Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

levite · 12-30-2008, 02:44 PM

I tend to think that making statements about "organized religion" is painting with an overly wide brush. Religion is a double-edged sword, like pretty much all forms of knowledge. It can be used responsibly or it can be misused and abused. Because it is more powerful knowledge than most kinds, if it is abused, the effect is horrific. But the same can be said about a number of kinds of knowledge.

Part of the problem of religion being misused, I think, has to do with the necessity of some notion of pluralism in the tradition, in some way that does not compromise the tradition itself. Christianity is still struggling with this, but has made advances. Judaism is currently experiencing a number of problems due to many on one end of the Jewish spectrum neglecting the pluralism, and many on the other end neglecting the tradition. Islam is in the deepest struggle of the three, because (insofar as I know) there has not been a dominant interpretive tradition of pluralism, and only recently has there begun to be suggestions of religious liberalism and progressive theology.

But that does not mean, I think, that "all religion" is bad. That means that religious cultures or societies are, like all cultures or societies, evolving and growing.

Ideally, religion is an ongoing conversation between humans and God, wherein we attempt to mature and become better able to comprehend the Infinite, and God in turn attempts to guide us more subtly, and permit us more room to learn, and make Himself known to us in personal ways. Granted, this ideal has often gone astray, and on occasion has been dreadfully perverted. And when it is not perverted maliciously for personal gain, it is perverted unwittingly, by fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism-- which is really what most anti-religious folks these days have a problem with, not religion per se-- is not equivalent with religion. Nor does it have to be. Many religions, many religious movements, many religious people, have been quite clear that there are other ways to interpret Scripture besides literally and strictly, and that an Infinite God might well provide different revelations and different paths to different people at different times, and all might be right for the people for whom they were intended, without the necessity of there being One Right Way.

Nonetheless, practically, if one wished to say that it is generally not a good idea for religious organizations to be in charge of governments, or to otherwise implement permanent institutions of hierarchical power, I would hasten to agree. But I don't believe such things are innately necessary to organized religions, though there are some that have (unwisely, IMO) adopted them.

But in any case-- and I mean no offense in saying this, nor do I intend it as any kind of personal attack-- I think that it is not necessarily productive to condemn all organized religion, nor to do so in an insulting fashion. Religion is not going anywhere; that being the case, perhaps it might serve us all best to encourage not a suppression or elimination of religion, but a liberalization of religion, and to support the progress of pluralism in religion, while at the same time respectfully maintaining and/or encouraging the separation of religion and government. Also, as someone who is religious, but does not believe in fundamentalism.

As for Richard Bach, I think I will refrain from responding to his words: he is a professional atheist, and as such, he is as much a fundamentalist about his beliefs as any fervent evangelical is about theirs. Which is his right, of course; but that does not make it any more productive to attempt debate with him. His mind is made up.

12-30-2008, 02:44 PM	#8 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	I tend to think that making statements about "organized religion" is painting with an overly wide brush. Religion is a double-edged sword, like pretty much all forms of knowledge. It can be used responsibly or it can be misused and abused. Because it is more powerful knowledge than most kinds, if it is abused, the effect is horrific. But the same can be said about a number of kinds of knowledge. Part of the problem of religion being misused, I think, has to do with the necessity of some notion of pluralism in the tradition, in some way that does not compromise the tradition itself. Christianity is still struggling with this, but has made advances. Judaism is currently experiencing a number of problems due to many on one end of the Jewish spectrum neglecting the pluralism, and many on the other end neglecting the tradition. Islam is in the deepest struggle of the three, because (insofar as I know) there has not been a dominant interpretive tradition of pluralism, and only recently has there begun to be suggestions of religious liberalism and progressive theology. But that does not mean, I think, that "all religion" is bad. That means that religious cultures or societies are, like all cultures or societies, evolving and growing. Ideally, religion is an ongoing conversation between humans and God, wherein we attempt to mature and become better able to comprehend the Infinite, and God in turn attempts to guide us more subtly, and permit us more room to learn, and make Himself known to us in personal ways. Granted, this ideal has often gone astray, and on occasion has been dreadfully perverted. And when it is not perverted maliciously for personal gain, it is perverted unwittingly, by fundamentalism. Fundamentalism-- which is really what most anti-religious folks these days have a problem with, not religion per se-- is not equivalent with religion. Nor does it have to be. Many religions, many religious movements, many religious people, have been quite clear that there are other ways to interpret Scripture besides literally and strictly, and that an Infinite God might well provide different revelations and different paths to different people at different times, and all might be right for the people for whom they were intended, without the necessity of there being One Right Way. Nonetheless, practically, if one wished to say that it is generally not a good idea for religious organizations to be in charge of governments, or to otherwise implement permanent institutions of hierarchical power, I would hasten to agree. But I don't believe such things are innately necessary to organized religions, though there are some that have (unwisely, IMO) adopted them. But in any case-- and I mean no offense in saying this, nor do I intend it as any kind of personal attack-- I think that it is not necessarily productive to condemn all organized religion, nor to do so in an insulting fashion. Religion is not going anywhere; that being the case, perhaps it might serve us all best to encourage not a suppression or elimination of religion, but a liberalization of religion, and to support the progress of pluralism in religion, while at the same time respectfully maintaining and/or encouraging the separation of religion and government. Also, as someone who is religious, but does not believe in fundamentalism. As for Richard Bach, I think I will refrain from responding to his words: he is a professional atheist, and as such, he is as much a fundamentalist about his beliefs as any fervent evangelical is about theirs. Which is his right, of course; but that does not make it any more productive to attempt debate with him. His mind is made up. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)