That was a good comment (and I did not delete the post because of you), although your Shakespeare analogy is shaky. People can love Shakespeare, but it is not, generally speaking, a system by which people live; also, people are rarely killed or disowned because of Shakespeare plays (regardless of how well they are staged or filmed). With respect to the idea of the beauty of the art being lost in translation, though, your analogy is sound.
And, where religion as applied by one person causes pain or suffering to another, it ceases to be viable and becomes instead tyranny (or, when wrapped in a turban, terrorism). The course of two people's lives has been shattered because of one woman's application of religion. The state of Indiana offers Patrick's partner no recourse under the law - and this is, at the very least, a tacit endorsement of religion by the state. No system that tramples the rights of those who do not accept its primacy can stand in a society of the truly free.
Religion, when you get right down to the bare bones, is personal. As such, its correct application cannot be taught, per se. No one can be moved to action by the order of someone acting on beliefs that they believe are more right than the beliefs of that other person. In the secular world, that is tyranny. Fold religion into the mix and it becomes theocracy.
Religion can be very comforting for those who feel that they need it. On the other side of the coin, however, religion can be extremely dangerous - especially for those who have come to the airtight conclusion that they do not need it in the least.
People hold up freedom as an ideal in this country - maybe more than in any country in the world. What far too many of them fail to realize is that the idea of freedom includes the freedom to reject religion utterly. When the über-religious stop proselytizing to those whom they have not assimilated into the collective, then we can call our society truly free. When that happens, the religious will have stopped believing that the non-religious are wrong; and that will exterminate the possibility of theocracy. Until then, religion can be very, very dangerous.
George W. Bush has vetoed two stem cell bills based on his own personal religious belief. I have a big problem with that. He stood in the way of free scientific inquiry, prevented the going forward of a science that has a potential it will likely never realize (in large part because of his beliefs and the influence of those beliefs on his actions), because of the way he interprets religion. He is afraid, as are many religious people, that the goal of science is to trump religion. This is not the case.
Science seeks merely to explain, but it has the power to explain away nearly everything that religion has offered up as an explanation. The ultra-conservative religious people are afraid of science because they think it will subvert religion. If they believe their own arguments, however, then everything that exists came from their god, and that includes science. But they don't understand this because they are afraid. They are afraid that they are wrong. They are afraid that science will one day answer the biggest question of all.
Why are we here?
I don't believe that science will answer that question. Based on the size of the universe, its age, and the fragile nature of human beings, no human being is likely ever to get to the bottom of why we are here. If God did create man in His own image, then He tied up that loose end pretty nicely. And He gave people the free will to figure out the rest of it.
As for me, I could care less why we're here. I'm here...and that's good enough for me. I'm trying to make the most of it. I don't know why we're here, and I'm not interested in expending the energy to find out. I don't need a complex system of beliefs. I'll take a song...
Why are we here?
Because we're here.
Roll the bones...
7 comments:
You argue well for the dangers of religion, and I do not think I quote you wrongly if I say you value the situation presented by the following quote, "the religious will have stopped believing that the non-religious are wrong".
It is not this belief that non-religious poeple are wrong that is dangerous. It is the need to treat these people without dignity that is the problem. I am speaking primarily here of Christianity and Christians. To many of us fail to realize the merciful side of our doctrines. We are told to "first take the plank out of [our] own eye[s], and then [we] will see clearly to remove the speck from [our] brother's eye" (Mt 7:5).
I am splitting hairs with this arugment, but I think it is a valuable distinction. I am not attempting to justify the disserice done to those whose rights are invaded by our "non-Christian" government. As much as I would love to make things that I disagree with illegal, it is not the responsibility of the government to do so. Besides, virtue is only truly virtuous if it is freely chosen. To make living the "Christian Life" compulsory would be to remove a measure of virtue from it.
Freedom, I believe, is properly inerpreted as the freedom to do what is right. Some believe that there is an objective definition to guide the use of freedom; others believe that each shall do as she sees fit. Whichever is the case, it seems objectively true that we should all be able to live together and treat eachother with respect and dignity.
Aaron, you're not splitting hairs.
"the religious will have stopped believing that the non-religious are wrong".
If any Christians believed this, their faith would be worthless.
For a Christian to be all pussified and say "you're okay for not believing in Christ" is to not care that one's neighbors are choosing death over eternal life.
That's kinda not vibing too much with the whole "love thy neighbor" thing.
I think that's the best comment I've EVER heard from Michael Maier. I'm actually sitting here in shock!
As someone who is attempting to give organized religion a second chance, I have lots of thoughts and feelings on both sides.
The one thing that I think most people forget about America is the FACT that it was founded on Christian beliefs.
Here is the Wikipedia definition of "Pilgrim":
"Pilgrims is the name commonly applied to early settlers of the Plymouth Colony in present-day Plymouth, Massachusetts. Their leadership came from a religious congregation who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm of Holland in the Netherlands to preserve their religion."
The Bill of Rights was written with this language:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
For the SOUL PURPOSE of the Government not being able to imprison and fine them for not attending The Church of England. Several people were even executed based on their religious choices which did not align with the Puritans.
If you really LOVE America, and believe in the history of America, then you SHOULD respect the beliefs that the country was founded on? Correct? The freedom to practice whatever religion you want to.
Therefore, if a President in is office - and claims to be of a Christian doctorate - then its hard to argue that he is making the wrong choices? He is making the religious and moral choices that he sees fit.
What if a Jew was President?
Do you think they would approve those same things that you despise Bush for not approving?
Free Will is a tricky thing.
But, I greatly enjoyed reading Michael's comment - because for some bizarre reason - we see it the same way.
Science, Religion, and the President of the United States are three things that should be kept VERY FAR AWAY from each other! But, that's just my opinion.
Interesting topics of discussion on the Blog-O-Rama recently...
The United States was not founded on Christian values, although that is the misconception that leads to so much Christian arrogance in this country.
The values on which this country was founded are contained in the Constitution of the United States. The word "God" does not appear in that document. Neither does the word "Jesus." The word "church" is also absent.
I don't love America much anymore, but I do respect the one, single belief that it was founded on - and that belief is freedom.
As for Bush - yes, he is most definitely making the religious and moral choices that he sees fit. The problem is that all of the important decisions are incorrect.
It's sort of like the scene in the second Jurassic Park film, when John Hammon tries to tell Dr. Malcolm that he's not making the same mistakes twice. Dr. Malcolm says, "Uh, yeah, I know, John. You're making all new ones!"
And, finally, considering the thread of the conversation, your use of the word "soul" instead of "sole," near the beginning of the comment, has to be one of the most well-placed misspellings ever. Well done.
Soul. Wow. Ha ha. OOPS.
Can you really quote Jurassic Park 2 in an argument? The first one, the third one, I'm fine with either of those.
I'm sorry you think Bush is so wrong. I will surely read your blog when WHOEVER takes over in 2009, because I am hoping they turn out worse. That way everyone will be like, "Oh, I miss the good old days when Bush was around." I wonder if the people who complained about Clinton are thinking that right now? With the advancements in society over the past 20 years, I don't think anyone will ever be the President that Reagan was.
And I don't believe that "God" or "Jesus" or "Church" have to be present to show religion. I would assume the fact that George Washington was an officer in his church.
***LOTS OF DELETED STUFF***
I wrote up about Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin's association with the church. But, it was all stupid and moot.
"In God We Trust" has been on our money since 1863. Not "In Someone We Trust" or "In Buddha We Trust" or "In Mohammad We Trust" or "In The Absence of a Being We Trust" or "In gods We Trust".
Religion has always, and will always play a large part in America History and Society.
And I will forever be remembered as the "SOUL" Guy...
Like I said, I'll be reading in 2009 - to see how you feel. Hopefully, I'll be reading from a laptop in Europe. So that I don't have to be a part of it, good or bad.
Hold on, Shane. I wasn't saying that Christians don't make stupid mistakes. Mercy and compassion is often lacking in the way some Christians conduct themselves.
I would contend that Bush isn't Christian. He can wrap himself in the trappings all he wants. But as they say "by their fruits shall you know them".
The man believes in totalitarian power. Nothing else. Not morality. Not laws. Nothing but power. I want to slap myself for voting for him in 2000. I sure as hell didn't in 2004.
I do miss Bill Clinton. He was pathetic and just wanted to be loved by everyone. But he did less damage IMO.
His bitch of a wife on the other hand... she scares me. If she's elected next Nov, I'm selling guitars and dropping a few grand on firearms in December.
"I would contend that Bush isn't Christian."
So, you now feel that you have the power to tell people what their religion is? If Bush claims to be Christian, you instantly deny him that right? Despite his church-going practices?
I'm interested in why you believe you can say that he is NOT a Christian. I also think you give the President FAR too much credit for being the ONLY person who "screws" up this country. There are thousands of "secrets" that we as a society know nothing about. People in the President's cabinet - they know these secrets. They advise him. They give him the ammunition to make his decisions. And in 2009, I think the next President is going to learn a lot of these secrets, and suddenly start acting very similar to Bush. Because WE, the citizens of this country, don't have ALL of the facts that that the FBI, CIA, and NSA have collected. We criticize without all of the facts. And that's not fair. It's ignorant of people of judge what they don't fully understand. You don't know the reasons Bush makes his decisions. I don't know them. If they were REALLY THAT BAD - those in the government would impeach him. they haven't. So, obviously, those who knows some of the secrets, think he's doing something right. Probably not everything, everyone makes mistakes. But I think it's insane for people to think that the next person is going to be better - without even knowing who the two people running are going to be. What if a Democrat (like Hillary) decides to BOMB the heck out of Iraq on her second day? Is everyone going to support THAT?
Post a Comment