My faith is fine, ith my hair that needth help...

Back in Berkeley Springs, back with the crazy cat.

I did individual meetings with the cast today, since we were missing one of the women, and the show is so ensemble based that at this point it would be silly to do a full rehearsal without her.

The subject of religion came up in my talk with one of the actors, and the role it plays in this story. It’s funny, because I hadn’t really thought much about it, but upon examination, it definitely is an important thread. There is a general wariness in the play about the brand of religion that is imposed on people by others who feel that their way is the right way, and the only way.

But when all is said and done, the writer gives something of an endorsement of religion, or at least of “spirituality” when in the final scene the “born-again” character gives a moving and genuine speech about how religion provides a comfort to her in moments when no other answers or explanations can do a situation justice. It is, of course, ultimately too simplistic an explanation and a bit of a glossing over of a very complex subject, but hidden within there somewhere the author does present some interesting questions about faith.

The discussion made me think of several recent items I’ve read.

One: This article – about the guy who developed this “intelligent design” theory. The article actually makes him sound much less loony than I expected him to sound, and maybe he actually is less loony than I would expect him to be.

Also: This interview, of which this link only provides an excerpt. It is a really fascinating piece from the magazine SUN, which my dear friend and soulmate BC first introduced me to. I bought a subscription for my mother and she loves it. It is a smart, provocative magazine, a little bit on the feel-good side at times, but when I read it it makes me feel like there are other people in this world that understand me, and that I understand, and that is not a bad thing. Honestly – if you like short stories, personal essays and stunning photography, I highly recommend it.

The interview exquisitely articulates arguments about the situation in Israel that I have tried unsuccessfully to express to extremely left-leaning friends who pin Israelis as the bad guys, across the board, without exceptions. Maybe I am just being swayed by a really good talker, but Yossi Klein Halevi makes some very valid points. There is an article by Starhawk in the same issue, which is much more anti-Israeli, which I haven’t read yet. We’ll see what thoughts that stirs up.

I do agree with Halevi that at some point it does come to the question as to whether people believe that Israel should exist at all. I had a friend in college who put it the same way. If someone thinks no, then the discussion is pretty much over. And if Israel does not deserve to exist, if the only ethical answer is to do away with the state of Israel altogether, then following that moral standard shouldn’t we do away with the United States as well?

I think it’s particularly cool that he is able to have the most open dialogue with the Sufists. There was a Sufist center right near my apartment in NY, and I always wondered what actually went on in there.

I am surprised that Madonna has not yet discovered Sufism. Or Ashton Kutcher, or any of the other Kabbalah groupies. I give them a year.

And finally this editorial. The reasons Perkins gives in defense of the targeted supreme court nominees are enough to confirm for me that they should be well out of the running. In fact, it took me a moment to realize that he was arguing against the use of their religious beliefs to determine their appropriateness for such a position. That doesn’t make sense to me. If a statement like "the Bible is an "absolute authority" for human conduct" is not a valid consideration in a decision as important as this, then what is?

Richard Cohen adds his voice, and makes some sense here.

If someone can explain this all to me I’m all ears.