"Religion provides solace for the chaos it creates." -Retired Mennonite pastor.
We can't say that about politics, that's for sure.
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.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
An Outline of Basic Ethical Principles
Context:
God knows how best to live, so we should listen to Him as to how He created the world to work.
1. Give Freedom
Every sentient adult is free to make their own choices, as long as they do not harm the community at large.
2. Be Responsible
“If you make a mess, clean it up”—We must correct any wrongs that we have done.
If you wrong another person, make it right in as much as you are able.
3. Community life
If you belong to a community—no matter how small or how large—abide by the rules of the community or find another community to live in.
4. Faithfulness
We must keep our promises or apologize for not doing so.
We must be loyal in a way that is appropriate in a relationship.
5. Do No Harm
Cause no damage to another unless it is for their benefit and/or with their stated permission.
6. Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do To You
Treat others as you would have them treat you, recognizing that everyone has different ways of receiving respect, help, etc.
7. Love Your Neighbor
Meet the needs of anyone you see who has needs, in as much as you are able.
8. Lay Down Your Life
Sacrifice your own needs for the sake of others’, especially for the weak who need protection.
God knows how best to live, so we should listen to Him as to how He created the world to work.
1. Give Freedom
Every sentient adult is free to make their own choices, as long as they do not harm the community at large.
2. Be Responsible
“If you make a mess, clean it up”—We must correct any wrongs that we have done.
If you wrong another person, make it right in as much as you are able.
3. Community life
If you belong to a community—no matter how small or how large—abide by the rules of the community or find another community to live in.
4. Faithfulness
We must keep our promises or apologize for not doing so.
We must be loyal in a way that is appropriate in a relationship.
5. Do No Harm
Cause no damage to another unless it is for their benefit and/or with their stated permission.
6. Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do To You
Treat others as you would have them treat you, recognizing that everyone has different ways of receiving respect, help, etc.
7. Love Your Neighbor
Meet the needs of anyone you see who has needs, in as much as you are able.
8. Lay Down Your Life
Sacrifice your own needs for the sake of others’, especially for the weak who need protection.
Friday, March 26, 2010
"Virtue" v. Struggle
To speak of people as virtuous or as evil is a misnomer. Even if there are people who do evil, they also do their best to be virtuous within the context they have placed themselves. People who are virtuous often see themselves as having vices that mar their character—which is always partly true.
Aristotle labels people as having “virtue” or “vice”—simple good and evil, black and white. But he also has a label of “conscientious”—people who are desiring to live a life of virtue, struggle with it and is always slipping into a life of vice. This is the struggling person, the one who knows what he or she ought to do, fights to do it, and fails.
It is this struggle that is the key to life. The virtuous person, as they struggle against their vice or vices, they retain their virtue. The evil person, with the amount of effort and help they seek to overcome their vice, can become virtuous. Perhaps they only become a struggler, a wrestler against the evil within their soul—but that fighter is of a noble character.
Far more noble than the one who looks at vice straight in the face and claims it is virtue. Far more noble than the one who lives in vice, and shrugs and says, “It’s the way of the world, what can I do?” Far more noble than the otherwise virtuous person who makes peace with their vice, no matter how many people it harms.
It is the struggle that makes one personally noble, more than the natural bent to do good. However, it is the success in that struggle that makes someone a positive person to live with.
Aristotle labels people as having “virtue” or “vice”—simple good and evil, black and white. But he also has a label of “conscientious”—people who are desiring to live a life of virtue, struggle with it and is always slipping into a life of vice. This is the struggling person, the one who knows what he or she ought to do, fights to do it, and fails.
It is this struggle that is the key to life. The virtuous person, as they struggle against their vice or vices, they retain their virtue. The evil person, with the amount of effort and help they seek to overcome their vice, can become virtuous. Perhaps they only become a struggler, a wrestler against the evil within their soul—but that fighter is of a noble character.
Far more noble than the one who looks at vice straight in the face and claims it is virtue. Far more noble than the one who lives in vice, and shrugs and says, “It’s the way of the world, what can I do?” Far more noble than the otherwise virtuous person who makes peace with their vice, no matter how many people it harms.
It is the struggle that makes one personally noble, more than the natural bent to do good. However, it is the success in that struggle that makes someone a positive person to live with.
Totalitarianism
Response to lecture series: Visions of Utopia
Totalitarianism limits human nature to it’s social function. An individual is simply a tool for the social order. Despots tend to be idealists, without any concept of individual worth. This is in opposition to the most natural ethical law—that all mature human beings are equal, and deserves to be treated equally. Totalitarianism is for those who participate in society, for full citizens. But any individual citizen can be destroyed for the good of the whole. The idea that every human organism is a society in and of itself, deserving of respect and freedom to do good is unknown. This is to not see humanity as God created them, and is denying the gifts God has granted each individual.
Totalitarianism limits human nature to it’s social function. An individual is simply a tool for the social order. Despots tend to be idealists, without any concept of individual worth. This is in opposition to the most natural ethical law—that all mature human beings are equal, and deserves to be treated equally. Totalitarianism is for those who participate in society, for full citizens. But any individual citizen can be destroyed for the good of the whole. The idea that every human organism is a society in and of itself, deserving of respect and freedom to do good is unknown. This is to not see humanity as God created them, and is denying the gifts God has granted each individual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)