The future of religion is in following Jesus’ humanitarian morality, in seeing all human beings as being equal in the need to have their basic needs met. The following precepts, that Jesus promoted, is really the ultimate moral end for all religions:
a. All humans are equal
b. All humans are to be ultimately punished by God, not humanity
c. Varieties of ideal communities should be established, having no authority except over themselves
d. Leaders should be chosen, not because of their capacity to collect power to themselves, but because of their ability to assist the most people of any kind, especially those under their care
e. Humans who harm community should be separated from the ideal community
f. It is the noblest ideal to meet other’s needs no matter the harm they do to oneself or one’s community
g. We change the world through accepting suffering, not by forcing suffering
h. The greatest sin is harming others and teaching young people to harm others.
Showing posts with label God is Not Great. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God is Not Great. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
What If We Lived In An Agnostic Nation?
Hitchens has a whole chapter to defend secularism—a belief system without god as a significant factor—against the truthful claim that Nazism, Stalinism and other atrocious societies were secular. Hitchens, not unlike a child trying to defend himself, points how religious groups—especially Catholics—associated themselves with the secular totalitarian governments. Hitchens does admit that secular societies don’t have a great track record, but, once again, just claims that the religious one is worse. I would say that first, there isn’t enough evidence to know the moral guidance of any secular societies, since we don’t have enough of a record of them, although I will say that the current tally up till this point isn’t very great.
Certainly those dedicated to the scientific method have proven to be just as prejudiced, myopic and hateful as any religious person. And should secularism be in full charge, religious groups will be persecuted severely. This is not because secular groups are worse than religious groups, but because humans fear that which is not like themselves. It isn’t religiosity or secularism that is really the issue here—it is cultural prejudice and humanity at large. In general, no matter what one’s racial, national, cultural or religious persuasion, the marginalization and then the dehumanization of other groups will rule. This is the way of all humanity.
Certainly those dedicated to the scientific method have proven to be just as prejudiced, myopic and hateful as any religious person. And should secularism be in full charge, religious groups will be persecuted severely. This is not because secular groups are worse than religious groups, but because humans fear that which is not like themselves. It isn’t religiosity or secularism that is really the issue here—it is cultural prejudice and humanity at large. In general, no matter what one’s racial, national, cultural or religious persuasion, the marginalization and then the dehumanization of other groups will rule. This is the way of all humanity.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Jesus and the Humanitarian Ideal
But I have to say, Jesus is ahead of all other religions, even by Hitchen's standards. First of all, Jesus sought reform, but accepted the persecution on himself. Apart from the others, reform is not to be imposed, but rather to be seen as a process which begins with the destruction of the prophet who announces reform. Jesus not only set up his own sacrifice, he also taught his disciples to accept persecution when it came. Interestingly enough, he didn’t insist that his disciples do as he did—actually manipulate the political and religious situation for his own personal demise. Rather, he told them to accept and rejoice in such persecution, but not to create it themselves.
(On a similar note, Mr. Hutchins, it may be “odd” or, as you imply, perverse, to manipulate the action of a prophecy. But Jesus insisted that he was fulfilling the holy text, not specifically the prophecies.)
So all of Jesus’ reform was never about war or the destruction of others. Rather it was using self-sacrifice to change the cultural and religious society. Thus, this is completely humanitarian, if not completely life-affirming as some would like to have Jesus’ teach.
Also, Jesus was and is the most consistent humanitarians in religious leaders. Admittedly, Buddha and others taught an equal affirmation of all life, but this proves difficult to be consistent in, as our very life requires the killing of other life, whether in our immune system or in our every breath. Jesus, however, taught the benevolence of all human life, without exception. This is, what “Love your enemies” means. Jesus is using the most extreme form of a moral statement—doing good to those who intend to harm you—to broaden a principle of benevolence to all of humanity, without exception. The fact that Christians continually find ways to find exceptions to Jesus’ broad rule is an example of their irreligiosity, not of a fault in the religion in and of itself.
Jesus also taught that all religious ritual is marginalized in light of this basic humanism. He spoke against the hardcore Jewish monolith, the Sabbath, to say that it is proper to work on the Sabbath—in opposition to all Jewish tradition—if that work is enacting mercy. Interestingly, Jesus’ followers continued in this tradition, claiming that all religious traditions—the Temple, circumcision, racism, ritual sacrifice, holidays—are not to be set aside, but marginalized in comparison to doing good. This is so much the case that the leaders of Jesus’ movement were not to be known as leaders at all, but slaves or servants.
In fact, I would say that were it not for Jesus, that religion would not ever been seen in humanitarian terms. I am not saying that Jesus was the first humanitarian, only the greatest populist spokesman for it. All throughout the Western history of the world, people have looked at Jesus, compared religions to him, and found the religion lacking. Indeed, I would say, that were it not for Jesus, there probably would have been no Enlightenment to begin with, for the idea of having a humanitarianism apart from ritual was most popularly spoken by Jesus—although first promoted in some of the Hebrew Scriptures. Many of the greatest humanitarian leaders since the enlightenment—Thomas Jefferson, William Wilberforce, David Livingstone, Albert Schweitzer, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Moses Brown, Florence Nightingale, Leo Tolstoy, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King—were all deeply influenced by Jesus and his humanitarian ideal.
(On a similar note, Mr. Hutchins, it may be “odd” or, as you imply, perverse, to manipulate the action of a prophecy. But Jesus insisted that he was fulfilling the holy text, not specifically the prophecies.)
So all of Jesus’ reform was never about war or the destruction of others. Rather it was using self-sacrifice to change the cultural and religious society. Thus, this is completely humanitarian, if not completely life-affirming as some would like to have Jesus’ teach.
Also, Jesus was and is the most consistent humanitarians in religious leaders. Admittedly, Buddha and others taught an equal affirmation of all life, but this proves difficult to be consistent in, as our very life requires the killing of other life, whether in our immune system or in our every breath. Jesus, however, taught the benevolence of all human life, without exception. This is, what “Love your enemies” means. Jesus is using the most extreme form of a moral statement—doing good to those who intend to harm you—to broaden a principle of benevolence to all of humanity, without exception. The fact that Christians continually find ways to find exceptions to Jesus’ broad rule is an example of their irreligiosity, not of a fault in the religion in and of itself.
Jesus also taught that all religious ritual is marginalized in light of this basic humanism. He spoke against the hardcore Jewish monolith, the Sabbath, to say that it is proper to work on the Sabbath—in opposition to all Jewish tradition—if that work is enacting mercy. Interestingly, Jesus’ followers continued in this tradition, claiming that all religious traditions—the Temple, circumcision, racism, ritual sacrifice, holidays—are not to be set aside, but marginalized in comparison to doing good. This is so much the case that the leaders of Jesus’ movement were not to be known as leaders at all, but slaves or servants.
In fact, I would say that were it not for Jesus, that religion would not ever been seen in humanitarian terms. I am not saying that Jesus was the first humanitarian, only the greatest populist spokesman for it. All throughout the Western history of the world, people have looked at Jesus, compared religions to him, and found the religion lacking. Indeed, I would say, that were it not for Jesus, there probably would have been no Enlightenment to begin with, for the idea of having a humanitarianism apart from ritual was most popularly spoken by Jesus—although first promoted in some of the Hebrew Scriptures. Many of the greatest humanitarian leaders since the enlightenment—Thomas Jefferson, William Wilberforce, David Livingstone, Albert Schweitzer, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Moses Brown, Florence Nightingale, Leo Tolstoy, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King—were all deeply influenced by Jesus and his humanitarian ideal.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Religion as Reformation
Most religions begin as a reformation. Moses’ law is a reformation of the common code of law in ancient society—a distinctly moral improvement. Buddhism is a reformation of the extreme practices of the yogi in Northern India. Christianity is a reformation of an exclusionary Judaism of Second Temple Judaism. Islam is a religious reform of the paganism of Arabia. Each of these is a moral, humane step forward from the cultural experience of the previous religions.
Religion is almost never a power play. It is an attempt to make life better for all. Sometimes religions, when they begin, might be misguided or too extreme. But time softens the edges and changes the perspective. Over time, all religions reflect the traditional norms of a society, rather than forms them.
Religion is almost never a power play. It is an attempt to make life better for all. Sometimes religions, when they begin, might be misguided or too extreme. But time softens the edges and changes the perspective. Over time, all religions reflect the traditional norms of a society, rather than forms them.
Are All Religions The Same?
What is mysterious to me as well is Hitchens’ insistence at lumping all of religion together, as if what one religion does, all are guilty of. I am surprised he didn’t mention Kali worshippers in their massacre, and apply that to Christians and Jews as well, as if all religions were ultimately the same.
Not only are all religions not the same, but it is clear that institutional forms of religion often, if not always, butcher the original ideal of a religion in order to accept all the values of any given culture. Thus did Islam support the destruction of other monotheisms, Buddhism support religious ceremony, and Christians support war and fascism. These actions are opposed to the original intent of the religions as established.
Not only are all religions not the same, but it is clear that institutional forms of religion often, if not always, butcher the original ideal of a religion in order to accept all the values of any given culture. Thus did Islam support the destruction of other monotheisms, Buddhism support religious ceremony, and Christians support war and fascism. These actions are opposed to the original intent of the religions as established.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
An Immoral Jesus?
I find it fascinating, not that Hitchens claims the Bible as immoral—one could certainly pick out a number of passages that indicates an inhumane bias, as Hitchens does. No, it is his chapter title that states, “The New Testament is More Immoral Than the Old Testament”. Not only is the author far distant from proving his point, I don’t really see how he claims that the NT is immoral at all. So he shows that John 8 isn’t in the original text. Christian scholars have admitted so for a century. How is this immoral? That some scribe decided to insert a connected text in a margin and another scribe got confused and put it in the text? How is that “immoral”?
Hitchen’s main claim that the New Testament’s morality of forgiveness is less than ideal. Hitchen’s idea of this morality is misguided, but even with this misconception, it is difficult to call this idea of “all forgiveness all the time” immoral. He misunderstands the basic idea of NT forgiveness, however. There are many times in the NT that people are NOT forgiven. In fact, the most brutal part of the NT, the deaths of Ananias and Saphira, is a display of not forgiving someone for their sin—in this case, of lying to God. Paul also declares one person to not be forgiven, and then, later to be forgiven. This all looks very inconsistent unless you understand the basis of Christian forgiveness, which is repentance. Many passages speak to what causes one to not be forgiven—and the main one is being merciless to another person. The one who abuses another, who deceives another intentionally in order to obtain gain, the one who hates, the hypocrite who teaches others their hypocritical ways, these are not forgiven.
This does not mean that these sinners are to be punished, exactly. They are not to be harmed by any followers of Jesus. Rather, they are asked repeatedly to repent, and if they hold to their unmerciful ways, then they are declared to not be a part of the community. That’s all. Any further punishment is up to God. Thus, it is not a wide open forgiveness, nor is it the harsh punishments of sinners of later Christianities.
What bugs me about Hitchen's statement most, that the NT is "immoral" is that this book, which I and many others follow as our guide to ethics and life, leads us to immorality. So Hitchen's is calling me immoral. I have never claimed that atheists in general are immoral. Nor have I claimed that any group is generally immoral. So how can he make that claim about me and those who are like me? That is simply hypocritical.
Hitchen’s main claim that the New Testament’s morality of forgiveness is less than ideal. Hitchen’s idea of this morality is misguided, but even with this misconception, it is difficult to call this idea of “all forgiveness all the time” immoral. He misunderstands the basic idea of NT forgiveness, however. There are many times in the NT that people are NOT forgiven. In fact, the most brutal part of the NT, the deaths of Ananias and Saphira, is a display of not forgiving someone for their sin—in this case, of lying to God. Paul also declares one person to not be forgiven, and then, later to be forgiven. This all looks very inconsistent unless you understand the basis of Christian forgiveness, which is repentance. Many passages speak to what causes one to not be forgiven—and the main one is being merciless to another person. The one who abuses another, who deceives another intentionally in order to obtain gain, the one who hates, the hypocrite who teaches others their hypocritical ways, these are not forgiven.
This does not mean that these sinners are to be punished, exactly. They are not to be harmed by any followers of Jesus. Rather, they are asked repeatedly to repent, and if they hold to their unmerciful ways, then they are declared to not be a part of the community. That’s all. Any further punishment is up to God. Thus, it is not a wide open forgiveness, nor is it the harsh punishments of sinners of later Christianities.
What bugs me about Hitchen's statement most, that the NT is "immoral" is that this book, which I and many others follow as our guide to ethics and life, leads us to immorality. So Hitchen's is calling me immoral. I have never claimed that atheists in general are immoral. Nor have I claimed that any group is generally immoral. So how can he make that claim about me and those who are like me? That is simply hypocritical.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Necessity of Religion
Even if religion were not true, it would be necessary, for most of humanity is not rational and able to follow a unique path through the best truths and the best morals. Religion simplifies truth and morals, much that a government education bureaucracy would do. It promotes significant values to its culture, and does so in ways that could be understood by all its community. Perhaps it is simplistic and misunderstood by the over-zealous, such as any complex system is—such as a body of law or a collection of ancient texts.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Does Ethics Come From Religion?
It is often said by religious people that ethics comes from religion. My atheist friends get their fur all ruffled up that that statement, and so this was my response in one discussion:
I'll probably surprise you by saying that I do NOT think that our ethics come from religion. Not our base nature to do good. Rather, I think there is a lot of our morality that comes innately, from our adult minds, no matter who we are, or what culture we live in.
As we become mature adults, we realize not only that other people exist, but that they are the equal to ourselves. That our brothers, sisters, friends, boy/girlfriends, spouses, and co-workers are the equivalent of ourselves. And that is the essence of morality, the basic moral principle that exists in almost every ethical system-- that others need to be treated in the manner in which we wish to be treated, because (the basic ethical realization) they are the same as us.
Now, this logic, for most of us, only goes this far. We have people that we treat as equals and then people that we treat as non-equals. For some, we treat people as more than us-- celebrities, politicians, etc-- while others we treat as less than us-- children, the developmentally disabled, our parent with Alzheimer's. Anyway, the liberal will give lip service to the fact that everyone has basic rights and should be treated equally. Some don't feel that it is necessary. But the morally progressive person will look at the other for who they are and try to meet their social and possibly physical needs in as much as is socially acceptable.
In morality, the best of religions or ethicists will guide one in relationships to do that which is the best for all concerned. However, this usually requires reason, because morality requires context, while most religions only give rules. And rules are not the best way to determine morality.
And honestly, this is one of the reasons I hang my hat with Jesus, because he recognized the flexibility of situations and so gave principles instead of rules. And, in fact, one of his principles is that any law-- religious or otherwise-- is to be marginalized if it harms another person. It is why I do not accept most Christian dogma, because, in the end, it hurts people by its rigidness, and tends to look at people in boxes, rather than listening and appreciating them for who they are. I am absolutely firm that Jesus has never promoted that.
So where is God in this? Well, I believe God created us, and so established a certain kind of morality within us (as well as gave Jesus to direct it). An atheist can hold that the morality is the end process of a long line of compromises, but as long as they are humanitarian in focus-- as Hitchens is-- then I'm okay with that.
What bothers me is when he calls the New Testament "immoral", because he is ultimately calling me, who tries to live my life following the principles of that document, immoral for doing so. That is the equivalent of me calling an atheist "immoral" because they are an atheist, which I have never done. I would appreciate it if he would return the favor. Just because his, non-scholarly, interpretation of the text is immoral doesn't make the text so.
Okay, rant over. I spend a lot of time thinking about ethics, so it just comes out. Trust me, this one was short.
I'll probably surprise you by saying that I do NOT think that our ethics come from religion. Not our base nature to do good. Rather, I think there is a lot of our morality that comes innately, from our adult minds, no matter who we are, or what culture we live in.
As we become mature adults, we realize not only that other people exist, but that they are the equal to ourselves. That our brothers, sisters, friends, boy/girlfriends, spouses, and co-workers are the equivalent of ourselves. And that is the essence of morality, the basic moral principle that exists in almost every ethical system-- that others need to be treated in the manner in which we wish to be treated, because (the basic ethical realization) they are the same as us.
Now, this logic, for most of us, only goes this far. We have people that we treat as equals and then people that we treat as non-equals. For some, we treat people as more than us-- celebrities, politicians, etc-- while others we treat as less than us-- children, the developmentally disabled, our parent with Alzheimer's. Anyway, the liberal will give lip service to the fact that everyone has basic rights and should be treated equally. Some don't feel that it is necessary. But the morally progressive person will look at the other for who they are and try to meet their social and possibly physical needs in as much as is socially acceptable.
In morality, the best of religions or ethicists will guide one in relationships to do that which is the best for all concerned. However, this usually requires reason, because morality requires context, while most religions only give rules. And rules are not the best way to determine morality.
And honestly, this is one of the reasons I hang my hat with Jesus, because he recognized the flexibility of situations and so gave principles instead of rules. And, in fact, one of his principles is that any law-- religious or otherwise-- is to be marginalized if it harms another person. It is why I do not accept most Christian dogma, because, in the end, it hurts people by its rigidness, and tends to look at people in boxes, rather than listening and appreciating them for who they are. I am absolutely firm that Jesus has never promoted that.
So where is God in this? Well, I believe God created us, and so established a certain kind of morality within us (as well as gave Jesus to direct it). An atheist can hold that the morality is the end process of a long line of compromises, but as long as they are humanitarian in focus-- as Hitchens is-- then I'm okay with that.
What bothers me is when he calls the New Testament "immoral", because he is ultimately calling me, who tries to live my life following the principles of that document, immoral for doing so. That is the equivalent of me calling an atheist "immoral" because they are an atheist, which I have never done. I would appreciate it if he would return the favor. Just because his, non-scholarly, interpretation of the text is immoral doesn't make the text so.
Okay, rant over. I spend a lot of time thinking about ethics, so it just comes out. Trust me, this one was short.
Is Religion Bad?
Certainly religions have done terrible things. Wars have been fought, people murdered, children abused, etc. All for the sake of, or in the name of, religion. Christopher Hitchens goes on about this in his book, and you can read that, if you like. Lots of description of wrong, there.
But if we looked at religion's virtues, instead of the punishment of vices, we see a different picture. For what reason would we have to forgive someone's sins, except for religion? To be nice to someone? That means nothing when, like the Amish, someone shoots into a school, killing all the girls. Why did the Amish forgive? Because of religion. No other reason than that. And this forgiveness isn't perverse, but beautiful. And that picture wouldn't be found without religion supporting it.
What about the humility of the saints? Certainly one could find a number of people who are bold, proud, and self-seeking in religion. But where do you find the truly humble, those who work at it as if a daily exercise? Only in religion. Yet without humility the world would be a much darker place. Without humility, we would all be self-seeking, self-aggrandizing. Humility is part of the beauty of the world, and it is glorified only in religion.
I have an atheist friend of mine who complains about Christian charity work. He's not unhappy it exists-- on the contrary. But he says that it is a shame that there is very little charity work for the homeless, the needy, the immigrants from a non-religious basis. It is there, but for some reason, it is hard to get people stirred up to love one's neighbor practically, to take that extra step, unless it is done on a religious basis. We need to remember that it is religion that instituted giving to the poor. It is religion that continues to offer the best reasons for sacrificing one's own goods to those in need.
In sum, the world would be much poorer without religion, even on a secular basis. If religion did not exist, someone would have to invent it.
But if we looked at religion's virtues, instead of the punishment of vices, we see a different picture. For what reason would we have to forgive someone's sins, except for religion? To be nice to someone? That means nothing when, like the Amish, someone shoots into a school, killing all the girls. Why did the Amish forgive? Because of religion. No other reason than that. And this forgiveness isn't perverse, but beautiful. And that picture wouldn't be found without religion supporting it.
What about the humility of the saints? Certainly one could find a number of people who are bold, proud, and self-seeking in religion. But where do you find the truly humble, those who work at it as if a daily exercise? Only in religion. Yet without humility the world would be a much darker place. Without humility, we would all be self-seeking, self-aggrandizing. Humility is part of the beauty of the world, and it is glorified only in religion.
I have an atheist friend of mine who complains about Christian charity work. He's not unhappy it exists-- on the contrary. But he says that it is a shame that there is very little charity work for the homeless, the needy, the immigrants from a non-religious basis. It is there, but for some reason, it is hard to get people stirred up to love one's neighbor practically, to take that extra step, unless it is done on a religious basis. We need to remember that it is religion that instituted giving to the poor. It is religion that continues to offer the best reasons for sacrificing one's own goods to those in need.
In sum, the world would be much poorer without religion, even on a secular basis. If religion did not exist, someone would have to invent it.
Special protection for Religion?
One of the main problems with religion in general is its special status in governments. This is less problematic than it used to be, such as when European nations would declare themselves "Catholic" or "Protestant" and then battle against other nations or their own people who accorded to themselves the other status. But even today, religions are granted special protections from taxes and immunity from some kinds of prosecution.
Why should this be a problem? Well, it gives the impression that an institution is special or deserving protection simply because it is a religion. It also assists a religion to assume certain airs, as if they are deserving of such privileges automatically.
But the fact is, one of the main indicators of true religion is the unjust persecution it suffers. If the adherents of a religion continue in their belief despite persecution, prosecution, financial hardship and rejection, then they truly believe, it isn't just a show. If someone holds to a religion, and they get special privileges for being a religion, then why is belief necessary? It is enough reason to be a religion only because of the special privileges.
For this reason many church leaders are hypocrites, and many church members give only to seek out tax relief. If all that were stripped away, we would see more clearly what people really believe. Take away the professional status of ministers. Take away the financial benefits of being a church. And begin to seriously prosecute churches for the wrongs they've done. When the benefits are stripped away, then we'll see who's left.
Why should this be a problem? Well, it gives the impression that an institution is special or deserving protection simply because it is a religion. It also assists a religion to assume certain airs, as if they are deserving of such privileges automatically.
But the fact is, one of the main indicators of true religion is the unjust persecution it suffers. If the adherents of a religion continue in their belief despite persecution, prosecution, financial hardship and rejection, then they truly believe, it isn't just a show. If someone holds to a religion, and they get special privileges for being a religion, then why is belief necessary? It is enough reason to be a religion only because of the special privileges.
For this reason many church leaders are hypocrites, and many church members give only to seek out tax relief. If all that were stripped away, we would see more clearly what people really believe. Take away the professional status of ministers. Take away the financial benefits of being a church. And begin to seriously prosecute churches for the wrongs they've done. When the benefits are stripped away, then we'll see who's left.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Apologies
Sorry that I haven't been posting as much here. It's not that I haven't been doing my reading. I've been devouring the book God Is Not Great, actually. It's simply that I haven't had as much time for writing, because I've been getting ready for a fundraiser that Anawim is having tomorrow.
I will give a tidbit, which I will say in depth later:
The problem with religion is when it separates itself from humanism. If people get so focussed on their idea of God that people don't matter any more-- or certain people-- then religion is worthless. In fact, any form of any religion that forgets about the basic tenant to "love your neighbor" or to help the poor or to have compassion-- that religion is a part of what is corrupting and demonic about humanity.
It is just as John said: "If anyone says 'I love God' but hates his brothers, is a liar. For no one who hates his brother, whom he can see, can love God whom he cannot see." I John 4:20. If we love God, then loving humanity goes hand in hand with that. If we do not do good to humanity, we do not love God.
Well, that's all for today. Gotta run.
I will give a tidbit, which I will say in depth later:
The problem with religion is when it separates itself from humanism. If people get so focussed on their idea of God that people don't matter any more-- or certain people-- then religion is worthless. In fact, any form of any religion that forgets about the basic tenant to "love your neighbor" or to help the poor or to have compassion-- that religion is a part of what is corrupting and demonic about humanity.
It is just as John said: "If anyone says 'I love God' but hates his brothers, is a liar. For no one who hates his brother, whom he can see, can love God whom he cannot see." I John 4:20. If we love God, then loving humanity goes hand in hand with that. If we do not do good to humanity, we do not love God.
Well, that's all for today. Gotta run.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Religious Persecution v. Support
Mind you, in some nations certain religious groups are needing special protection, like, for instance, Feng Shui in China. And religious people are often persecuted for their religious belief that is different from the mainstream belief. Baptized Muslims are severely persecuted by families. Baha’i groups are persecuted in Iran.
This is a part of the cultural process of change. A group comes up with an innovative cultural idea that varies from the mainstream. The alternative group is persecuted, which makes them tightly knit. The persecuted group is granted sympathy by some of the mainstream culture. This grants them a semi-legitimate status, which the authorities tend not to recognize. Then the culture adopts the alternative group as their own, thus changing the landscape of the mainstream culture.
However, it is damaging to grant established religious groups protected or a special status. First of all, it circumvents the process of normal cultural change. It grants an established group the status of a persecuted group, and even more. This causes damage to the established group, in many ways. First of all, because the leaders of the group tend to be afforded the status and comforts of important leaders, they do not normally strive for truth or morality, nor are they given to the energetic exuberance that truth-seekers are known for. Yes, truth-seekers can be guilty of tunnel vision or judgmentalism, but that is how new ideas are born.
If religious leaders are striving after status and comfort instead of truth, then they tend to fall back on traditionalism and ritual, which are the real killers of religion. If a religion is only looking to the past for truth, instead of applying truth and morality to modern circumstances, then the religion is fit for only those who look to the past. For this reason, energetic groups can die as their congregation ages. They are stuck in tradition and ritual and so have nothing to offer young people. And it is this traditionalism that often destroys any positive progress and forces people to live in old ways that don’t work for the new cultural mainstream. Nor do they challenge the cultural mainstream with a better ethical perspective.
This is a part of the cultural process of change. A group comes up with an innovative cultural idea that varies from the mainstream. The alternative group is persecuted, which makes them tightly knit. The persecuted group is granted sympathy by some of the mainstream culture. This grants them a semi-legitimate status, which the authorities tend not to recognize. Then the culture adopts the alternative group as their own, thus changing the landscape of the mainstream culture.
However, it is damaging to grant established religious groups protected or a special status. First of all, it circumvents the process of normal cultural change. It grants an established group the status of a persecuted group, and even more. This causes damage to the established group, in many ways. First of all, because the leaders of the group tend to be afforded the status and comforts of important leaders, they do not normally strive for truth or morality, nor are they given to the energetic exuberance that truth-seekers are known for. Yes, truth-seekers can be guilty of tunnel vision or judgmentalism, but that is how new ideas are born.
If religious leaders are striving after status and comfort instead of truth, then they tend to fall back on traditionalism and ritual, which are the real killers of religion. If a religion is only looking to the past for truth, instead of applying truth and morality to modern circumstances, then the religion is fit for only those who look to the past. For this reason, energetic groups can die as their congregation ages. They are stuck in tradition and ritual and so have nothing to offer young people. And it is this traditionalism that often destroys any positive progress and forces people to live in old ways that don’t work for the new cultural mainstream. Nor do they challenge the cultural mainstream with a better ethical perspective.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Humanity Is The Problem
Mr. Hitchens spends a lot of time resting problems at religion's door. In one section, he lists out atrocities made against children: The passing of genital herpes to newborn boys in a circumcision rite, the molestation of children by Catholic priests and female circumcision. He also mentions various wars and religious-based enmities.
I love the joke he mentioned at one point:
An atheist is walking down a street in Belfast, when a group of young men approach him and threateningly say, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" The man explains that he is neither, but an atheist. Unfazed, they respond, "So. Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"
But the joke hints at the weakness of his argument. He is putting all of these faults at religion's door, as if were religion not there, these issues would never have happened. However, the problem is not religion, but humanity.
The fight between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland have little to do with religion, per se, but with a cultural clash in which religion is simply the label. Hitchens mentions that the fight between the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" should better be termed "religious cleansing"-- but that is clearly not true. The clash is one of worldview, of which religious beliefs are only a part. There are values that have nothing to do with religion, and beliefs that are not taught in churches or a mosque.
Female circumcision is not a religious practice, but a tribal one, based on tribal values that have nothing to do with orthodox Islam. The molestation of children in the Catholic Church is in opposition to the practice of the church, not in accord with it. And while we can say that their practice to cease this practice was inadequate at best, the records show that they did try to stop the practice. (I'll put a post in my personally named thread about the actions at a later time) Certainly mentally ill people have used religion to further their own damaged minds, but they are not using it in an orthodox way or a proper way.
Let us suppose that religion was eradicated a thousand years ago. No one believed in God or that values come from religion. Do you think that any of these practices would have not happened? On the contrary, because they are cultural practices, not necessarily religious ones, they would have happened anyway. Women would still be oppressed in Muslim countries because it is a traditional society, not because it is a religious one. The wars that occurred would have still happened-- all except possibly the 30 years war in Europe-- because there was much more happening to cause these wars than simply religion.
Six million Jews would have been slaughtered even if religion did not exist.
The Rwandan genocide would have happened even if religion did not exist.
Slavery would have happened even if religion did not exist.
9/11 would have happened even if religion did not exist.
Perhaps there are a few things you could rest at religion's door, such as the 30 years war. Children dying because of lack of medical care. Suicide cults. The massacre at Waco. However, it could also be said that if people were able to understand these sectarian groups and talk to them on their level, then perhaps some of these tragedies could have been averted.
It is my firm belief that religion is rarely the problem for the world's ills. Lack of understanding and communication between cultures causes much more harm.
I love the joke he mentioned at one point:
An atheist is walking down a street in Belfast, when a group of young men approach him and threateningly say, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" The man explains that he is neither, but an atheist. Unfazed, they respond, "So. Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"
But the joke hints at the weakness of his argument. He is putting all of these faults at religion's door, as if were religion not there, these issues would never have happened. However, the problem is not religion, but humanity.
The fight between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland have little to do with religion, per se, but with a cultural clash in which religion is simply the label. Hitchens mentions that the fight between the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" should better be termed "religious cleansing"-- but that is clearly not true. The clash is one of worldview, of which religious beliefs are only a part. There are values that have nothing to do with religion, and beliefs that are not taught in churches or a mosque.
Female circumcision is not a religious practice, but a tribal one, based on tribal values that have nothing to do with orthodox Islam. The molestation of children in the Catholic Church is in opposition to the practice of the church, not in accord with it. And while we can say that their practice to cease this practice was inadequate at best, the records show that they did try to stop the practice. (I'll put a post in my personally named thread about the actions at a later time) Certainly mentally ill people have used religion to further their own damaged minds, but they are not using it in an orthodox way or a proper way.
Let us suppose that religion was eradicated a thousand years ago. No one believed in God or that values come from religion. Do you think that any of these practices would have not happened? On the contrary, because they are cultural practices, not necessarily religious ones, they would have happened anyway. Women would still be oppressed in Muslim countries because it is a traditional society, not because it is a religious one. The wars that occurred would have still happened-- all except possibly the 30 years war in Europe-- because there was much more happening to cause these wars than simply religion.
Six million Jews would have been slaughtered even if religion did not exist.
The Rwandan genocide would have happened even if religion did not exist.
Slavery would have happened even if religion did not exist.
9/11 would have happened even if religion did not exist.
Perhaps there are a few things you could rest at religion's door, such as the 30 years war. Children dying because of lack of medical care. Suicide cults. The massacre at Waco. However, it could also be said that if people were able to understand these sectarian groups and talk to them on their level, then perhaps some of these tragedies could have been averted.
It is my firm belief that religion is rarely the problem for the world's ills. Lack of understanding and communication between cultures causes much more harm.
"God Is Not Great"
For the next set of posts, I'm going to be writing in response to God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchins. This may seem a little different for a theology blog, but I've been wanting to read a book from one of the recent evangelists of atheism. I wanted to read partly because of curiosity of what they had to say about religion, but also because they are offering a theological perspective, even if it is an anti-theology.
I refused to read one of Richard Dawkins' books, because in interviews I heard of him, I found him arrogant and rude, and I didn't want to be goaded into anger. After listening (I'm hearing the audio book) to Hitchins for a couple chapters, I find his arguments to be reasonable, plausible, and, most of all, polite. He is not there to mock believers, but to explain why he feels that religion is backward and even hazardous to humanity as a whole.
I am happy to interact with this book, and I hope that I can express my retort in as politely and firmly as he.
I refused to read one of Richard Dawkins' books, because in interviews I heard of him, I found him arrogant and rude, and I didn't want to be goaded into anger. After listening (I'm hearing the audio book) to Hitchins for a couple chapters, I find his arguments to be reasonable, plausible, and, most of all, polite. He is not there to mock believers, but to explain why he feels that religion is backward and even hazardous to humanity as a whole.
I am happy to interact with this book, and I hope that I can express my retort in as politely and firmly as he.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)