The Joy Division t-shirt is adorning the body of a friend from the meeting. And we’re actually fans of Tuvan throat singing, believe it or not (I recommend the DVD, Genghis Blues, if you can track it down).

As a drop-in from QuakerQuaker, I would say this is where the most heat and controversy have arisen among Quaker bloggers in the last year or so. If you’re in an unprogrammed SoCal Friends meeting, you will no doubt encounter this, too. That’s okay, and yet it does leave some people puzzled or adrift.

On a totally random note, I noticed the Joy Division t-shirt in the photo and have to point you to the Tuvan throat-singing version of “Love Will Tear Us Apart.” Heard about it on NPR… http://www.yat-kha.com/html/what/yat_kha_cd_2005_bootleg.php

Let’s do a Holiday selection.

John previously posted a list of books that we all voted on. The same list (minus The End of Faith, which we just finished reading) still has a lot of great books on it.

I took the liberty of posting some additional books that could be of interest here.

Anyone else interested in getting a second group started? I know the holidays are a busy time of year, but sometimes there is also a bit of down time for reading. And there is nothing better on a cold day then curling up in a warm blanket with a cup of hot tea or chocolate and a good book…..

Though I think y’all know that I would have joined Matt in leaning towards Harris…perhaps even more than Matt did. I just don’t see an obvious degree of hate or polemics. I think he’s simply saying things that are hard to take, that elicit various responses that have more to do with the listener’s mind than Harris’ (I’ve found myself in turmoil, largely unable to express my thoughts). And he seems quite aware and compensative of this phenomenon.

A couple of quotes from “Letter to a Christian Nation” come to mind:

There are millions–maybe hundreds of millions–who would be willing to die before they would allow [the Christian] version of compassion to gain a foothold on the Arabian Peninsula. How can inter-faith dialogue, even at the highest level, reconcile worldviews that are fundamentally incompatible and, in principle, immune to revision? The truth is, it really matters what billions of human beings believe and why they believe it.

And it’s a question worth asking: how many of us would also die/kill in defense of our faith? If this question seems polemical then, as Harris states: “[we] don’t know what it is like to really believe in God.”

I, for one, have not forgotten what such belief is like; and, quite frankly, that such belief may go unquestioned and/or unchecked…this scares the faith out of me.

Anyway, I too enjoyed getting to know everyone who could attend. Talking about the future of religion within the realm of faith, institution and spirituality always makes for a challenging discussion, but envigorating and interesting.

I made the point early in the meeting that I generally agreed with most of Harris’s points, though not to the degree Harris takes them. As I listened to everyone critique the book, I can’t say I disagreed with much or any of the criticism — Harris was condescending, arrogant, dismissive, and polemical. And some of his points were weakly argued.

That said, I still agree with Harris’s basic point: Religious Certainty (or intolerance) is a serious threat to our global civilization. If everyone in the world quietly believed in God, Allah, Siva, Zeus, or Barney, the purple dinosaur, I doubt Harris would care.

I think Harris was writing to three camps:

1.) the non-Religious (a.k.a. “the Choir”)
2.) Religious Moderates
3.) Religious Conservatives

Harris is only afraid of the third group. And he’s calling on the first two groups to speak out against the third group.

He spends most of his energy addressing the second group for three reasons: 1.) they are far larger than the first group, and can therefore effect more change, 2.) the third group would be more willing to listen to Religious Moderates than Godless Heathens, 3.) Harris believes the second group dangerously tolerates and even empowers the third group.

Harris’s conclusion is “the end of faith.” Not only is such a conclusion impossible, I’m not sure it is even desirable — it’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. The “baby” may not be for everyone, but its good for many people.

I agree with Harris that the onus lies with the Religious Moderates, but that puts them in a Catch 22… being a religious moderate implies a tolerance for others beliefs.

If the answer is not “the end of faith,” then it must be “the end of religious certainty.” But that puts Religious Moderates are in the almost comic position of telling Religious Conservatives, “Hey, its okay to believe what you believe, just don’t believe it so strongly… be more humble and open-minded like us,” which, in and of itself, is a hypocritical form of religious certainty (the idea that our humble level of belief is better than their strident level of belief.)

I see John’s new blog post asks for suggestions re what Religious Moderates and the non-Religious can do to difuse the powder keg that the Religious Conservatives are currently dancing on. I’m curious to see the responses.

It was great meeting every one!