When I was a missionary proselytizing Mormonism door to door in Japan, I sometimes used the following story to preach the benefits of religious obedience (tithing, sex only in marriage and the prohibition of tea, alcohol and tobacco were tough to sell):
A kite cannot soar without its string. Likewise, God’s children cannot ascend to heaven without keeping his commandments. Cut the string and the kite plummets to the ground. Break the commandments and we fall away from God.
But what if we reach that height only to discover that we have wings? And that there is no way to learn if we can fly without cutting ourselves loose?
32 responses so far ↓
1 amelia // Feb 8, 2007 at 7:57 pm
well, if you are actually a kite and you cut your string, you’ll just plummet to the ground even if you think you’ve discovered wings. but if you’re actually a bird and you cut the strings, i imagine you would fly. so you had best be sure of your identity before you cut the string. or be willing to accept the crash and burn and the process of reattaching the string if you turn out to be a kite not a bird.
that answer is a bit tongue in cheek. but i do think that self-knowledge is key here. which poses problems because i’m not convinced self-knowledge is possible. at least not full self-knowledge.
2 John // Feb 8, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I thought about closing the post less ambiguously.
I agree with you that cutting the string is a risky proposition. But so is staying tied in, in a way. For me, cutting the string is how I choose to pursue self-knowledge, because I wasn’t making any progress while tied down.
3 nee // Feb 8, 2007 at 8:52 pm
To quote one of my favorite singers,
“In a sky full of people only some want to fly. Isn’t that crazy?”
I suspect that we had the wings to begin with. Some people were scared to see others do what they themselves were afraid to. They opted to disguise their fear by diminishing themselves and others by convincing them of the need for a tether. These things are conditioned into us and we believe for a time, often all our time, unless a glimpse, a flash, prompts us to explore.
I heard a parable that embodies this beautifully. It is post length, however, not suitable for a comment. As such, the remainder of my comment is a post here.
4 RyanH // Feb 8, 2007 at 9:06 pm
A string might be fine for people made of nylon and balsa wood.
5 John // Feb 8, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Thank you for sharing that parable, nee. I recommend that rest of y’all follow her link and read it.
6 Miko // Feb 8, 2007 at 11:06 pm
In my experience, kites plummet an awful lot more than they soar, regardless of my strings. I think that qualifies as the “cruel” side of god. Although, some kites routinely fly with out strings and would probably be hampered by strings.
I’ve always liked that quote, nee. So few people, it seems to me, seem to actually understand what they’re capable (spiritually) of. We seem to have a quorum here, though…
So, John, in terms of strings, now that you’re soft on caffeine and alcohol, are you also soft on sex within marriage? If not, why did you choose to keep that string?
& nee: that is a great parable (having followed the link, now). One of the classes I took in college is probably, in many minds, akin to Underwater Basket Weaving (which they actually do offer at UCSD, I almost went just for that). It was “Meditation and Prayer”. For part of each session, we meditated. And we had to keep a journal of meditation. And join group meditation outside the class (church, yoga, &c.). And other such touchy-feely stuff. I loved it. It has taught me more about my beliefs and coming to terms with the dogma of religions (as opposed to their meditative aspects) than any other life experience. Sounds like your Unity church is a pretty cool place
7 John // Feb 8, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Miko, I don’t think in terms of commandments (or sin) any more. Responsible drinking of alcohol and/or caffeine (think Irish Coffee…yum!): not a sin. The ethics of extra- or pre- or even straight up marital sex depends on the situation issue: is it responsible sex between two or more consenting adults? In my particular case, having sex with someone other than Jana would be a violation of a fundamental trust. And, needless to say, that would be destructive to our relationship.
I still have a strong sense of morality. I value life (esp. human), integrity, truth, agency and compassion. I love and am loyal to family and friends. I want my talents to flourish. I want to give as much of myself as possible to humanity. Like every idealist, I’m a hypocrite, but I strive to minimize it. And I can savor my green tea at the same time.
At any rate, the commandment approach was bringing me down spiritually (between the sense of oppression and constant guilt). I suppose that I was one of the plummeting kites (with string). I struggled against the constraints of authority for years. It is exhilarating to be soaring free now, to realize that I am not falling.
When you jettisoned Catholicism, Miko, did you have fears that you would come crashing down? Did some of those around you hope that you would? How did it feel for you to shake off the commandments?
8 Chino Blanco // Feb 9, 2007 at 12:54 am
Aren’t you the inventor in Ray Bradbury’s The Flying Machine?
The story takes place in China in 400 AD. The Emperor of China catches a man flying in a flying machine that he has just invented. The Emperor has the man put to death, and all witnesses silenced, because he is afraid that if someone with an evil heart learned how to build a flying machine, it could be used to drop boulders upon the Great Wall of China, destroying China’s greatest means of protection.
9 nee // Feb 9, 2007 at 6:20 am
Reading the comments this morning, Nick Heyward’s song “Kite” came to mind. Good song. Haven’t heard that in years. (John, can that be my forgotten memory?)
Re: commandments, seems to me they’re in 2 camps. One is practical and as such are practiced by most people (glass is irrelevent reference). You don’t need a god to tell you it benefits you to practice fidelity and not steal and covet and kill.
The other is less black and white and more grey. Earl Grey,even. hehhe Sure, drinking to excess is bad. Excessive caffeine is bad. However both wine and tea have been shown to have excellent benefits. Is an all out ban commandment against those to protect you or to produce submissiveness and control you?
If the only purpose of commandments is to protect you at what point do those commandments infringe on free will? Some religions say that’s the purpose for being here.
Also, if the point of commandments is protection why not some new ones? The lds are fond of saying how inspired the word of wisdom was, ahead of its time even. How about a commandment against owning vehicles that get less than 20mph? Granted, every ward I was in would have a parking lot that was half empty after that. How about body fat% below 30% to get into the temple? Excemptions of course, for health issues as there are those who cannot participate in fasts. I would not have been able to go. But ya know what? I bet I would have lost the weight to do it. Now I’m just doing it for me.
10 Bonny // Feb 9, 2007 at 8:41 am
Wow.
In reading the parable and comments all I can think about is the fact that at the age of 17 I decided to go private Christian college instead of a really academically sound university and one of the many reasons for this was because I thought I NEEDED the rules and the structure. In other words, I knew I would drink excessively and (now I laugh at this) sin more freely if I attended a “secular college”. Talk about someone needing a string.
Even though I am sure that I was supposed to be where I was for my three years of college, it’s kind of crazy to think that all the legalism and restriction that I am currently trying to break free from is something that I desired and thought necessary for my own spiritual being, and it is even crazier to think that I thought these things so recently. I sometimes wonder if the need for these rules in myself was a sign that I lacked the self trust to make educated choices for myself and lacked it so much that I desired accountability in this way even as a person who was trying to become an adult and learn to think for herself?
Maybe for some people the string is a really positive thing. Maybe rules and discipline and accountability are very necessary for certain people. I guess for me of needing the string comes down to an issue of whether I can respect myself enough to make wise choices without having someone enforce accountability.
11 Elise // Feb 9, 2007 at 9:06 am
Maybe we are kites evolving into birds. By that I mean, I think that though children should soar, they are probably better off soaring with a string. At some point, when their wings are discovered and strengthened, it’s probably better to ditch the string and fly with wings.
The problem is, we all reach this point at different ages and maturity levels. Some of us may get there when we’re 15, some of us at 25, some of us not until we’re much later in life.
I imagine that this is one of the hardest parts of being a parents - figuring out when your kids are transitioning from kites to birds.
John, I like and agree with your analysis on sin and irresponsible/responsible behavior.
12 Miko // Feb 9, 2007 at 9:42 am
John (#7): I didn’t feel that I would come crashing down. I didn’t feel that I had been allowed to fly at all and that breaking free would help. But I had also been taught that, without God (and a specific one), there could be no morality. So for a long time I was confused about how I could be a good person. I think that may be why I took so quickly to Aristotelean ethics: they were the first ethics were both logical (to me, I don’t know what Kant is on about) and a-theistic. The fact that they focused more on happiness than eternal punishment was also a good thing, for me. They seemed to allow me more free will: I now, as a thinking, feeling being in a relationship, have to balance the momentary pleasure with the long-term hurt of my partner rather than simply saying “I can’t” because it violates #9. I remember having to defend my choice to date my (now) husband to my family by saying, “Just because he doesn’t believe in god doesn’t mean he’s not a good person.” and realizing what that meant in my journey out of religion. (It wasn’t until long after I met him that I “came out” as aCatholic.)
It seems that most religions that have ethical precepts necessarily claim (either explicitly or implicitly) that these are the only precepts that can lead one to an ethical life and that they come from the Divine. That always seemed problematic to me: do Buddhists who happen follow the ten commandments go to heaven even if they have never heard of Jesus?
I told one of my sisters recently that when I finally realized that I could be a good person without being Catholic, it was very freeing to me. That moving away from my sheltered life in Seattle (where all my playmates were Catholic or family-pretending-to-be-Catholic-for-my-mom’s-sake) was very healing to me because I finally met good not-Catholic people. And she said, “It never occurred to you that being Catholic helped you to be good?” It was a strange moment because, I new many people when I was young. Some good, some bad, but all Catholic. And I met a higher percentage of good people, regardless of their religious affiliation later in life.
Sorry, that was a long response…
Chino: that was a great story/parable, thank you
I have always loved Bradbury. He seems to have an ability to set ethical questions in different times in order to help us see the same dilemmas in our own. It reminds me of the “What hath God wraught?” msg sent via telegraph.
nee (#9): I shall check out that song, thank you
And EG is a black tea, muahaha. Although, with your permission, I shal steal that analogy. I like the theory of commandments that says that, in the time in which they were given, they were most definately for the benefit of people. At the time the Jews were told not eat pork, it was a meat that, if not treated just right, could be dangerous; at the time the Muslims were told to wash in certain ways, it was a good habit to have because of the conditions they lived in (desert); at the time LDS were told not to drink wine or caffeine, only the negative effects of both were known. Now that we know (a little) more, need to understand the reasons behind the commandments and follow those reasons, rather than the commandments themselves. Maybe, if Joseph Smith were starting today, he would say to be vegetarian and drink a small glass of red wine each night. If the commandment is “eat healthy food” (as it seems to be for Jews and LDS alike) or “be hygenic regardless of your circumstances”, maybe that is the better commandment to follow.
Does anyone know where the “your body is a temple” thing came from? It seems to me that many commandments have historically been body-centered. “Treat this body I have given you well” might be what the Divine said to everyone and it was interperated differently by Moses, Mohammed, and Joseph.
Bonny: You had an amazing amount of self-knowledge and discipline as a high schooler! It’s said that the best martial arts teaching about self-defense is to avoid confrontation in the first place. If more people knew their weaknesses, I’m sure morality would be a little easier. Like, if you’re homosexual, don’t join a men-only club. Recovering alcholics should not go to bars. Knowing the kinds of temptation you can stand up to and which you cannot is probably one of the most fundamental ethical teachings, but also the hardest.
I think the string is a good place to start from, in some cases. It needn’t be a Divine string, but something to keep you from getting into trouble while you learn about yourself. It may be like children: once they’re old enough to ask about something, they’re probably old enough to know the answer. Once you’re old enough to notice the strings, or to question them, you’re old enough to make a decision about them (not you but “one”, sorry).
13 John // Feb 9, 2007 at 10:24 am
Chino (#8): I’m ashamed to say that I haven’t heard of that story (some SF fan I am!), but I’m certainly going to track it down.
Nee (#9): It’s amazing to me how culturally and historically bound the LDS commandments are (they are presented as timeless). One of the prophets around the turn of the 19th/20th century is on the record suggesting to his counselors that they should reemphasize the Word of Wisdom, highlighting the health benefits of vegetarianism and “eating meat sparingly.” I don’t think his counselors encouraged him on this, and it wasn’t until the Prohibition movement that there was a strong clamp-down on drinking alcohol and coffee.
Bonny (#10): There’s much depth to your comments. I’ve been thinking a lot about how we escape the perception that certain things are natural, essential, divine, timeless at one time in our life, and plan to write a lot more about this. I agree with Miko that some people really do need the structure, but the problem comes when that same religious structure is mandated for all (which is what divine commandments do). The external commandment approach seems overly controlling and makes God seem kind of nitpicky. I admire your desire to break out on your own and to trust your own conscience. It takes more work, but I think it’s worth it.
Elise (#11): I’m not sure how much structure kids need, and I am certain that it does not need to be religious. My evidence is mostly anecdotal, but I know good people who were raised atheist, and good people who were raised in religious households. I do know that Jana and I have a backlog of spiritually and emotionally debilitating religious guilt that we’d like to spare our children. Plus, we’ve raised them with a lot of religious ambiguity and are doing our best to teach them to figure things out for themselves (rather than dictate everything to them). And they’ve turned out all right. Those of you who know them know that they’re good, good people.
So I guess in their case, we’re teaching them to fly pretty early on.
I’ll have to respond to Miko later–duty calls!
14 Matt Thurston // Feb 9, 2007 at 11:56 am
I haven’t been able to read all of the responses yet.
I think we all need to “cut the string” at some point in our lives, even if that means we decide later to fly back and tie a knot, or tie ourselves, back to the original string.
My question has to do with kids. Should we raise them tied to a string, or should we try to teach them to fly from birth?
15 Matt Thurston // Feb 9, 2007 at 12:09 pm
See… that’s why I should read the comments before posting. Elise and John already addressed my comment.
Like Jana and John, I have my own backlog of emotional religious guilt via my Mormon upbringing, but I also have a rich background of love and friendship from my Mormon friends and leaders. I’m still surprised how many good adults took an active and genuine interest in my life. I have many people to thank for making me who I am. On the whole, my Mormon upbringing was far more positive than negative. Now it stifles more than uplifts, but as an adult I can mediate and control my affiliation. I wonder about my kids though. Can they have it both ways — the string and the free flying?
16 Elise // Feb 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Miko - you caught my interest when you said you were dating your husband before you “came out” to your family - same with me and my husband! We were engaged before he broke the news to his family that he wasn’t the same religiously as them anymore. It was very, very, very hard on me because I felt like there was a sense amongst the family that I had changed him, “brought him down” in their eyes. In reality, I met him long after he had left his family’s religion. I felt like he put me in a difficult and unfair place, and I wished he had told them - if not before he met me - as soon as we became more serious as a couple. It was a little hurtful that his reluctance to approach a difficult issue with them was so strong that he wouldn’t tell them until he absolutely had to, even if it put me in a difficult place.
Matt, I’m interested in exploring the kids issue more, too, because I don’t think most kids can fly from birth - I think the string (not necessarily religion, but boundaries of some sort, maybe commandments so-to-speak) is good for them. It was good for me, at least - will explain later, but as John said, duty calls…..back to work.
17 John // Feb 9, 2007 at 12:50 pm
On raising kids and providing community and moral structure: there are certainly many ways to approach this, but I am concerned that there is a general sense that religion is especially good at this. It certainly provides a ready-made community and moral system, but at a high price. For those who buy into the system, the cost is not so bad.
Religions generally have all sorts of mechanisms built into them that make it difficult for those who were in them to deviate. I believe that indoctrinating a child within a religion before they are capable of making their own decisions severely restricts their ability to make their own choices later in life. The system constrains them, socially and cognitively.
The structure that we provided GameBoy and CatGirl, well before we left the Church, was more of a meta-morality. We’ve always tried to teach them how to determine if something is right or wrong, and to generally not accept things on authority. We’ve taught them from the first and second grades to challenge their teachers and to question even what we tell them. This means that we have a lot of interesting discussions as we try to determine why a given action is right or wrong. This requires a lot more thought effort and greater communication than “this is wrong because [insert authority figure here] said so.”
Jana and I are also very open about our doubts. We’re honest about not having all the answers. We respect our children enough not to feed them platitudes or soothing lies. I make the children privy to my own faith journey, and they offer me their own ideas and advice. They are partners in our family’s spiritual endeavors.
I acknowledge that we’re putting a heavier existential burden on our children in the short term, but I believe (I hope) it will pay off over the course of their lives.
18 Miko // Feb 9, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Elise (#16): my husband’s strength as an atheist helped me get up the courage to confront (and it was a confrontation) my family. Being around him and seeing him be a happy person without god helped heal some things that I needed to heal before I opened new wounds. That said, I was not prepared for their alienation of him. I was prepared for their alienation of me, but he had become good friends with at least one of my sisters & her husband & kids. The fact that he was no longer welcome at their home hurt me. I blamed myself for ruining those friendships. Ultimately, probably since we got married, those friendships healed, but I really didn’t realize going into it that it would affect him as well as me. I don’t know if any of that made sense…I guess I mean that, your husband may not have anticipated that it would affect his family’s relationship with you.
De Kiddo: (that’s “On Children” for those who don’t speak bad Latin) I think it is very important not to indoctrinate children. Having met many people who were raised both inside and outside religious structures, it seems to me that those raised inside, even if they stuck with it, had more issues to deal with than those who never knew it (even if they found it later). I think it comes from the assumptions that are encorporated into being raised in a religion (that you’ll stick with it, for one). When unreligious children become adults, they don’t seem to have to need to cut the strings or even evaluate them. When religious children become adults, they’re confronted with the strings and are often confused and hurt by them. Ultimately, they may cut them or not, but (and I’m sure I’m generalizing) it seems to me that there would be less hurt all around if we didn’t tie them up to begin with.
Incidentally, John, your kids are some of the most mature and well-adjusted kids I’ve met. Kudos to you & Jana!
19 Elaine Frei // Feb 9, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Structure is often a good thing - it keeps us on task when there is something that needs to be accomplished. I’ve learned this anew every day since I began working from home. And some rules are necessary. I wouldn’t want to drive somewhere where there are not traffic laws, or where most people don’t seem to follow the existing traffic laws. This is why I refuse to drive in San Francisco.
There is a problem with rules as well, however, but the problem isn’t really inherent in the rules themselves. Rather, the problem is more that in a certain number of circumstances (and more commonly than most of us would like to think), the people who are in a position to make the rules end up using them as a loyalty test. Instead of making rules as needed to address real and serious issues, they begin making rules for the sake of having them, just to see who will follow them…as a litmus test to separate the obedient from the disobedient, the “righteous” from the “unrighteous”. That, I think becomes counterproductive very quickly and in a number of ways.
And, on risk…One of my favorite quotes, which has been attributed to almost everyone at some time or another, is: “A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what ships were built for.” I am not a big risk taker, but I’ve learned through hard experience that there is no advancement without risk. The trick is learning to judge which risks are worth it and which risks aren’t.
20 John // Feb 9, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Elaine, welcome and thanks for your comment. I agree with you that we all need some structure. I think that many of us are coming from heavily structured backgrounds and are reacting against a negative experience with it (or maybe I’m just speaking for myself).
I like your harbor quote. I’d like to suggest that the greatest risk is in taking no risks at all, and that some things that seem pretty mundane and secure (marriage, having children, loving someone) are actually quite risky as well.
21 nee // Feb 9, 2007 at 10:37 pm
#10 Bonny, A huge part of why Mormonism appealed to me and why I joined was because I wanted structure. I wanted x+y=z. I grew up in a chaotic environment where doing x and y sometimes got you rewards and sometimes got you punished. You just never knew. Having hard and fast rules made life a lot less complicated for me.
IMO, as far as kids are concerned, (the collective) you show them they have wings and educate them on the realities of flying and where. You inform them of natural law and the other birds. You don’t tell them to stay grounded because it’s a sin to fly because the ancient pteradactyl in the sky said so and threatened them if they do.
22 nee // Feb 9, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Since I already brought up 2 musicians in this thread I’m gonna throw in some country. It’s is appropriate, no? I love this song.
Sara Evans - Born to Fly (full lyrics)
But how do you wait for heaven
And who has that much time
And how do you keep your feet on the ground
When you know, that you were born, you were born to fly
23 John // Feb 9, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I guess I really like this metaphor. My AIM username is seraphicarus.
24 Elise // Feb 9, 2007 at 11:22 pm
nee - A KINDRED SPIRIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
I LOVE country music and I LOVE Sara Evans and I LOVE that song.
No one in southern CA appreciates good country music.
I’m a fan of this verse, too:
Elaine, your thoughts on rules as litmus tests that separate people is profound. I’ve never thought of it that way before. You are right - people become more interested in the black-and-white follow-the-rules-or-not thinking, rather than critically and analytically considering the complex processes that go into determining right and wrong.
John, I have to second Miko’s observation that your kids are some of the most mature and well-adjusted kids I’ve met (Ryan tells me to mention that he feels the same). However, I also know kids of the same age that are absolutely obnoxious and rebellious and contrary and misbehaved, simply for the sake of controversy and irritating people. While this may be partially a result of their upbringing, sometimes it seems to just be their innate personalities. I wasn’t extreme, but I certainly had some of these characteristics as a kid. I didn’t have the maturity or patience to sit back and analyze right vs. wrong with my parents. Defined rules (the string, so-to-speak) were what kept me in line and out of trouble when I was 5, 6, 7-ish and a mischievious little girl.
After that I developed a bit more maturity….but boy, am I glad I had a string before then!
I also wonder if it is sometimes beneficial for children to be allowed/encouraged to find comfort in the idea of a higher being. Especially children that are prone to being sensitive to the dangers and injustices of the world. I think they should be allowed to advance beyond the idea of protection/comfort of a higher being as soon as they are ready, though (develop wings, eh?). The problem starts, in my opinion, when society enforces submission to illogical ideas and rules even when kids start to grow past them.
Sorry for the response length - I hope my thoughts are cohesive give that it’s midnight on Friday.
25 Bob Newhart // Feb 10, 2007 at 1:13 am
I don’t like country music, but I don’t mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means ‘put down’. ~ Bob Newhart
26 Elise // Feb 10, 2007 at 9:02 am
Bob - lol!
I’m blond AND I like country music, so I am the brunt of my fair share of jokes, but I haven’t heard that one before. Funny.
27 Bob Newhart // Feb 10, 2007 at 12:48 pm
For what it’s worth, I would never stoop to telling a blond joke, and I actually like my country music, too, so there was a good bit of self-deprecation in passing along my country music joke. Elise, self-deprecation means I was ‘putting myself down’.
28 Elise // Feb 10, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Ha ha.
29 nee // Feb 10, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I do things like download country (Brooks & Dunn), sultry jazz (Roy Hargrove), dance (Justin Timberlake), and trip hop (Olive) songs consecutively from itunes. Variety rocks!
After hearing the classic Harper Valley PTA on the radio this morning, I think I’ll be heading back over to itunes this weekend.
Elise, your comment about SoCal and country music makes me laugh. For some reason, I can’t imagine people outside of the midwest or the south liking country music, though I know many do. I hated it until the mid 90s. Now I think it’s pretty good except for the formulaic country tripe from the 80s. - Note: I do like formulaic pop tripe from the 80s. hehheheeh I remember watching a Garth Brooks concert on tv filmed in Dublin, Ireland. It was so bizarre to me to hear this mass of thousands singing the chorus of “Unanswered Prayers” with an Irish accent.
Well, John, sorry for the threadjack. Hmm,what can I do to bring it back around? I know! I’ll do it with the help of Justin Timberlake!
(stong bass beat, please…)
I’m bringing sex, er flying back
Them other commenters don’t know how to act
I think you’re smart, ya know I got your back.
So fly high, don’t let your string go slack.
TAKE EM TO THE BRIDGE…
30 Miko // Feb 11, 2007 at 9:35 am
I love country, esp. what my country-loving Oregonian friend calls “bad old country”. I don’t like new or, what I call, “Goo Goo Dolls Country” (although I like the GGD). I recently, however, discovered Christian Kane who, in true SoCal fashion wants to be an actor, but who sings a great nouveau country song called LA Song.
31 John // Feb 11, 2007 at 10:41 am
I’m tempted to moderate this offensive discussion.
I love early Nashville sound, back when both rock and country were still young. Johnny Cash and Roger Miller come to mind. Then something horrible happened to country in the 70s and 80s. I started listening again with the advent of alt-country singers like Neko Case (who, to me, evokes earlier country).
Country also has a storytelling power and an ability to evoke the spiritual that is difficult to produce in rock.
32 Elise // Feb 12, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I love the early Nashville country, too, John…have not listened to Neko Case yet, though.
Leave a Comment