. In addition, Omnitheism encourages constant spiritual exploration and experimentation in contrast to the unyielding belief or dogma of many religions. This may lead to many interesting questions. I’m not going to attempt to answer them all in one post, but I will attempt to touch on what omnitheists believe concerning God, what makes Omnitheism different from other spiritual paths, and how omnitheists worship.

To an omnitheist, the Divine is both distant and personal, a part of creation and apart from creation, many entities and one, intelligent and a force of nature. The metaphors and examples of what omnitheists believe concerning God could very well fill an entire book. I’ll spare you the repetition; the bottom line is, our language and logic are not able fully explain the nature of the Divine. Seemingly contradictory statements made about the Divine could very well both be true in one sense and both false in another sense. Omnitheists don’t pretend to know the nature of God, but still can form their own opinions based upon what is known to be true and their own personal spiritual experience.

One thing that all Omnitheists agree on is that the Divine does not seem to differentiate believers in one religion from the other. Members of all religions and paths have similar profound experiences, although they might be interpreted differently depending on the culture. Omnitheism takes that observation and brings it to a logical conclusion. It doesn’t matter how you define the Divine, all that matters is that it is experienced by all people.

How is Omnitheism, then, different then deism or spiritual atheism? It is how omnitheists relate to the collected wisdom, practices, and stories of other religions. Unlike deism or spiritual atheism, Omnitheism still finds validity in the holy texts, practices, and the ideas of other religions. Omnitheism teaches that the Divine speaks to different people in different ways. Just because the Divine reveals itself to one person in one fashion and other people in another fashion does not mean one must be true and the other false.

As already discussed, our language and understanding are not fully able to comprehend the Divine, so what the Divine gives us are allegories and symbolism. While this makes all holy texts inherently flawed, through attempting to understand what is being said and the essential truths behind the words and practices, we begin to be able to realize more of those truths. That realization and work cannot be done by someone else; it has to be done by each individual for him or herself.

That leads us to the issue of worship. The problem, if you can call it a problem, is that Omnitheism is a belief that can manifest itself in a large number of ways. You could almost imagine this faith as an empty white room that you are expected to paint in any color or combination of colors that you desire. This differs from mainstream religions, in that the work of building a relationship with the divine isn’t already done. You must put forth the effort to find what colors, or what means of worship, work for you.

The majority of omnitheists will be those who strive to worship God through the practices of several different religions. It only makes sense; most people would become omnitheists because they see similarity and beauty in more then one religion. Does that mean that the practice of these omnitheists are cobbled together like some strange Frankenstein monster? No. Omnitheism is not only the view that all religions are valid, but also is the view that all religions should be respected. What it means is that omnitheists will try to relate to God in a way that is completely unique unto themselves, making a subtle art out of their own worship. One might find regular prayer and meditation important to their individual worship, while another omnitheist might preform rituals of her own design. Yet another omnitheist may forgo all means of worship, concentrating instead in honoring the Divine by living a life of integrity and joy.

I’m not claiming that Omnitheism is for everyone, nor am I suggesting that this spiritual path is more valid just because it is broader in scope. Each person needs to find their own way to relate to the Divine; no one religion or path can ever satisfy everyone. As someone who has taken a serious look at several different religions and realized that they each have something to offer, I found “Omnitheist” to be the only label with which I felt comfortable. I suspect that there are more than a few other individuals who might feel as I do, but just do not have the word to describe what they believe. Perhaps you feel that Omnitheism fits you, or perhaps someone you know, as well?

First Image by Jared Tarbell. Second Image from John Guano. Third Photo from David Shapinsky. Final Image by Charis Tsevis. Originally Published October 12th, 2007.

I’ve receive two interesting and well written comments recently on a couple older articles which debate the main points of those articles. Now I could just respond to these comments briefly and then move on, but I am struck with how much time and effort these two visitors placed in their comments. Anything less than a thorough and well thought out response would be insulting, so I’ve decided that I’m going to respond to these two comments as their own article.

The first visitor, Ian, who responded to “The Failure of Apologetics & The Mind of God” wrote:

In your completely valid and welcomed argument you have used Apologetics to show that Apologetics is not a reasonable form of combating the modern world. Apologetics is simply the defense of our religion, it is a practice of using words and ideas of an unbeliever on terms they can understand. It is not so conclusive that it “proves” to an unbeliever that Christianity is the only true religion any more than we can “prove” what happened during the creation. Faith is still a requirement of God.

Thank you, Ian. I appreciate that you enjoyed my article.

The problem is that a defense of Christianity needs to be conclusive by virtue of it’s claim to being the only true religion. A defense which is not conclusive, cannot defend the claim of being the only true religion at all. Once that contention falls to the blade of logical argument, any amount of defense beyond that becomes pointless… makes apologetics pointless.

However, if Christianity backs off the claim of being the only true religion, Christianity as a whole becomes more defendable from a logical stand point. This is true of all religions; once you declare the unique position of being the only true religion, you instantly lose credibility in any logical argument. In backing off from that claim, the other aspects of religion become more understandable in context to the human condition.

According to Christianity, faith is required of us by God, but I ask you what if it is actually we who need faith - any faith -  for no other purpose than our mental and emotional well being? What if faith had less to do about God and more to do about the human condition? How would this change our relationship with God and with religion? Its worth thinking about.

Today Christians are becoming increasingly polarized with the rest of society… The departure of modern society from its morals founded in Christianity was not due to ignorant or wayward Christians (though they certainly didn’t help). It was due to what great minds believed was the evolving (and to them, better) form of human logic and reason. What they did not realize at the time is that God invented Logic and reason. John 1:1 in Greek, which it was originally written reads “In the beginning there was logos”. A divine, logical, mind.

If I’m understanding you correctly, in your opinion the cause of the polarization between Christianity and the rest of society is because society is moving away from Christian morality. In all honesty, I am not convince that there was ever a time in history when Western society adhered to the morality that Jesus proposed. Not that the morality practiced by Christians was not the dominate force at one time or another - but that there has always been a large gulf between what Jesus taught and what his followers did in his name. I’m not just referring to the more egregious offences to morality made by a minority of Christians, I’m talking about the day to day attitudes and actions of Christian society as a whole. The polarization between Christianity and the rest of society has more to do with society’s secularization which, in my opinion, has actually been a boon to the morality of Western society.

Logic was not invented by God - it is purely man-made. Logic may be the highest form of thought for human beings, but that doesn’t mean that there are not yet even higher forms of thought. “Logos” is Greek for “word.” In my opinion, it’s use in the Bible refers to Truth - not the mind of God but simply Truth. From this you could postulate that Truth was created by God. Logic, on the other hand, is just one method or tool used to reach that Truth.

Faith is a deeply personal thing, and as you said yourself, extremely hard to put into exact words when expressing it. I don’t believe that a Christian Apologist or an “Apologist-created” convert has a weaker faith, on the contrary, the more either of these people can see or explain with words or ideas the stronger their faith will be. Just as the Christian that goes hiking can see all of the finer complexities and details of nature will feel closer to God, the Christian that sees the subtle genius of logic will as well.

I never said that a person who used or was converted by apologetics was weaker in faith. I did, however, point out that the success rate of Christian apologetics is abysmal. Being able to articulate what you feel does not make that feeling any more or less real; faith is a feeling.

Theists may feel uncomfortable with it, I would see why, because it requires them to climb out of their shell. It is so much easier to argue that you feel a certain way because you have “faith” in God than it is to do your homework and learn why everyone else thinks differently. On some level they may be afraid to “lose” an argument or debate for God, or maybe if they go looking for the answers they might find something they didn’t want to know that would change their beliefs.

You know… I couldn’t have said that better. Well said! The only thing that I would change is, that, instead of referring to apologetics, it would refer to religious pluralism, religious tolerance, and inter-religious dialogue. Those subjects may very well be off topic, but I feel that they are key to the future growth of religion as a whole - Christianity included.

Apologetics should not replace one’s religion any more than one should take a Tylenol after their headache is gone. At this time though it is necessary to show, as Children of God, that he has relevance in this day and age. Refusing to speak and talk amongst those we as Christians seek to convert is not only the opposite of what Jesus Christ did, it will send our religion further to the fringe, and society further to the brink of lawlessness and debauchery.

I would argue that apologetics is not useful at all - and I guess that was the point of this whole article. You don’t need apologetics to prove that Christianity or God is relevant in this age - you need merely do good in the world and speak honestly. There is great difference between what Jesus did, and the missionary work of Christians. Jesus wasn’t trying to “convert” anybody, but rather challenged and questioned their beliefs to show them that there is a greater truth. Modern day Christians, on the other hand, seek to turn someone into a Christian, which may not be compatible with that person’s personal truth. You are right in thinking that there needs to be a dialogue, but wrong in what the purpose of that dialogue is - we need to challenge each other to seek greater truth, and not assume to always know what that truth entails.

Also, I don’t see Christianity as being on “the fringe” by any stretch of the imagination. If anything pushes our society to the brink of lawlessness and debauchery, it’ll be because we are not listening to each other.

I am 23 years old, and though I do not know how old you or the rest of those that commented on here are, I know my generation. My generation will allow its children to eradicate religion and morals as we know them and replace them with the postmodern view that “whatever you believe, you may practice, and if your belief says another is wrong, it must go”.

Again, Ian, I have to disagree with you. Tolerance of other religions does not entail loss of morals - it is the refinement of morals. Tolerance is what Jesus taught. Remember the story of the Good Samaritan? That was about religious and cultural tolerance. Whatever you believe, whatever you practice, as long as it tolerant and honest, than it is good. If it is intolerant and self deceptive, than it must go. I think Christianity has a place within that “post-modern” world-view, even if you don’t see it.

Namaste.

Tomorrow I’ll respond to Tanya, who commented on my article, “Learning How To Live With Meaning.”

First Photo by Midiman. Second Photo by Phil Whitehouse. Third Photo by Brian Solis. Final Photo by Pete Birkinshaw.

Image above by “reedbiotch”. Photo below by “gutter”.

In case you haven’t heard about the current internet war against Scientology, let me bring you up to speed. Since the days of the usernet in the 1980’s, The Church of Scientology has actively attempted to quiet all criticism of its actives by citing copyright laws, harassing website owners, and allegedly abusing any means possible to silence detractors. Individuals have had their computers confiscated, been sued, and slandered in opposition of Scientology. On January 16th, a four year old video of Tom Cruise ranting about Scientology surfaced on YouTube and went viral. This brought negative media attention to the Church of Scientology, which prompted them to contact YouTube and demand that they take the video down or face legal proceedings.

I guess this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. On the 21st of the month, several groups of hackers joined together and, calling themselves “Anonymous,” declared war against Scientology in a YouTube video. You can see the original video here, as well as a second video addressing the followers of Scientology in particular here, and a video listing the alleged crimes of Scientology here. So far, the war has resulted in numerous denial of server attacks against the Chuch’s websites, the various videos I link to above, and most likely several acts that I am not yet privy.

So why is this important to me? It brings up an important question about religious tolerance, or the lack there of. Is this just bigotry practiced on a large scale by the hackers of the internet or is Scientology truly a sinister organization as Anonymous would have us believe? Where do I stand as a blogger, a citizen of the internet, and a champion of religious tolerance? What should I do, if anything? These are not easy questions for me to answer, but if I am to be honest with myself, they need to be asked.

Let’s assume for a moment that the accusations of illegal activities made against Scientology are all false and consider only the verifiable facts of how this organization has conducted itself in the past. The organization is heavily reliant on litigation as its means of defending itself and is not interested in open dialogue. They charge an incredible amount of money for access to their teachings and openly prevents the sharing of those teachings by others. Scientology rejects the importance of psychological and psychiatric medicine and offer their own scientifically unproved methods as means of overcoming mental illness… Even without mentioning the rumored illegal activities, I have to question the motives of this organization.

I have come to the conclusion that if even a quarter of what Anonymous has said is true, than Scientology is a detriment to society. The thing is, we don’t have to rely on the word of Anonymous to come to this decision; Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, and the United Kingdom refuse to recognize Scientology as a religion. Germany has even considered a ban on Scientology, and the government of Belgium is currently in the process of prosecuting the Church. You could even read the opinions of the judges who have ruled against the Church in the past, including this ruling from the California Supreme Court in the case of Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology:

“Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology leaders made the deliberate decision to ruin Wollersheim economically and possible psychologically….We do not mean to suggest Scientology’s retributive program… represented a full scale modern day ‘inquisition.’ Nevertheless there are some parallels in purpose and effect. ‘Fair game,’ like the ‘inquisition,’ targeted heretics.

“Other testimony established Scientology is a hierarchal organization which exhibits near paranoid attitudes toward certain institutions and individuals — in particular the government, mental health professionals, disaffected members, and others who criticize the organization or its leadership… During trial, Wollersheim’s experts testified Scientology’s ‘auditing’ and ‘disconnect’ practices constituted ‘brainwashing’ and ‘thought reform’ akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced on American prisoners of war…

“Using its position as religious leader, the church and its agents coerced Wollersheim into continuing auditing even though his sanity was repeatedly threatened by this practice… Thus there is adequate proof the religious practice in this instance caused real harm to the individual and the appellant’s outrageous conduct caused that harm… Church practices conducted in a coercive environment are not qualified to be voluntary religious practices entitled to first amendment religious freedom guarantees…

“We hold that the state has a compelling interest in allowing its citizens to recover for serious emotional injuries they suffer through religious practices they are coerced into accepting. Such conduct is too outrageous to be protected under the constitution and too unworthy to be privileged under the law of torts.”

-California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986)

So are the actions of Anonymous religious intolerance? Regardless of whether I believe the Church of Scientology to be a religion or not, no person or organization should be allowed to abuse the rights of others. No, Anonymous acts not out of religious intolerance, but instead of outrage at injustice. They seek only to work against a corrupt organization, not against the beliefs of others. Despite the fact that I do not agree with their methods, I have a great deal of respect for their purpose and will support them in the one way I can - by adding my voice to their choir.

ARTICLE 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
~The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.

Photo above by Stefan. Photo below by Karen Eliot.

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

- Buddha Gautama Siddharta (563-483 B.C.)

Every spiritual teacher worth listening to has offered themselves up to be questioned. All of the great spiritual teachers have said to their followers, “Don’t take my word for it; go see for yourself.” Jesus suggested that we should know the truth by its results the same way we know a tree by its fruit. The Prophet Mohammad had said that “The search of knowledge is an obligation laid on every Muslim.” Yet, when we look at the organizations that promote the teachings of one particular teacher, we come against resistance to questioning. Why should it be that way?

When we surround ourselves only with those who agree with our ideas and beliefs, we start taking those ideas and beliefs for granted. Relying on these notions as being true, our faith becomes blind and misguided. Without regular challenge, a spiritual journey becomes a religious institution and stagnates like standing water. Religious institutions become resistant to external questioning because of lack constant of internal questioning.

Inconsistency in the texts of major religions are actually beneficial in that they challenge each individual to think beyond the text. However, the mechanism for unity is so strong in institutions, that these inconsistencies are overlooked, glossed over, or justified with poor reasoning. In contrast, when faced with someone else’s religion, members of these organizations cannot help seeing contradictions and flaws in reason. Truth be told, institutions train its members to see nothing but the problems inherent in other views while blinding them to the problems within their own.

This is probably the biggest hurtle that religious tolerance faces; the mentality that allows for questioning of other faiths, but not of one’s own. It is so much easier to question the beliefs of another person than to question your own. I always try to remember that, whether I am writing about my own faith or the beliefs of others. And yet that isn’t enough - we must each be willing to be questioned.

What I write here is controversial by its nature, but more importantly, by its design. I want to challenge and be challenged. I question your beliefs to spur you into questioning mine. If you learn nothing else from what is written here, learn to think for yourself and question authority. It is true that no one religion can be founded on that principle, but a community where every individual is a philosopher-prophet-priest demands it.

My question for you is whether or not Unitarian Universalism is that community. Do we follow Timothy Leary’s creed to think for ourselves and question authority? Can we say we live up to the Buddha’s denial of rumored wisdom? Are we taking a good long look at the fruit our trees bear? I ask this because there is a very strong current against mystic or divine experiences within our religion and I believe even this needs to be questioned.

Photo above by Bruno Girin. Photo below by Falk Lademann.

Although I have this document available here at The Pageless Book and discussed its origin briefly in my “About Me” page, I am yet to address the subject of The Gated Emptiness in a complete and forthcoming way. It has been looming over me like a Gorilla these past few months and I have been carrying on as if it is perfectly normal to have this 400 pound beast sitting on my website. Truth be told, I fear the judgment of those from whom I seek friendship.

Although Unitarian Universalism is a free faith that encourages the responsible search for truth, in whatever form it may take, it would be careless of me not to recognize that I am a bit of an odd duck even among their number. I was interested in becoming a minister before deciding on becoming a UU, which makes discussion of my decision to join awkward, in the least. Over a third of UUs identify themselves as humanists; I am one of the few theists. UUism tends to favor rational empirical truths over those of a spiritual nature, yet I cannot help but feel that there is more to reality than what logic dictates. My greatest offense, however, is in taking Emerson too literally; I’ve written my own holy book.

How can I be taken seriously when I believe that God inspired these spiritual truths within me, which I have now written down to share? I have to take it on faith that people would be open minded enough to understand, yet be tolerant enough to weather the ridicule I know I will face. It all comes down to having a sense of humor, I guess. Luckily, I tend not to take myself too seriously and rarely expect others to do so.

Let me be plain as to exactly how I feel about The Gated Emptiness; I believe this to be an holy text. This text is not the only truth, nor do I believe it to be absolute truth. The holiness of any writing has more to do with the reader than what is actually written. I am not special in anyway other than in the way in which we are all special. Anyone who commits themselves to the Divine in a meaningful way can write an inspired text. Most important of all, I am not interested starting a new religion; there are far too many of them as it is.

What I do want is to promote is the movement away from institutionalized spirituality and towards an individualized spirituality. It may be pointed out that UUism and other liberal religions already are making such a movement, but the truth is that we are few and the institutions are legions. You only need to look at American politics and the recent events in the Middle East to understand the danger that these institutions pose to humanity as a whole. The Gated Emptiness warns against these institutions and serves as an example of what needs to be done.

Over the next few weeks, I will be writing about the meaning behind the Gated Emptiness as I see it. I want to do this because this will help you understand where I am coming from, and will serve as a testament to exactly what it is that I believe. In seeing my own reasoning spelled out, hopefully you will be inspired to work in favor of individualized spirituality, religious tolerance, and the dismantling of the Religious Right - the metaphorical atomic bombs of spirituality. If I do my job well, perhaps you will be inspired to write your own holy book and share it as I have. Regardless of your personal convictions or your view of The Gated Emptiness, I look forward to these next few weeks and the discussion it sparks.

Until then, Namaste.

It rarely pays to be presumptuous, but today I’m feeling a bit cocky, so I’m going to let down my guard. For the shear pleasure of my ego, I’m going to point out articles posted on the blogs I have read recently that I believe have been influenced by yours truly. Shortly after, I’m sure I will be swiftly and mercilessly corrected, but for a brief moment my self esteem will have thrown a small party for itself. Let’s commence with the foolishness, shall we?

Rev. Dan Harper, from Yet Another Unitarian Universalist has written an absolutely silly article concerning the true nature of happiness. Was he influenced by the mightiness of my humor article? Why, of course, Rev. Harper is my minion now! He’s quoting a British comedy series in one of his future sermons. A college educated man couldn’t possibly be brilliant enough to think of that on is own!

uuMomma pointed out an article regarding a new UU minister who has - get this - tattoos! Now, I can’t claim to have direct influence over someone I don’t even know, and I will have to admit that this article was printed before I had written my Tattooed Minister article, but you’ve got to love the synchronicity. I’d like to think it is a result of my pervasive cosmic psychic abilities, working beyond the limits of space-time - however unlikely that may be. In all seriousness, Rev. Eliza Galaher is an inspiration and I highly recommend reading her story.

Jeff, from Transient and Permanent, covered a subject that I’ve traversed in the past and wrote a piece on ReligiousTolerance.org. If you don’t remember, the precursor to my Site In Focus feature was Religious Tolerance Website Death Match, which had a long name but a short life of only two posts. My article on ReligiousTolerance.org is not as good as Jeff’s, but I am still proud that I provided him with the idea. I did… didn’t I?

Finally, Steve Caldwell from Liberal Faith Development was probably taking he cue from me when he wrote an article about Unitarian Universalism being noticed outside of the UU blogosphere. Yes, I know my recent attempts at drawing more traffic into the UU blog community has Steve in admiration of me. That’s okay - I’m a humble man who is not above being looked up to.

Thank you all for your sincerest form of flattery. I feel like a proud father… one that is senile and confused, but a proud father none-the-less. Now let’s please commence with deflation of my ego.
Photo above by Guiri R. Reyes.

Photo by Jonathan Thorne.

I just signed the First Freedom First petition — about the importance of safeguarding separation of church and state and protecting religious liberty. The founders of our nation believed that all Americans should have the right to worship according to their own beliefs, or not to worship at all. It was so important to them that they placed it in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.

I believe that religion is a deeply personal matter and that Americans must be free to practice their religion without coercion. Simply put, there must be a separation of church and state. I know that we agree about the importance of these issues, so I hope that you will ACT NOW, like I just did. Be a part of First Freedom First.

Sign the petition and encourage others to join you. Together, we will send a powerful and resounding message — safeguard the first freedom! Please watch the videos below, and then visit the website to join me in standing up for this fundamental American freedom. If you are a blogger like I am, take the time to write about this important movement to protect our first freedom.

Just before this Christmas Holiday, Cathy Crovis from RipplesofImprovement.com tagged me for this rather morbid task of writing my own eulogy. I am supposed to write it to reflect the goals and dreams I have for the future. The purpose of this endeavor is to give focus to what I want to accomplish in my lifetime. Instead of using this opportunity to poke fun at myself and the task at hand, I thought it would be a nice change of pace to actually take this seriously. Well, not too seriously; after all, there is a point at which this could become depressing rather than enlightening. So, with no further explanation needed, and far too much given already, I present to you…

The Eulogy of John Michael Pageless

Photo by Maciej Lewandowski

Reverend John Michael Pageless lived a full life of joy, love, and worthy accomplishments in the field of religious tolerance and spiritual exploration. John Pageless, the son of Albert and Marie Pageless, began life in a lower-middle class family in the Baltimore County suburbs of Maryland. Although he and his family did struggle through economic hardships during his childhood, he still learned from the experience of his mother’s candor and open-minded views, as well as his father’s sensibilities and sense of humor. These traits would later become the hallmarks of a great man.

John Pageless was baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran and later non-denominational Christian, but was constantly infatuated with all the religions of the world. When he had become a teenager, he delved deeply into non-Christian religions, such as Buddhism and Qabalah, from which he would develop his views on God and religion now popularly known as Omnitheism.

In the fall of 2006, he married his best friend’s sister, Mrs. Pageless, with whom he would spend the rest of his life. He would later attribute his successes in life to Mrs. Pageless during her Eulogy, given only three years ago. He said, “Behind every good man, there is a great woman. It may be clique, but it wouldn’t have become a clique if it was not true. I am an example of such. One can hardly argue that we are both very successful in our later years together, but I would have to insist that her success was far greater than mine, as she was solely responsible for all of her own accomplishments, and a good portion of those attributed to myself. I would have never made it through seminary without her by my side…”

As a Minister of the Unitarian Universalist church, he became a staunch proponent of liberal religion and religious tolerance. With his inspiration, the Unitarian Universalist Association, in conjunction with other liberal churches and multi-faith organizations, challenged and defeated the political attacks on religious freedoms made by fundamentalists in the early part of the twenty first century. He also became known as America’s Minister, having written numerous best selling books on the subject of liberal religion, and was council for every president since Chelsea Clinton took office in 2017.

With his influence, John Pageless ensured equality for people of all peaceful religions - including the non-religious. He also reconfirmed the separation of church and state, and set up the United Nation’s World Religion Congress to promote interfaith dialogue on an international level. Yet despite his importance to the world at large, he never failed to place his duties as a husband and father ahead of his professional calling. He is survived by his son, David Alexander Pageless, and his daughter, Alexandra Diane Pageless, both of who have inherited their parents’ dedication to making the world a better place.

Rev. John Pageless had once said that he believed we each end so that someone else may begin. So as we reflect on the life of this man and mourn his passing, let us remember that his absence is a challenge to each of us to begin the journey to do great things. He invites us all to change the world as he did.

One thing this eulogy didn’t mention is how I would die. I want to have the privilege to reenact an ancient Sumarian ritual, recently found in the texts of the unearthed “Necronomicon.” After repeatedly assuring the audience that this ritual poses no danger, I would start the ritual that would result in the summoning of Cthulhu. This ancient demon-priest would then swallow me whole, leaving only my left foot for burial. My last words would be “I could be wrong.”

So that I am not the wet-blanket who ends this string of premature post-humorous remarks, I’m tagging Rev. Dan Harper of Yet Another Unitarian Universalist to write his own eulogy. I look forward to seeing what he writes and hope it involves another Mythos deity; after all, the world needs more H.P. Lovecraft references.

“People kill and are killed because they cling too tightly to their own beliefs and ideologies. When we believe that ours is the only faith that contains the truth, violence and suffering will surely be the result.” - Thich Nhat Hahn.

Photo by Till Westermayer

People who are moderate, tolerant, and level-headed don’t get a lot of press anymore. There must have been a time when tolerance was news-worthy, otherwise individuals such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. would have never had an effect on the world. Tolerance just doesn’t turn heads like intolerance does. It’s too unassuming. It doesn’t sell.

Lies - blacker lies then the ashen heart of the abyss. It isn’t the movement towards tolerance that has lost it’s momentum, it’s the people who champion that cause. The people who wanted to change the world have all become too moderate. It’s like we’ve all become so tolerant that we are now tolerant of intolerance. Why?

I can’t even look you in the eye and tell you that I haven’t fallen into the same lull of complacency. My life has recently dealt me some difficult cards; I’ve used that as an excuse to not pursue my dreams for sometime now. I feel afraid, powerless, and a little sad of my own lack of enthusiasm. I want to change the world so much…

That’s my big dream, by the way; to change the world. When I look to religion, I see so much potential for wisdom and good, yet I’m repulsed by how it is used to promote foolishness and evil. In politics, religion has become so important that American votes are practically calculated by denomination. Religious extremist are wrestling with schools to promote intelligent design and abstinence only sex education instead of true science and honest sexual education. I’m just tired of seeing these bigots being given so much credit.

We need to start calling them on it. We need to become intolerant of intolerance and be a little extreme ourselves. That’s part of what I’m doing with this blog. It’s about taking religion out of the hands of the few and placing back into hands of every man and woman. This isn’t one God against another - its about people taking back what is rightfully their own.

The religion that belongs to an institution only serves that institution. I strongly believe that it’s time we pushed back against those monolithic structures and show that they are not as invincible as once thought. But I am no great leader. Honestly, I don’t know where to start, so I’m starting right here, on this little corner of the internet. Little me, trying to make the world a better place. This leaves me with one question…

Who is with me?

Photo by foundphotoslj

A Jewish man was beaten in the New York Subway yesterday for saying “Happy Chanukah” in response to a group of Christians saying “Merry Christmas.” A Muslim college student came to the man’s aid and helped fight off his attackers. You can see the Associated Press news report HERE.

It puts religion in perspective, doesn’t it? All three - Jewish, Christian, and Muslim - worship the same God, yet each group is guilty of religious hatred against the others. This is why I feel so strongly about Religious Tolerance. It pains me to hear of something like this happening.

The good news is that someone had heart enough to help this man fend off their attackers. Let not the irony that it was a Muslim man who came to his aid go unnoticed. God bless both men - and I continue to pray for religious tolerance among all religions.

Namaste.