Prism decided to find out what would happen if we brought four people from diverse religious backgrounds together to talk about the important things in life. In this panel, Rabbi Edward Feld presents a Jewish perspective; Reverand Paul Sorrentino speaks as a Christian; Michelle Lee gives a Buddhist view; and Nathan Hartshorn, an agnostic, finds meaning without God.

Prism: When Prism came up with the idea for an issue on death, we sent out table tents. Responses were generally pretty good, but a couple of people came up to us personally and said that death was an inappropriate topic for, not just Prism to be tackling, but any college publication in general É that it wasn't something that could be really covered. We were wondering what you all think is an appropriate forum for death to be discussed in. Is a college magazine an appropriate place, or is death something sacred that shouldn't be touched by something like Prism?

Nathan Hartshorn: The last AAARGH meeting we had was last Sunday and, in preparation for tonight, we talked about this kind of idea. One of the members of the group, who has lost a couple of family members in the last year or so, expressed the idea that he didn't think this was appropriate É I think the concern is that a bunch of students writing a ten-page section can't do the topic justice. I don't know that I feel qualified to criticize his viewpoint (I mean, I've lost a couple of family members, but he's lost a father and a sister in the last year), but I think a literary magazine, if it goes in with the idea that they won't have the final word on death, I think it's appropriate. But I recognize that some of that might be [my] not having that hit home so much. I'm not going to look at Prism and think that you're commenting on my grief and what I'm experiencing.

Edward Feld: What did you have in mind?

P: Actually, the topic was selected partially because my (Sylvia Heredia's) grandmother died over the summer. So, coming into this semester, that was really heavy on my mind, and I just threw it out there to see what people would say, and most people wanted to do it, and felt that it was a topic that should be discussed. I mean, we by no means think that we're going to cover everything that needs to be covered about death. We don't think it's going to be this great thing where "finally someone said something about death and now we all understand."

Paul Sorrentino: I think about 50,000 people die in America each week. And on college campuses in New England this year, there has been one suicide at Smith, three at MIT, one at Brandeis. É So it seems like it's certainly an issue that impacts (obviously) all of us at some point, and it's good to have a forum to be able to talk about it. People can always choose not to read it, so that makes a magazine a particularly good option. Usually people are at some point where they need to think about it, whether it's processing to get to a place where they want to bring closure, or just anticipating. I think it's pretty courageous actually. I think in general, people try to avoid talking about death, especially in America: a lot of people have never seen a dead person. [We try] to cover things up with flowers and music and so many other things that ignore death [and] pretend that it doesn't exist, that we're not heading that way.

Michelle Lee: Death touches us every day, whether you're reading about it or it's somebody close to you that you've lost. And while I think that a magazine might be accused of being inappropriate to cover a topic, since there's no way you can possibly represent everybody's viewpoint or possibly convey to others the grief that each person feels personally and privately, I feel that it's important to have some sort of forum so that we can present as many viewpoints as possible. Death is not so sacred that it should be hush-hush everywhere. É I think that, just to pull in the Buddhist point of view, it's merely a passing into another state of being. It's not really regarded as anything so horrible that you can't deal with it, [that] you can't talk about it, because we also believe in reincarnation where the fate of your next life will be decided for you.

P: How is religion involved? How does religion deal with death?

EF: There are different Jewish perspectives and I can only talk from where I am in Judaism. I don't believe in any kind of an afterlife. Your life is over when you're dead. One of the wonderful things about Judaism is the way in which it celebrates life. The Hebrew Bible has no mention of an afterlife. When Job asks about his suffering there isn't any response, "Well, you're suffering in this world but in the next world, that's your payoff." That's not a possibility for him. Judaism is primarily concerned with how you live this life, how you engage in the blessing of life. How you mourn in Judaism is very much taken up both with giving the mourner space to express the pain and feel the loss and for the community to help the mourner come back into the community - for the mourner to begin to engage in acts which bring them back into life, the engagement of life and engaging with the community. The acts that one does as a mourner are, in fact, public acts of coming back to the community, [such as] saying prayer (Kadish) at the service, which is an affirmation of God. "Even though I have gone through this painful moment, I still affirm life." Interestingly, immediately after the burial, the one thing the mourner is supposed to do is eat a meal to re-engage with life.

P: Do you think it would be easier for Jews who don't believe in an afterlife to deal with the death of a loved one if they were able to say that person is now in heaven?

EF: I'm not sure what it's like to be in that space. I think the mourner has to deal with the fact that this person is dead and not here, and that's real. It's really, from my perspective, cruel to deny the reality of the loss. We should be able to face a reality of our lives, I think. These are very important functions of religious ritual.

P: Maybe we should give Reverend Sorrentino a chance to answer, as someone who believes in an afterlife.

PS: I like everything [Rabbi Feld] said. I don't agree with all of it, but a lot of it I do, particularly the cruelty of sometimes glib statements given to people in mourning who do experience real loss - a person in a relationship that's been vital to them. First off, I do think that there is a place for hope. You know, Jesus said to his disciples shortly before he was executed, "Don't let your hearts be troubled," that he was going to prepare a place for them. And he wanted to prepare a place for them so when he returned he'd take them with him. That's a central part of Christian faith, that the resurrection of Christ after the crucifixion is the first evidence of life after death, and that we would follow in that same path. I think the passages that talk about God being near the broken-hearted, the God of all comfort, are passages that help us to at least say, even in the midst of this horrible pain, "God is with me." So there [are] kind of two perspectives. One [is] the real loss that people have and the pain of not having someone with them as well as a certain hope of their loved ones having gone on to be with God. But also, I think it affects them. Knowing there is life beyond death, that this is not the end, allows people to make decisions, lay down their lives in some ways for causes they think are really important. É I think of Rwanda and the Tutsis and Hutus and the fighting that's gone on there. Some people have said recently that there are three groups: the Hutus, Tutsis, and Christians. Because large numbers of Christians have refused to be identified as one group or the other, they have been murdered as a result. They [were involved] in a cause that they thought was worth dying for. That's what Martin Luther King Jr. said: "If you don't have something that you think is worth dying for, you don't have anything worth living for." I think there are some ways, in that sense, that life after death gives hope and meaning and the ability to make real commitments.

P: With the aspect of hell, do you think there's a possibility that the idea of an afterlife is doubly cruel; If you believe that someone has not gone on to heaven, has not gone on to God; but has gone on to hell?

PS: Well, there's certainly not a doctrine that any thinking Christian is more troubled by than hell. É But part of what's really at issue is our freedom to choose and that God is not a cosmic rapist that forces himself upon people who don't want to be in relationship with God. There is not a whole lot we know about heaven or hell from scripture, although Jesus certainly talked about hell very often. I think of Jesus' coming primarily as a way to communicate what God is like and to make a way for people to be in relationship with God, but also to warn people that there are consequences for not believing. We have lots of rules for things like sexual harrassment or rape [where] we consider consensual relations [to be] valuable, and I think of hell in a similar way. Hell is God respecting people's right not to be with him. As clear as I am about what hell means, it means the absence of God, and that's a choice.

NH: I guess, to those of us that don't believe, and sometimes have kind of impinged on us, by well-meaning relatives or by other people, this idea that "Don't worry, Grampa is in Heaven" - you can throw all the gospels you like, it still seems rather glib. I really would hope, that we, as beings who are unfortunately finite in our lifespans, can deal with death as a reality. It doesn't bother me that some people find comfort in Christian faith, but I feel like that kind of thing [is] imposed on us. This idea that well, you shouldn't worry because Jesus said x, y and z - that seems rather questionable. And to somehow stave off the responsibility of having to have my grandfather live in my memory and in the memories of the other people who knew him is pretty much refusing to accept the responsibility to have him live on. If he is in heaven, then I don't have to worry about him for another 70 years or so. And I don't like that. That's why it's a little distasteful for me, personally, to deal with death in a resurrection type context, because I would like to think that I can treat it in a more rational manner. [Also], I would wonder how fair it is, to give us the freedom of choice to choose [God] or not to choose him when we don't seem to have been given the freedom of choice to be created in the first place. We seem to be dangled over this pit of fire, and it's like "Accept me, or I'll drop you."

P: The impetus for this next question was the girl in New Jersey who gave birth during the prom and then threw her child in a trash can. The question is this: Is life really going down in value in America or in the world, and is there anyone to blame for this? What can we do about it?

EF: I do think that what a religious tradition does, certainly what Judaism does, is provide a language to get us through the transitions of life. A language which can celebrate life, which can understand life and its blessings, which can slow us down, which can teach us about a life of care, which can teach us about a graceful way to live, which can teach us about holiness and sacredness. That is the religious vocabulary. There is a loss of that vocabulary in a large part of society. That loss of religious vocabulary means that in a world which has become materialistic, [which] has no appreciation of that which is beyond [what] the eye can see, a world which has values permeated by personal success and wealth and sexual achievements, a world in which we try to feel the least amount of pain, and in many ways, try not to feel, all those things which permeate American culture at this moment of time, [are] perspectives which cheapen life. Before this forum began, I said the afternoon prayer as the sun set. How many people notice the sunset? How many people notice that a day has gone by or have slowed their day down enough with religious moments - a language of appreciation, thanksgiving - to ask themselves, "How is my time being spent productively?" The notion of religious discipline, the notion that there are ways of living which can, in fact, lead you into your deepest self and to an appreciation of life is not part of the majority culture. And the loss of that means that there is enormous pressure. The degree of pressure in which any kind of a sense of the wonderfulness of the moment, a sense of wonder which makes life wonderful is lost. The technology, which is such a blessing, is partly responsible. Life is just speeded up. We need to slow it down. Our being able to appreciate our lives is compromised.

NH: Does it have to be religious? I would hope that one can feel wonder looking at the stars, having a loving family, thanksgiving - many of the things that I think make life worthwhile. I would hope that I could appreciate that, and I can feel wonder, and I can slow down, without an idea of the supernatural. I would hope that that would not necessarily be termed religious.

EF: There is a Martin Buber web site from the Martin Buber House in Germany. And they have the following quote: "Frequently the atheist looking out of the window sees more of God than most people." Now there is a midrash, Biblical commentary, which has God saying, "Would that they forsake me and follow my law." That is to say: God doesn't really care if you believe in him, that's not what God is about. And what I think religion is about, certainly what Judaism is about, is a better tradition which has grown up over thousands of years of people trying to live a holy life and the wisdom they have about how you go about doing that. Now, one can say, "I don't want anybody else's wisdom." You might want to build your house without the history of architecture. You want to start de novo and build your house. You'll probably end up living in a hut that you'll like. But, if you studied the history of architecture, you will build a very interesting house. So, if you can, go and have a virtuous life without any religion. My guess is that your life will be much richer if you attach yourself to people who have studied how to do this.

NH: Still, that seems to be a little bit of an imposition on the statement, though, isn't it? The idea that one without religion cannot live as richly as one with religion. É I guess that I want to resist the idea that, in listening to people who have lived life and have found things to do in that life to make it worthwhile, that one is necessarily being religious.

EF: Let's talk about the topic at hand. I've seen people have to deal with death and be at loose ends, and when they have a religious tradition to deal with it they have a means of coping. How do you have a forum in which to channel your pain? How do you have ways in engaging in acts of memory and memorialization? A religious tradition helps people in terms of having names for their emotions, being able to talk about it and deal with the issues that are deep within them, and having ways of other people approaching them. I mean, one can choose to exit from that, but then I think that one has no vocabulary to deal with the richness of life.

NH: So much of what you have just described, which I find to be a good way of dealing with death, seems to be so independent of a belief in God and beliefs about the supernatural. It seems to me that, I think one, could take the custom of visiting the bereaved for seven days and say, "Yes, that is a wonderful way of giving people a vocabulary for dealing with death," without necessarily having ideas of the supernatural. I hope at least, that one could find ways to carry out things like that without the actual faith in the eternal.

PS: The way that question is stated: "Is life going down in value?" implies that there is a myth that some of us have of this Golden Age. There are lots of concerns that I have, about today, that you've brought up. The technology is not bad, but the technology that was supposed to give us more time seems to result in the acceleration of activity. There's less time. Talking about death causes us to do just what you and I were doing on our way down here, to look at our lives and say "Am I doing the right thing? Am I spending my time in the right way?" No one on their death bed says, "I wish I had spent more time at the office." What do we get out of an education at Amherst College? What are we really aiming for? Is it success and how do we define that? Having a Ph.D. and a six-figure income? What is the place of sunsets and relationships with people? Those are things we need to reflect on. One of the things, for my faith, that makes sense, is to recognize that we are responsible and that there are things that we do wrong, that hurt people, that damage people. How perfect are we? We can talk about people like Mother Theresa, and certainly see them as miles and miles beyond us, but the fact of the matter is that all of us have our moments of selfishness and arrogance É when we just look out for our own self-interest, and try and get ahead at other people's expense. And those are the things that damage us, and those are the things that the Bible talks about as sin. Not just the big things, but the things that damage people and dishonor God.

ML: I agree with what you've said. I believe that the major religions, they're there for a reason, and they have survived because they do provide answers to a lot of questions that human beings can't answer: "Where did [we] come from and what happens after we die?" I think that religion, in its most basic function is É there to provide a guideline for how we should lead our lives. I believe that all the basic religions tend to guide the people to a more moral and a right way of life. That's what religion is there for. I just can't help but make a correlation between the value of life going down in America and the increasing loss of religion in people's lives, because I think that religion does provide guidelines for you. Once you are out of touch with something that might provide answers for you, you tend to stray away from the correct way to behave.

NH: Well, I think that a lot of answers that a lot of religions give are anything but correct. I was on a website a couple of weeks ago. I heard that it existed and couldn't believe that they used a name like this. It's www.godhatesfags.com. And, [it makes] more or less of a scriptural argument (I can't really evaluate it) about how hating homosexuals is something that God really wants you to do. And it seems to me that certainly, that is a religion telling someone that this is how they should behave. And I think the way that religion is telling them to behave is really unacceptable. Yet, it has just as much potency as "Love thy neighbor" did to Martin Luther King Jr. So, I'm not sure that it's all that clear that a religion giving people answers, moral answers, is necessarily a good thing.

EF: There have been two atheist state-rules, one in the Soviet Union and one in China. Homosexuals weren't treated very well in either of those societies.

NH: I don't pretend to defend atheists at large or atheism. É I'm not sure that lack of religion can possibly be construed to tell you that you should go and kill someone, but it also can't tell you that you should be nice to people.

P: Michelle, going back a couple of steps in this conversation, you were talking about how religion in general gives you a good guideline towards living a good life. I was wondering if you could elaborate on how Buddhism in particular can do that.

ML: There are of course, people who are totally orthodox; there are also people who question their religion. The strictest form of Buddhism is basically this: We don't know how you came here, you could have been something else in your past life, but you are here in this life, and life is miserable. It's miserable and full of suffering and it's necessarily so; and in order to end this kind of suffering and misery, you need to deny your desires and your wants. Basically, it's to deny worldly desires. You don't want money because it brings you trouble. To deny wants is to relieve yourself of misery, because your wants caused the misery. And I think that, to take it to the most formal is not something that everybody can do because in the life that we lead today, we're surrounded by materialistic values, as Rabbi Feld said. So I believe that it guides us to what the Greeks referred to as the Golden Mean: You don't take things to the excess. I think also that by believing that there is an afterlife, it doesn't necessarily diminish the value of your present life. The point is that you live in this life and you try to do the best you can, and it's fate that you and [those] you love will eventually be together again by some connection or another, and that's life. But the thing is you don't have a knowledge of anything that has happened to you in the past life.

PS: A good life is really loving well. When Jesus was asked what was important he said "to love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." And I do think that we were made for a relationship with God, that we are at our best in relationship with God and in loving other people. I think in Christian faith it's really not a kind of quid pro quo arrangement where you love somebody that loves you back, but there's actually a real freedom of being able to love people regardless of the response. Each of us has a debt that God has cancelled, and that cancellation of that huge debt for us, to bring us into a relationship with God, should be able to help us to overlook miniscule kinds of things (relatively) that people do to us to offend us, to hurt us, so that we can love even people who don't necessarily love us back. So that website [www.godhatesfags.com] is an offense to God. We should be able to care about all people. And I think also it means that when it says to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength," that means there are no parts of our life that are absent from being able to love God and enjoy God and honor God and worship him. Our problem is not that we ask too much of life but that we ask too little of life. We're content to say, "Boy, if I just had a new car, or if I just had a Ph.D., or if I just had this girlfriend or boyfriend, everything would be okay." Not that any of these things are bad, but they're not sufficient, they're not adequate as ends. Loving well is really the meaning of life, sort of the end of life.

EF: I don't think I can speak of a meaning of life which everyone should adopt. Rather, I think people ought to find the meaning in their lives and I feel upset that a lot of people settle for less than that. I feel especially strongly regarding students at Amherst, the choices people are making about their lives. A lot of the career choices are utilitarian. They readily choose a compromised life. And I wish that students would really search for that which is meaningful, search for a life that they could live by their own light, É that they would make that search for meaning a central act of who they are. I can't really think of a more religious thing that they could do.

NH: Yeah, I can't think of much that's better than that. But you didn't touch on anything that I would consider religious. There are different ideas about religion though. I think I would agree with pretty much everything that Reverend Sorrentino said, except that it necessarily has anything to do with the belief in God. I would hope that I, in my life, will be able to love well, and to treat others as generally well as I think it's appropriate to treat them and to live that way, not to glorify God particularly because I don't think that one exists, but because, as far as I'm concerned, that's largely the point that I - [at] this point, after 21-plus years - [have] come [to]. So, but for the references to God, I don't think anything is dramatic in your points, anything that I would really disagree with at all.

ML: I think that's also a general philosophy of Buddhism. To love all human-kind and all living things. To have a good life is basically not to live to the extreme, to have good balance between the spiritual and material (more toward the spiritual), the purpose of which is to reach inner peace within yourself. The fact that you try to spread this teaching to the people around you, try to teach people how to attain this inner peace, is a way of loving them. So basically, your life is not totally irredeemable, and there is a way for you to live a good life. And you try to make the best of what you have and work with it.

Reverand Paul Sorrentino is Advisor to the Amherst Christian Fellowship. Rabbi Edward Feld is the Jewish Religious Coordinator for Amherst College and the Jewish Chaplain for Smith College. Nathan Hartshorn is the President of Amherst Agnostics, Atheists, Rationalists and Godless Humanists (AAARG) and a member of the Amherst College Class of 1998. Michelle Lee is a Buddhist and a member of the Amherst College Class of 1999.