![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This my reply to this thread in this post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
joedecker. I told him I would move the discussion over to my journal. I am posting it mainly because I didn't want to lose my thoughts on this subject.
Scripture teaches us to kill gays, to kill people who mix certain fibers in their clothes. Tradition concurs with the former, but not the latter. I choose reason instead, not as one of three pillars, but as the pillar.
And reason tells us that the reasons for the existence of the Levitical code have a lot to do with living in the 2nd century B.C.E. Judean desert, and most are irrelevant or harmful to life in the 21st century, and where that is the case we do not follow them. (We also look to Christ's actions and words instructing us to love our neighbors -- which means everbody.) Reason tells us that our tradition restricting the priesthood to men is harmful to people of faith of both sexes, so we have women priests. And that the tradition restricting the priesthood to heterosexuals deprives all of the church community of the gifts of those who would otherwise be great pastors and leaders, and so we have gay and lesbian priests. (I am speaking here of the Episcopalian diocese of which I am a member.)
But Scripture also tells us to care for our fellow human beings: which is why my church has people who are heavily involved in things such as Habitat for Humanity, and our diocese has a social services organization in San Jose, and why Catholic charities in the U.S. have provided a lot of help for a lot of people -- not just Catholics. Which is *not* to say that good things are not accomplished by people with no religious orientation at all, by agnostics and atheists. It's just that, for many people, altruism is not a "reasonable" position in and of itself. Left to my own devices, without some sort of moral guidelines, I'm not sure I wouldn't be a much different person, a much less caring person, in terms of how I view the world. Which may indicate a character flaw in me, I'm quite ready to concede.
A blind reliance on "reason" is as much a faith position as a blind reliance on "religion." Most of the issues that people come to blows over in this society really revolve around "reason." An argument over when life begins is not, even though anti-abortion people toss around God's name a lot, essentially a religious argument: the Bible does not tell us when a fetus is old enough to be considered a human being. It comes from people using their reason to come to different understandings of what "life" (or the potential for life) means. It *becomes* a religious argument when people buttress their positions by calling on a higher authority.
Reason will never be, can never be, objective, being limited as it is by our personal experiences. Neither is spirituality objective -- but at least most people recognize that.
You're right, that organized religion has done a lot of evil in the world. My hunch, and maybe I'm just fatalistic about this, is that a lot of that evil would have been done regardless: people who are intent on power and subjugating others will find some other organizing principle. And they will have followers who aren't bright enough not to follow.
Yes, organized religion has given us Crusades, witch-burnings, terrorists (not just Islamic ones, either) and the mess in Israel and a president who misguidedly believes he's on a mission from God.
But organized religion has also given us the Quakers, Mother Teresa's work in the slums of Calcutta, Martin Luther King and Martin Neimoller and Deitrich Bonhoffer. Many of the early abolitionists were religiously-minded folk -- a number of them preachers. And while the white churches in the South in the first half of the 20th century were, for the most part, bastions of racism, the black churches nourished the civil rights movement and gave hope to their members. On a daily basis, religious organizations give many people around the world hope and comfort.
So the answer is not to do away with organized religion -- people will just organize around something else anyway -- but for religions to recognize and cherish those who call them to account for their actions and to be willing to admit wrongdoing, ask forgiveness, and change. Which may not happen anytime soon, I recognize.
joedecker. I told him I would move the discussion over to my journal. I am posting it mainly because I didn't want to lose my thoughts on this subject.Scripture teaches us to kill gays, to kill people who mix certain fibers in their clothes. Tradition concurs with the former, but not the latter. I choose reason instead, not as one of three pillars, but as the pillar.
And reason tells us that the reasons for the existence of the Levitical code have a lot to do with living in the 2nd century B.C.E. Judean desert, and most are irrelevant or harmful to life in the 21st century, and where that is the case we do not follow them. (We also look to Christ's actions and words instructing us to love our neighbors -- which means everbody.) Reason tells us that our tradition restricting the priesthood to men is harmful to people of faith of both sexes, so we have women priests. And that the tradition restricting the priesthood to heterosexuals deprives all of the church community of the gifts of those who would otherwise be great pastors and leaders, and so we have gay and lesbian priests. (I am speaking here of the Episcopalian diocese of which I am a member.)
But Scripture also tells us to care for our fellow human beings: which is why my church has people who are heavily involved in things such as Habitat for Humanity, and our diocese has a social services organization in San Jose, and why Catholic charities in the U.S. have provided a lot of help for a lot of people -- not just Catholics. Which is *not* to say that good things are not accomplished by people with no religious orientation at all, by agnostics and atheists. It's just that, for many people, altruism is not a "reasonable" position in and of itself. Left to my own devices, without some sort of moral guidelines, I'm not sure I wouldn't be a much different person, a much less caring person, in terms of how I view the world. Which may indicate a character flaw in me, I'm quite ready to concede.
A blind reliance on "reason" is as much a faith position as a blind reliance on "religion." Most of the issues that people come to blows over in this society really revolve around "reason." An argument over when life begins is not, even though anti-abortion people toss around God's name a lot, essentially a religious argument: the Bible does not tell us when a fetus is old enough to be considered a human being. It comes from people using their reason to come to different understandings of what "life" (or the potential for life) means. It *becomes* a religious argument when people buttress their positions by calling on a higher authority.
Reason will never be, can never be, objective, being limited as it is by our personal experiences. Neither is spirituality objective -- but at least most people recognize that.
You're right, that organized religion has done a lot of evil in the world. My hunch, and maybe I'm just fatalistic about this, is that a lot of that evil would have been done regardless: people who are intent on power and subjugating others will find some other organizing principle. And they will have followers who aren't bright enough not to follow.
Yes, organized religion has given us Crusades, witch-burnings, terrorists (not just Islamic ones, either) and the mess in Israel and a president who misguidedly believes he's on a mission from God.
But organized religion has also given us the Quakers, Mother Teresa's work in the slums of Calcutta, Martin Luther King and Martin Neimoller and Deitrich Bonhoffer. Many of the early abolitionists were religiously-minded folk -- a number of them preachers. And while the white churches in the South in the first half of the 20th century were, for the most part, bastions of racism, the black churches nourished the civil rights movement and gave hope to their members. On a daily basis, religious organizations give many people around the world hope and comfort.
So the answer is not to do away with organized religion -- people will just organize around something else anyway -- but for religions to recognize and cherish those who call them to account for their actions and to be willing to admit wrongdoing, ask forgiveness, and change. Which may not happen anytime soon, I recognize.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
In my initial posting, I posited that we essentially get our morality from empathy but are often taught to behave in a moral fashion by religions first. Others believe that their religion is the foundation of their moralilty. So when you talk about one's one "sense of right and wrong" and how religion may or may not agree with it, where do you suppose that sense comes from initially?
From:
no subject
First of all, I don't think you can weigh the good religion does against its evils. The equations are simply too complex. And most of the evils tend to be obvious, while often the good is less so.
Religion can give people a sense of meaning to their lives. Religion can provide community and a sense of connection to others. Where I live, it is not uncommon for people to struggle with alienation and loneliness. Churches can help provide an antidote for that.
Churches can help people care for each other. When I had surgery last year, and had complications later, for the most part it was people in my church who brought my family dinners while I was in the hospital. People from church called frequently and came by to see how I was doing.
Churches can provide an organizing ground for social action. My church has taken under its wing an orphanage in Tijuana, Mexico -- providing money and other support. We are one of many churches which support a group of homes for the medically needy in Gaza. This Saturday, my church is holding an event to raise money for a social services agency run by our diocese, which helps many people, without regard to religious affilitation. Even the Roman Catholic Church, for all its evil in spreading disinformation about condoms and AIDS, has spoken out in defense of the poor and downtrodden in many countries.
Are churches the only places where such things take place? No. But then again, religion is not the only principle which people use to commit evil, either. Look at Stalin. Look at the death toll under Mao Tse-tung.
From:
no subject
It's there in exactly the same quotient as it is in man. It's not intrinsically either.
As far as I can see religion is truly a double edged sword. That's it just two edges. Sure they can look extraordinarily complicated. Especially when some people believe in the stories behind them while others treat them like other works of fiction. But it's just two sides.
The good side, is it gives us a sense of US. All that community jazz, helping your fellow man, being a good sport: it's all about us. There is an us and we're just like me. So I better treat all of us like I would like to be treated.
The other side is THEM. Some would like there to be an us without a them but religion gives you a them. Which is the loophole that allows for man's greatest inhumanities to take place under the flag of religion. We would never do that to one of us but one them, heck they deserve it.
And I don't think it's worth it to define us by not them. Other institutions do it too but Religions did it first and continues to do it most effectively.