On religion, spirituality, faith and God

Preamble

2023 was an interesting year particularly in how some people described me. I was described as dishonest, as having blood on my hands, as being misogynistic, as having dangerous beliefs, as being unfit to parent because I taught my children values consistent with my religion, that I’m so indoctrinated that I am incapable of understanding the harm I’m causing, that I should be ashamed of myself, and that I’m an embarrassment to human kind. And that was just from atheists who believe all religion is harmful. Christian fundamentalists used used even worse descriptions because apparently I practise the wrong religion.

Overall I find little difference in how many atheists and religious fundamentalists understand, religion, spirituality, faith, and dare I say, God. Except that one group believes it’s the absolute Truth™, while the other believes it’s all BS™. There’s even agreement on what Christianity is, although one group believes it’s the greatest good to have happened in two millennia, while the other believes its the greatest evil to have hit this planet in the last 2000 years. Both groups seem reluctant to accept there are alternative ways of understanding religion, spirituality, faith and God, and for both of these groups, whatever I believe the terms mean, I’m wrong. I suppose one positive way of looking at this is that even when it comes to religion, atheist and Christian fundamentalists do sometimes agree – even if only to disagree with me and those who hold similar ideas.

One group will quote Bible passages as the authority to support their perspective while the other will quote dictionary definitions as the authority to support theirs. I think both sides sell themselves short. So here, very briefly is my understanding of religion, spirituality, faith and God

On religion

I see religion as a human phenomenon that arises from the interaction of culture, language, and experience. Religion is not a fixed or static entity, but a dynamic and evolving process that reflects the changing needs and values of human societies. It is not necessarily based on supernatural beliefs or divine revelations, but on human interpretations of reality and meaning. Religion is a way of expressing and exploring the human quest for identity, purpose, and transcendence.

On spirituality

Lloyd Geering defines spirituality as “the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things”. I agree. Spirituality is more personal and individual, while religion is more communal and institutional. Spirituality is not dependent on any particular religious tradition or doctrine, but can be found in various forms of art, literature, music, nature, and human relationships. It is an essential aspect of human life, as it helps people to cope with suffering, death, and the unknown

On faith

Faith is a human attitude of trust and confidence in the face of uncertainty and mystery. I am not convinced that faith is a matter of accepting certain propositions or dogmas as true, or of having a personal relationship with a supernatural being. It is not so much a gift from God, but a human response to the challenges and opportunities of life. Faith is not incompatible with reason, but rather complements and enriches it. I am convinced that faith is not static nor absolute, but dynamic and relative, as it changes and grows with experience and reflection.

On God

More than 50 years ago I came to understand God as a symbol of the ultimate or highest values to which human beings aspire. I see no evidence of a personal or interventionist God, who created the world, revealed himself in history, and will judge the living and the dead. God is entirely a human construct, a product of human imagination, language and culture. It is a construct that expresses the human sense of awe, wonder, and reverence for reality. I do not view God as an object of worship, but as a source of inspiration and guidance. God is not a fixed or eternal concept, but a changing and evolving one, that reflects the cultural and historical context of human beings.

Conclusion

I accept my understanding of religion, spirituality, faith and God, is not widely held and likely rejected by many atheists and those who follow the world’s major religions, especially those in the Abrahamic tradition. Certainly in Christian US and other parts of the Americas, and in Christian and Muslim Africa, my perspective is generally viewed negatively and even with hostility – as a heresy. But I am not unique in how I understand these terms. In Aotearoa, all mainline Christian denominations have liberal/progressive congregations and/or “branches” that to a greater or lesser degree hold similar views. Then there are communities with historical ties to Christianity such as Ephesus, and Sea Of Faith in Aotearoa that are based on concepts similar to those I have described above. And of course, within my faith community, while not universally held, similar concepts are expressed more openly and frequently than what might be considered historically Christian concepts.

Being autistic in a neuronormative world

I am not a puzzle to be solved
I am not a problem to be fixed
I am not a disorder to be cured
But I am a person to be understood

You study me like a specimen
You test me like a machine
You observe me like a stranger
But you never talk to me

You think you know what's best for me
You think you can speak for me
You think you can change me
But you never listen to me

You ignore my voice and my choice
You dismiss my feelings and my needs
You devalue my identity and my dignity
And you never respect me

I am not your research subject
I am not your charity case
I am not your burden
But I am your equal

I have a voice and a vision
I have a passion and a purpose
I have a life and a story
And I want to share them with you

The History of Monopoly: From Protest to Profit

Monopoly is one of the most popular and iconic board games in the world, with millions of copies sold in over 100 countries and 37 languages. Of the many games to be found in the resources for children and young adults in our local Friends Meeting House, Monopoly is conspicuously absent. The goal of becoming the sole land owner by bankrupting the other players really isn’t in the cooperative spirit that Quakers like to cultivate.

But did you know that the game has a hidden history of social activism, controversy, and innovation? In this article, written with the assistance of Copilot, we will explore how Monopoly evolved from a tool to teach about economic inequality to a symbol of capitalist success, and how some people are trying to reclaim its original spirit by creating alternative versions of the game.

The Landlord’s Game: A Critique of Monopoly

The origins of Monopoly can be traced back to 1903, when a woman named Lizzie Magie created a game called The Landlord’s Game. Magie was a follower of Henry George, a 19th-century economist who advocated for a single tax on land to prevent the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few landlords. Magie designed the game to illustrate the negative effects of monopolies and to promote the idea of a more equitable society.

The Landlord’s Game had two sets of rules: one that followed the conventional system of property ownership and rent collection, and another that encouraged cooperation and shared prosperity. In the first set of rules, players competed to buy properties, charge rents, and drive their opponents to bankruptcy. In the second set of rules, players worked together to create a common fund that paid for public services and utilities, and shared the income from the properties. The game also included a “Prosperity” rule that ended the game when the total wealth of the players reached a certain level, and declared everyone a winner.

Magie patented her game in 1904 and self-published it in 1906. She also tried to sell it to several publishers, but they rejected it because they thought it was too political and complex. However, the game gained popularity among progressive groups, such as college students, Quakers, and socialists, who used it as a way to educate and organise people around the issues of economic justice and reform. The game also inspired several variations and adaptations, such as the Anti-Monopoly Game, the Suffragette Game, and the Georgist Game.

Monopoly: A Story of Plagiarism and Profit

The game that we know today as Monopoly was not invented by a single person, but by a series of people who modified and improved the original Landlord’s Game over the years. One of the most influential figures in this process was Charles Darrow, a salesman from Pennsylvania who learned the game from his friends in the 1930s. Darrow made some changes to the game, such as adding the names of Atlantic City streets, the railroad stations, and the utilities, and drawing a colourful board with illustrations. He also simplified the rules and eliminated the cooperative option, making the game more competitive and exciting.

Darrow began to sell his version of the game by hand, and soon attracted the attention of Parker Brothers, a major game company. Parker Brothers bought the rights to the game from Darrow in 1935, and launched a massive marketing campaign that made Monopoly a huge success. However, Parker Brothers also tried to erase the history of the game and its creator, by claiming that Darrow was the sole inventor of Monopoly and by suing anyone who tried to produce or sell similar games. Parker Brothers also ignored the fact that Darrow had copied the game from others, and that Magie still held a patent for The Landlord’s Game.

Magie, who was still alive and active, was outraged by the plagiarism and the distortion of her game. She tried to challenge Parker Brothers and to expose the truth, but she was largely ignored and silenced by the media and the public. She sold her patent to Parker Brothers for a meagre sum of $500, and died in 1948, without receiving any recognition or royalties for her invention. Meanwhile, Darrow became a millionaire and a celebrity, and Monopoly became a global phenomenon and a cultural icon.

Co-opoly: A Return to the Roots

In recent years, some people have tried to revive the original spirit and message of The Landlord’s Game, by creating alternative versions of Monopoly that challenge the dominant narrative of capitalism and competition. One of these versions is Co-opoly, a cooperative board game that was developed by a group of game designers and activists in 2018. Co-opoly is a “conversion kit” that transforms Monopoly into a game where players work together to protest land assemblages and halt the construction of luxury condos. Players bring activists to the city via public transport, and drive them to locations where they can build housing co-ops consisting of tiny homes. The game ends when the players have successfully created a sustainable and inclusive community.

Co-opoly is not only a game, but also a statement and a movement. It is a way to reclaim the history and the potential of Monopoly, and to use it as a tool for social change and education. It is also a way to celebrate and promote the values and practices of cooperation, solidarity, and democracy, and to challenge the myths and realities of capitalism, inequality, and exploitation. Co-opoly is a reminder that Monopoly is not just a game, but a reflection and a representation of our society, and that we have the power and the responsibility to shape it according to our vision and our needs.

Living in sin

What an outdated concept that is. And yet it still pops up in evangelical and fundamentalist Christian literature. I like this observation made in ministry at a Quaker wedding:

A woman came to me several years ago. She had left her abusive husband, had lived by herself for a number of years, then had met a wonderful man and began dating. After a year, they decided to move in together. She admitted feeling guilty about living together.

“We’re going to get married soon,” she told me. “I don’t like living in sin.”
I asked her why she called it living in sin.

She said she’d been taught that living together outside of marriage was sinful.
I told her I disagreed, that I thought living in sin was when you promised to love, honour, and cherish someone, then didn’t.

I think there’s a lot of married people living in sin.

I agree entirely.

“I feel your pain”

I have had that comment made to me on several occasions following a blog post I’ve published, or in response to a comment I have made on someone else’s blog, and many more time in face to face contact. This always amazes me because they seem to feel something I don’t. I’ve often wondered why they make such a claim. Is it because they wish to indicate empathy? If so, why not simply tell of a similar personal experience? Or is it because in my telling of the story, you do, in some way, sense something that makes you feel some sort of pain – as if it had actually happened to you?

At one time I used to think that “I feel your pain” was just a meaningless expression used by people to indicate that they have been listening, but have no intention of making a practical response. But in the years since I discovered I’m autistic I’ve learnt that many people do actually experience some kind of emotional pain that they perceive others have experienced, even if the other person hasn’t. Perhaps a better way of explaining it is that they feel an emotional pain that they would experience if the situation relayed in the retelling had occurred to them.

In telling a story about a situation that would have been better had it not happened, that is exactly what I am telling – an event/situation that should not have happened. As far as I’m aware knowing that something should not have happened does not mean that somehow I should experience some sort of emotional pain. It’s not about me personally, it’s about wrongness of the event/situation. It shapes my ethics and morality and is shaped by my ethics and morality.

I’m going to ramble just a little more before I get to the point. Architects and others involved in the design of social gathering places such as shopping malls, pedestrian precincts, and theatres design them to attract people. And on the whole that is precisely what they do. But some people – many autistics for example – are hypersensitive to the sights, sounds and activity that occurs in such places. Instead of being desirable places they become disorientating places of pain and discomfort, triggering our fight, flight or freeze instinct. And yet when we describe what we experience in such locations, the typical response is to dismiss it as if we’re simply imagining or exaggerating what we experience – it’s not actually real.

Occasionally I will open up to others about how I experience aspects of the world around us differently from them, exposing a vulnerability that another might perceive as a weakness. Often others will express sympathy and indicate that they understand, but usually they don’t. A typical example might be after I explain how unpleasant a shopping mall can be they express something like “I hear ya. They’re noisy places aren’t they?” and then in the next breath, invite me to join them for lunch or coffee in a shopping mall food court so that they can learn more about autism! When I protest that I have just explained how such places are so unpleasant and I’d prefer to eat somewhere else where there’s less noise, commotion, and harsh lighting they respond by suggesting I simply relax, ignore the surroundings and enjoy the food. And besides it’s not really that noisy and bright anyway!

The avoiding of eye and physical contact

My whānau is of the hugging kind, and like to hug when we meet and greet, and when we say our goodbyes. I however, do not, and instinctively tense up whenever I’m embraced. It’s unpleasant and I’ll attempt to escape as quickly as I can. Most, if not all of my family are aware that I dislike hugging, but nevertheless, every time we meet I am hugged by each and every family member! Even though it might be more brief and less intimate than with others in the whānau, it is still very unpleasant. They might as well whack me over the head with a sand filled sock. I don’t think it would feel any worse. And then it’s supposed to be repeated when we eventually go our separate ways!

I have only ever once spoken publicly about being autistic, during which I explained why I find eye contact, hugs and handshakes so unpleasant. It was an impromptu, unplanned occasion and I managed to stumble my way through around ten minutes of describing my experiences. After I had spoken, several people came up to me to say they gained a new insight into how autism affects people and then attempted to shake my hand. Usually when someone wishes to shake my hand I comply as attempts to avoid a handshake are invariably misconstrued as some form of hostility. However, as I had only moments before explained why I find a handshake was so unpleasant, I felt I was justified in making it clear I did not want to do it by deliberately putting my hand behind my back when they presented their hand. For one person there was clearly a light-bulb moment, and they apologised for their thoughtlessness. Although I’m poor at reading facial expressions and body language, it was rather obvious that another was offended by the withdrawal of my hand, and as she left in a huff I heard her say comment to her friend “How rude! Are all autistic sufferers like that?” and her friend saying “Yeah, they don’t care about being rude. They can’t empathise – they’re only interested in themselves”.

The reason? I can only suppose that it’s not possible for neurotypical people to put themselves into a uniquely autistic situation. Were the circumstances or situation is somewhat similar to what they have experienced previously, most people seem to be able the empathise with my experience and then project their emotional response that they feel onto me. But when a uniquely autistic experience is explained to them, they cannot empathise and dismiss my experience as inconsequential.

Here’s the rub: every time I interact with someone it must be on neurotypical terms. It’s all well and good to say I should be more assertive or to stand up for myself, but doing so is almost always counter productive. As in the example of the woman and her friend above, even when it’s known that the reason I do some things or avoid some things is because I’m autistic, there is still an assumption that it’s an anti-social choice on my part because autistic people are anti-social and/or only interested in themselves and don’t really care about the feelings of others. And if the other party is unaware that I’m autistic, an assertive stance on my part is invariably perceived as hostility, a personal insult, or worse, deserving of an “appropriate” counter response. Sometimes that includes violence.

In the first paragraph above, I wrote “If so, why not simply tell of a similar personal experience?” This is what I and many autistic people do to show our empathy. It’s in the sharing that we demonstrate our empathy. It’s usually misinterpreted by non-autistics as being an attempt to draw attention to oneself, of being self-centred. Be honest, was that what you thought when you read that sentence for the first time? Perhaps It might be better to pretend I empathise emotionally by lying – to say “I feel your pain” even though I don’t. But like most lies, it will eventually be found out, and I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t feel hurt and/or betrayed when they discover they have been lied to.

Voting rights

What is it with America’s current obsession with restricting voter eligibility as well as making the actual act of voting more difficult? To me and most Kiwi’s that is the antithesis of what democracy is all about. And might I add that their obsession with non-citizens voting seems to be little short of xenophobia. For a nation built by immigrants this seems highly hypocritical. Admittedly most nations restrict voting rights to citizens, but the US seems to have taken it more to heart than almost anywhere else.

New Zealand is one of a few nations in the world that grants voting rights to non-citizens in national elections and referendums. I can find only four countries (New Zealand, Malawi, Uruguay, and Chile) that allow permanent residents to vote in national elections without any restrictions. New Zealand is the most inclusive of these four, as it requires only one year of residence for permanent residents to be eligible to vote. In contrast, Malawi requires seven years, Uruguay requires five years, and Chile requires five years and a special oath.

New Zealand’s liberal approach to voting rights for non-citizens reflects its history of immigration and its commitment to democratic values. New Zealand has been granting voting rights to non-citizens since 1853, when it allowed British subjects to vote without any residence requirement. Over time, the eligibility criteria have changed to include non-British subjects and to introduce a minimum residence requirement, but the principle of extending voting rights to non-citizens has remained. New Zealand’s electoral laws also recognised the impact of the pandemic on international travel, and temporarily extended the overseas voting eligibility for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents for the 2023 General Election.

Consider this: 14% of American residents were born overseas, and a little over 6% of American residents are non-citizens. The same figures for New Zealand are 28% and 11% respectively. If extending voting rights to non-citizens had a negative impact on the well being of a nation, doesn’t it seem probable that any harm it might cause would have become apparent in this country before now?

New Zealand’s experience with non-citizen voting has been largely positive, as it has contributed to the integration and participation of immigrants in the political community. Non-citizen voters tend to have similar preferences and behaviours as citizen voters, and do not pose a threat to the national identity or interests of New Zealand. Non-citizen voting also enhances the representation and diversity of the electorate, and encourages the responsiveness and accountability of the government to the needs and concerns of all residents. Shouldn’t that be at the heart of good government everywhere?