Tuesday, October 30, 2012



idée fixe

For a long time I’ve been circling around and around the notion that perhaps religion is the problem rather than a solution for a hurting world in deep trouble.  Big, global troubles often are tinged, sometimes even dominated, by conflict from two or more religious groups.  Whatever else it included, the Nazi ideology was noted for its determination to eradicate the Jewish religion from the face of the earth by killing Jews. The Serbian-Croation confict of two decades ago in Eastern Europe pitted Orthodox Christian against Roman Catholic Christians.  City councils and school boards routinely spend hours coping with angry constituents who are insisting that “the other party” must restricted from promoting or objecting to another group’s programs. In my city a cross stands on public land as a tribute to fallen soldiers. For as long as I can remember there have been individual citizens and organized groups who object to the cross on public land because, they say, it violates the principle (and laws) guaranteeing separation of church and state.  Providing students in public schools with information about contraception and/or abortion inevitably draws an often angry response from religious organization.  


I admit that I tend to look for links between violence and religion; and when either or both parties in violent conflicts claim their religious institutions are offended or violated, I have assumed a major reason for the conflict is religion. A good friend whom I respect and like very much has suggested that I should take some time to examine more closely my reasons for linking violence to religion.  She posits a second reason why most angry, violent people respond with anger and violence to people who disagree with them.  Perhaps, she says, it is absolutism that’s the problem.. whether the absolutism is coupled with religious dogma and conviction or with political or social movements and ideas. So I’m going to try to be open to the possibility that religion is more benefit than trouble for communities.  After all, I really like Christmas.  I like going to visit churches and synagogues and mosques and temples.

I’ll see if I can work through it, but I confess (I’m aware that confessing is a religious impulse or maybe obligationd.) I don’t know exactly where to start. But at the onset of this exploration, I’m going to have to decide what to do about Westboro  Baptist Church and Ayman al-Zawahiri.   Of course, I’m going to have to find some reason other than his religious beliefs that Keeps Pastor Fred Phelps and his parishioners out there with their signs declaring that God hates fags and promoting DEATH TO QUEERS.    Now take the Taliban... that’s going to be a tough one for me.  It’s my understanding that they really did send a guy out to kill a teenage girl in Pakistan just because she wants to go to school and had the audacity to talk about it... and it’s also my understanding that the fanatics in that particular religion say they believe God doesn’t want females to be educated... or to drive... or actually to be seen in public. But I’m going to give it a shot.  

I’m going to begin by recalling that my Grandmothers and my Mother and a whole bunch of the best people I’ve ever known have been religious. I’ll admit that as far as I know Mr. Benedict, Aunt Chat and Uncle Bert, in spite of their moral absolutist beliefs, were never mean and spiteful. 

I began this writing late in the day and haven’t had time to give the project the thought it deserves.  I’m going to work on it.  Perhaps I should begin by examining my own reasons for continuing to go to church regularly even into old age... and to admit that I like it or I wouldn’t do it.  More to come.











2 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that research on old religious texts suggest that a number of the world great religions originally were based on sayings that did not dictate how the world should be, but that took the forms of individual sayings that problematized certain social situations, i.e., that challenged the way certain things were understood, how those understandings shaped the way that those who believed them understood key aspects of reality, how those understandings controlled or at least impacted how those people acted in certain types of social situations, and how such ensuing behavior benefitted some types of people in society at the expense of others. This type of religion is challenging, expands consciousness, promotes independent, analytical thinking, and challenges ideological hegemony. Such a tradition tends to challenge control based on beliefs and the legitimacy of those entrenched beliefs themselves. As one writer put it, a man with one clock always knows what time it is, but a man with two clocks is dangerous. The other type of religion is one that has a static canon of texts that tells you the exact way things should be understood and what its god wants you to do. Such religions are generally hierarchical power structures that promote absolutism through a body of laws, commandments or whatever that its deity or deities promulgate as the “right” things to do, confer power on those who are the officers of that faith, and proscribe as deviant thoughts and activities that challenge its dogma. Personally, I prefer religions that result in two or more clocks and the “dangerous” people that they produce.

dcpeg said...

You are definitely onto something regarding religion and its fanatical followings. I'llbe interested to read the rest of your thoughts on it.