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.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
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.
Public Religion
Religion is both private and public. It is private in that it relates to one’s personal experience of God. That experience is personal in nature and typically non-repeatable, just as a conversation with a good friend would be. However, religion is also public in that one’s experience of God is shared with others and it changes one’s activity with others, hopefully in a positive way.
If any person has a relationship with God, it would be significant and life-transforming. If a person can keep their relationship with God private, not effecting anyone else, then that would be different and less meaningful than any other relationship we have. It doesn't matter if one is a politician, judge, pastor, printer or construction worker. If we have a relationship with God, it would only be fair to let others know this, as it is appropriate. Because the more intimate we become with others, then the more our relationship with God effects them.
This can be difficult because people judge other people's relationship with God. So we have to approach such communication carefully. We can begin with a general term, "I'm Jewish" for instance (if it's true) and if that seems well received, we can move onto more deep revelations of ourselves-- "God once told me to feed peanut butter to the fish that controls the weather." It's important.
If any person has a relationship with God, it would be significant and life-transforming. If a person can keep their relationship with God private, not effecting anyone else, then that would be different and less meaningful than any other relationship we have. It doesn't matter if one is a politician, judge, pastor, printer or construction worker. If we have a relationship with God, it would only be fair to let others know this, as it is appropriate. Because the more intimate we become with others, then the more our relationship with God effects them.
This can be difficult because people judge other people's relationship with God. So we have to approach such communication carefully. We can begin with a general term, "I'm Jewish" for instance (if it's true) and if that seems well received, we can move onto more deep revelations of ourselves-- "God once told me to feed peanut butter to the fish that controls the weather." It's important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)