Today and tomorrow, the Supreme Court is hearing testimony on a couple of cases which will influence the rights of homosexual couples, and thus some conservative Christian alarmists are casting aside the example set by the biblical character of Jesus to voice their profoundly irrational fears on the subject. If these individuals are to be believed, the fate of the country hangs in the balance between the issues of marriage for homosexual couples and reproductive rights for women. Among other tactics, some of these representatives of Christianity are publicly praying for God's will to be done, sowing the seeds of fear through absurd slippery slope arguments, encouraging civil disobedience, and appealing to an antiquated perspective of sinfulness as a basis for modern-day legal decisions. Since I began this writing experiment a year and a half ago after an essay on marriage rights for same-sex couples, it seems appropriate to revisit it during a significant time in the life of our country.
I must confess that I am puzzled when a person prays for God's will to be done and
then asserts what God's will must be in a given situation. If God is believed to be omnipotent, or at least exerting some amount of control over reality, what does one hope to accomplish by encouraging God to do what he will presumably do anyway? If God is in control, isn't everything that happens his will? Yet, if the Supreme Court decides in favor of same-sex marriage in a few months, there will no doubt be some Christians who will claim that God's will was not done. The people I admire are those who recognize the need to occasionally reorder their impression of God's love for humanity. People who claim to have a corner on the market of understanding God's will are revealing a profound egotism and immaturity, demanding that reality should shift to fit their perspective rather than the other way around.
Hoping to gain collusion for their prejudice and spread panic and self-righteous indignation, some of these individuals have equated homosexual people with child molesters and animal abusers, claiming that it will only be a short step from legalizing marriage for homosexual couples to legalizing bestiality, child abuse, incest, and polygamy. Obviously, condoning a relationship between two consenting adults has nothing to do with putting children or animals at risk. On the one hand, the fear-mongering tactics are blatant, but on the other hand, the envisioned dangers of this slippery slope attack the very foundation of the argument. Some famous biblical heroes committed incest and polygamy, and God didn't seem to mind at all. If the Bible is to be used as a credible source for condemning homosexuality, why is it not a credible source to approve marrying one's half-sister or taking multiple wives?
The whole slippery slope concern is fallacious from the start, however. As things currently stand, relationships between homosexual couples exist. Although the GLBT community is still in the process of obtaining equal treatment in our society, they are able to openly present themselves to society as homosexuals with ever-increasing acceptance. Homosexual couples can adopt children, and potentially raise them in a more loving environment than some heterosexual couples manage to create. The propriety of homosexuality is not the issue in question. The question is whether married adult homosexual couples will be granted the same benefits as married adult heterosexual couples. Even if the Supreme Court decides in favor of restrictive and intolerant laws, there will still be people in homosexual relationships in America.
Presumably, the concern is that such "sinful" acts should be condemned by the law, even if people choose to engage in them. This, too, seems like an indefensible position. Homosexuality is not even significant enough to be addressed in the Ten Commandments, and in the United States, national laws permit the breaking of several of the Big Ten. Not only are people allowed to work on the sabbath, our culture and economy have come to expect it to a large extent. There are no national laws against idolatry. There are no longer any national laws against blasphemy. Although we expect people to give honest testimony before judges, there are entire career fields based on deception. And although adultery is illegal on the books in some states, there is no national law prohibiting it. In fact, according to a recent study, 23% of Christian pastors in America admitted to committing adultery. Apparently it is easier to condemn other people than it is to live blamelessly in one's own life. The Bible claims that Jesus even said something about this.
Even though homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments, it is clearly included in a larger set of "sinful" behaviors articulated in the Bible. While the laws of the United States may not outright condone many "sinful" behaviors, there doesn't seem to be a community of people who are being persecuted for wearing mixed fabrics, gossiping, or eating the wrong foods (all of which are sinful according to the Bible). This has become a legal issue specifically because an intolerant segment of the Christian subculture has claimed unjustified and imbalanced influence on the American legal system. For whatever reason, some Christians believe that they must impose their worldview on other people, and they are willing to use an array of intimidation tactics to get their way, even though this represents a very different way of treating people than what was taught by their namesake.
While it seems logical to suggest that no one is going to be forced into a homosexual relationship, some people insist that their religious rights are being trampled if anyone is allowed to engage in a homosexual relationship with the blessing of the national government. This reflects a grievous misunderstanding of how religious freedom works. Religious freedom means that I have the right to believe what I want to believe and engage in whatever religious activities seem appropriate to me, provided I do not bring harm to any person or animal or break any other laws. Religious freedom does not mean that I can dictate what other people do. If someone decides to be Christian, and I am offended by that, I cannot call foul and demand that the government do something about it. Likewise, if my religious beliefs do not allow for the use of an automobile, I cannot demand that everyone else stop driving around. If a person's religion prohibits consuming alcohol, that person should refrain from consuming alcohol; if a person's religion prohibits homosexual behavior, then that person should refrain from homosexual behavior. That is the extent of religious freedom. Somehow, when money is perceived as being in the mix, however, people start getting twisted.
Since the whole reproductive rights issue has been in the public eye because of its inclusion in the national health care plan, some Christian organizations have been threatening civil disobedience. The rhetoric goes something like, "We will not be forced to pay for abortions," followed by whatever absurd and idle threats seem to pack the most punch at the time. As they see the issue, if any money a Christian organization pays into a health care system is used to pay for abortion, then the organization is essentially supporting abortion, even if no one in the actual organization ever has an abortion. It makes sense on the surface. Now, the battle cry is easily converted to, "We will not be forced to support marriage rights for homosexuals." While I'm not sure what that means, exactly, since I cannot imagine that any members of the clergy will suddenly be forced to perform marriages, the assumption seems to be that an organization should be able to decide to be a conscientious objector to a national policy. This reflects either a stunning
naïveté
or a very ballsy bluff.
Here's a secret that these folks may actually not realize: We are already paying for things we don't want to pay for. Imagine that I disagree with cigarette smoking and I decide that I don't want to pay for a smoker's cancer treatment. If their behavior brought about the disease, then they should bear the brunt of paying for treatment. Harsh perhaps, but reasonable. If I have health insurance, however, the cost of my insurance is not just based on my personal medical expenses. An insurance company spreads its expenditures out across all its policy holders. So, if I look at things the right way, I am paying for a small piece of a lot of other people's medical procedures, whether I want to or not. I appreciate the benefits of having health insurance, though, so I have to come to terms with the fact that some little portion of my premiums payments will pay some miniscule portion of many smokers' cancer treatments.
Similarly, let us consider taxes for a moment. As American citizens, we have a great amount of freedom, but as individuals we do not get to determine how our country spends the taxes we pay. Some of us may disagree with wars because of the innocent lives that are inevitably lost. We do not get to allocate our tax dollars toward education instead. I can issue statements of protest and disapproval. I can contribute personal money toward organizations that seek to broker peace. I can volunteer my time and energy toward anti-war efforts. But my tax dollars will, in some small way, support the decisions of elected officials, whether I agree with them or not. That is how our democracy works.
As for how Christianity works, there are now many differing views. Some would say that Jesus proclaimed a new way of living in harmony with one another, through a profound love that surpassed our tendency to compete and condemn. Some would say that there is no fear in such a love as Jesus taught, that such a love dismantles fear. Others apparently believe that they must fight with every breath to force others to behave a certain way. This winds up looking a lot more like fear than it does love. I would suggest that Christians are capable of reading their scriptures with more open eyes and hearts. Even as Paul condemns sexual immorality in the letter to the Galatians, for instance, he reminds Christians that they are not slaves to a set of behavioral rules. He asserts that the Christian community is free from such concerns, so that it might love more fully.
I am grateful to be in a country where there can be a national debate about loving, honoring, and respecting all people equally. I envision a time when there might be no reason to debate policies of equity and justice. For now, I stand on the side of love. And if an atheist humanist can do that, surely believers in a God of love can find a way to put aside fear and see people more fully, if they choose.
Showing posts with label religious freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious freedom. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Monday, June 18, 2012
Deuteronomy 12-13: What Does Your God Fear?
Since Deuteronomy is essentially a second iteration of the religious laws that had been established by the leaders of the Israelites, we are bound to see some repetition of themes. It might seem that the Israelites had to be told something several times before they got it (if they ever got it), which is human nature to a certain extent. It's more likely that the same oral tradition was being transcribed by many different people in different places over a long period of time, the end result being several distinct versions of that oral tradition. As these traditions were developed, it was possible to clarify things, answer questions, revise things that didn't make sense -- allow the religious text to grow with the culture. Once it was codified (or canonized), it became easy to believe that the religious text was complete for all time and needed no further clarification or revision. Human culture has changed time and time again since -- church cultures have even changed many times over -- while the Bible has become something of a relic from an ever more distant time and culture. It becomes increasingly difficult to draw meaningful spiritual value from some scriptural passages without simply using them as a template for how not to behave.
Case in point: Deuteronomy 12-13. There are several reasons why these chapters require revision. Although some will immediately admit that what is recorded here has already been revised in the New Testament, that doesn't explain why people can easily dismiss one problematic Old Testament passage and cling to others that are equally offensive of culturally inappropriate. It's informative for Christians to see how their religion developed, but unfortunately, it's not a stretch for twenty-first century Christians to extrapolate misguided lessons from taking these passages at face-value. In these chapters, the Israelites are told to establish one place to make all of their sacrifices to their god, and they are commanded to destroy all the evidence of other gods.
It's easy to see why folks would dismiss the bit about having one central place of genuine worship for the whole religion. Even though there are provisions for what to do if you live too far away to make your sacrifices in person, the implication is that there is one geographical location where true connection to God can take place. With all of the denominations and churches that exist in our world, it would be a real feat to get everyone who claimed the label of "Christian" to go to one specific place to have a time of authentic spiritual connection, but it's also easy to see that this rule is just for the Jews. Except that the Jewish faith no longer strictly adheres to the same religious laws that are dictated in the Old Testament either. I don't really have a problem with discarding or rewriting any of this. My point is that if this passage is so clearly inappropriate for modern Christianity, why is so difficult to see that much of the Old Testament falls into the same category? If it's obvious that this is meant for a specific culture at a specific time, why do people cling to other similar passages as if they were eternally valid?
I actually know the answer, at least in part. Having one central place of worship is practically untenable. Exceptions had to be made just because of the practical realities of life. The fact that people who disagreed with the Church later broke away and formed their own sects based on their own divergent philosophies complicated things to the point where people cannot fathom a reasonable god expecting them to go to a specific appointed place for worship. For one thing, the sacrifices are supposedly unnecessary because of Jesus' one big sacrifice for once and all. (I happen to believe that the sacrifices are unnecessary for a different reason.) For another thing, there's no longer any fear attached to being separated from THE temple, because religious thought has evolved into belief in an omnipresent deity who is not constrained by geography or physical laws.
What people still fear, though, is other people's beliefs. The Israelites are told to destroy the sacred places and things of the people they encounter, and they're told to kill anyone who attempts to convince them to take part any any non-Israelite religious experience. Obviously this is one exception to the Ten Commandments, in which the Israelites were told not to murder other Israelites, which begs the question: What other exceptions might there be? At least it's plausible that the thought may occur to us if we were ancient Israelites. There can be only one reason for this drastic measure, and that reason is fear.
Many people disguise their fear behind aggression. Anger and violence are often a scary enough identity that we often don't have to deal with what we fear, although we do wind up dealing with the consequences of our anger and violence. The Israelite leaders were not altogether secure in their new endeavor, the society they were attempting to build was not at a securely established culture, and there were many threats from the traditions of other cultures around them. While they could have worked at deepening the beliefs of their culture to the extent that no other culture's practices would seem appealing, the easiest way to deal with those threats was to eliminate them. After all, the culture they were establishing was one of sacrifice in obedience to a vengeful and jealous god, and some of the religions around them probably seemed much more lenient by comparison. Merely villainizing people by calling them baby-killers might work for some Israelites, but someone would eventually get curious and figure out that there wasn't a whole lot of baby sacrificing going on. Better to just convince the Israelites to wipe out any trace of other religions and kill anybody who even suggested participating a little cultural exchange.
The genius move on the part of the Israelite leader was to pin these fears on the god they invented. "We don't want you to go around killing your brothers or children for merely suggesting checking out the church over the hillock, but God demands it of you. Our hands are tied here." Very clever. Maintaining a hold on society by sanctifying the murder of one's family doesn't seem like a long-term plan for success, but I'm sure that the Israelite leaders thought they could eradicate the threat of more appealing religions and cultures before Israelite-on-Israelite violence became a real problem. If we were to accept the existence of the Israelites' god, it would seem obvious that his vengeance and wrath toward these other religions was a reflection of some fear that his followers would be enticed away by more attractive gods. We've all seen similar behavior in angry people around us who were quite obviously afraid of not getting their way. Dispensing of superstition, though, it's even more plausible that the Israelite leaders were terrified that their society would fall apart and become subsumed into neighboring cultures if they didn't take drastic measures to ensure its survival.
Some Christian groups today sound very similar, specifically those toward the Conservative, Fundamentalist end of the spectrum. They often project an outward image of hostility, anger, and righteous indignation to hide their fear that if all ideas are given equal attention, their version of reality would not hold up against the competition. Except it isn't a competition unless you're trying to force other people to agree with you. Unlike the defunct ancient Israelite religion, Americans don't have the freedom to kill people for thinking something different from other folks. Everyone can believe what they want and practice their religion freely to the extent that it doesn't negatively impact the lives and well-being of other people (and animals) around them. We all have a set of general laws that we're expected to live within, but until your religious beliefs start informing how other people are allowed to behave, there generally aren't a lot of restrictions on belief.
Fear gets in the way. Whether it's fear that our religious beliefs will not be accepted, fear that someone will reject us personally, fear that we won't be considered smart enough, attractive enough, competent enough, or whatever the case may be, our fear creates the illusion of threats all around us. We don't have to accept that illusion. We have options aside from irrational fears. Another person's beliefs don't determine the value of our own beliefs. Another person's way of life is not a challenge to our own decisions and choices. If we are willing to accept that we are personally responsible for our own choices and actions, and we are willing to let other people be personally responsible for their own choices and actions, we really don't have a whole lot to fear. We can let go of angry and hostile masks and be our authentic selves, confident in our own beliefs and accepting of other people, even if their beliefs differ radically from our own.
When we fight so hard to defend our personal beliefs against imagined attacks, not only do we become exhausted, but we also stunt our own growth. When all of our time and energy goes toward being afraid and projecting anger -- or however we choose to project our fear -- we rob ourselves most of all. If we spent that time and energy on examining and understanding our own beliefs, other people's ideas wouldn't seem so threatening. If we spent that time and energy on deepening our own awareness of who we are, what nurtures us, what matters most to us, we could make a much greater impact on the world than anyone makes through angry rhetoric or hyper-inflated outrage.
Stop attacking the things that are different. Stop being afraid of people who think or believe differently from you. Look at your own beliefs and test them. If they have real value for you, nurture them in your own life without demanding that other people validate you. You have within you a deep sense of what is true, beneath the anger and the fear, beneath the contrived hatred and the unwillingness to see other people as equally human, at the core of who you are, there are a few things you know. People have value. For whatever reason you want to accept, human beings have value. You are at your core beautiful and creative, and that beauty and creativity is capable of doing more good in the world than any amount of hostility can ever achieve. Relax and let your beliefs be a foundation for how you will be in the world rather than a weapon to be used against it. Let your beliefs inform how you will honor yourself and other people and the world around you, not whether anyone is worthy of respect. When your beliefs become a justification for violence, you've slipped over into fear. And ultimately, your fear hurts you most of all. Start instead from the truth that people have value, and leave it to your beliefs to tell you why.
Case in point: Deuteronomy 12-13. There are several reasons why these chapters require revision. Although some will immediately admit that what is recorded here has already been revised in the New Testament, that doesn't explain why people can easily dismiss one problematic Old Testament passage and cling to others that are equally offensive of culturally inappropriate. It's informative for Christians to see how their religion developed, but unfortunately, it's not a stretch for twenty-first century Christians to extrapolate misguided lessons from taking these passages at face-value. In these chapters, the Israelites are told to establish one place to make all of their sacrifices to their god, and they are commanded to destroy all the evidence of other gods.
It's easy to see why folks would dismiss the bit about having one central place of genuine worship for the whole religion. Even though there are provisions for what to do if you live too far away to make your sacrifices in person, the implication is that there is one geographical location where true connection to God can take place. With all of the denominations and churches that exist in our world, it would be a real feat to get everyone who claimed the label of "Christian" to go to one specific place to have a time of authentic spiritual connection, but it's also easy to see that this rule is just for the Jews. Except that the Jewish faith no longer strictly adheres to the same religious laws that are dictated in the Old Testament either. I don't really have a problem with discarding or rewriting any of this. My point is that if this passage is so clearly inappropriate for modern Christianity, why is so difficult to see that much of the Old Testament falls into the same category? If it's obvious that this is meant for a specific culture at a specific time, why do people cling to other similar passages as if they were eternally valid?
I actually know the answer, at least in part. Having one central place of worship is practically untenable. Exceptions had to be made just because of the practical realities of life. The fact that people who disagreed with the Church later broke away and formed their own sects based on their own divergent philosophies complicated things to the point where people cannot fathom a reasonable god expecting them to go to a specific appointed place for worship. For one thing, the sacrifices are supposedly unnecessary because of Jesus' one big sacrifice for once and all. (I happen to believe that the sacrifices are unnecessary for a different reason.) For another thing, there's no longer any fear attached to being separated from THE temple, because religious thought has evolved into belief in an omnipresent deity who is not constrained by geography or physical laws.
What people still fear, though, is other people's beliefs. The Israelites are told to destroy the sacred places and things of the people they encounter, and they're told to kill anyone who attempts to convince them to take part any any non-Israelite religious experience. Obviously this is one exception to the Ten Commandments, in which the Israelites were told not to murder other Israelites, which begs the question: What other exceptions might there be? At least it's plausible that the thought may occur to us if we were ancient Israelites. There can be only one reason for this drastic measure, and that reason is fear.
Many people disguise their fear behind aggression. Anger and violence are often a scary enough identity that we often don't have to deal with what we fear, although we do wind up dealing with the consequences of our anger and violence. The Israelite leaders were not altogether secure in their new endeavor, the society they were attempting to build was not at a securely established culture, and there were many threats from the traditions of other cultures around them. While they could have worked at deepening the beliefs of their culture to the extent that no other culture's practices would seem appealing, the easiest way to deal with those threats was to eliminate them. After all, the culture they were establishing was one of sacrifice in obedience to a vengeful and jealous god, and some of the religions around them probably seemed much more lenient by comparison. Merely villainizing people by calling them baby-killers might work for some Israelites, but someone would eventually get curious and figure out that there wasn't a whole lot of baby sacrificing going on. Better to just convince the Israelites to wipe out any trace of other religions and kill anybody who even suggested participating a little cultural exchange.
The genius move on the part of the Israelite leader was to pin these fears on the god they invented. "We don't want you to go around killing your brothers or children for merely suggesting checking out the church over the hillock, but God demands it of you. Our hands are tied here." Very clever. Maintaining a hold on society by sanctifying the murder of one's family doesn't seem like a long-term plan for success, but I'm sure that the Israelite leaders thought they could eradicate the threat of more appealing religions and cultures before Israelite-on-Israelite violence became a real problem. If we were to accept the existence of the Israelites' god, it would seem obvious that his vengeance and wrath toward these other religions was a reflection of some fear that his followers would be enticed away by more attractive gods. We've all seen similar behavior in angry people around us who were quite obviously afraid of not getting their way. Dispensing of superstition, though, it's even more plausible that the Israelite leaders were terrified that their society would fall apart and become subsumed into neighboring cultures if they didn't take drastic measures to ensure its survival.
Some Christian groups today sound very similar, specifically those toward the Conservative, Fundamentalist end of the spectrum. They often project an outward image of hostility, anger, and righteous indignation to hide their fear that if all ideas are given equal attention, their version of reality would not hold up against the competition. Except it isn't a competition unless you're trying to force other people to agree with you. Unlike the defunct ancient Israelite religion, Americans don't have the freedom to kill people for thinking something different from other folks. Everyone can believe what they want and practice their religion freely to the extent that it doesn't negatively impact the lives and well-being of other people (and animals) around them. We all have a set of general laws that we're expected to live within, but until your religious beliefs start informing how other people are allowed to behave, there generally aren't a lot of restrictions on belief.
Fear gets in the way. Whether it's fear that our religious beliefs will not be accepted, fear that someone will reject us personally, fear that we won't be considered smart enough, attractive enough, competent enough, or whatever the case may be, our fear creates the illusion of threats all around us. We don't have to accept that illusion. We have options aside from irrational fears. Another person's beliefs don't determine the value of our own beliefs. Another person's way of life is not a challenge to our own decisions and choices. If we are willing to accept that we are personally responsible for our own choices and actions, and we are willing to let other people be personally responsible for their own choices and actions, we really don't have a whole lot to fear. We can let go of angry and hostile masks and be our authentic selves, confident in our own beliefs and accepting of other people, even if their beliefs differ radically from our own.
When we fight so hard to defend our personal beliefs against imagined attacks, not only do we become exhausted, but we also stunt our own growth. When all of our time and energy goes toward being afraid and projecting anger -- or however we choose to project our fear -- we rob ourselves most of all. If we spent that time and energy on examining and understanding our own beliefs, other people's ideas wouldn't seem so threatening. If we spent that time and energy on deepening our own awareness of who we are, what nurtures us, what matters most to us, we could make a much greater impact on the world than anyone makes through angry rhetoric or hyper-inflated outrage.
Stop attacking the things that are different. Stop being afraid of people who think or believe differently from you. Look at your own beliefs and test them. If they have real value for you, nurture them in your own life without demanding that other people validate you. You have within you a deep sense of what is true, beneath the anger and the fear, beneath the contrived hatred and the unwillingness to see other people as equally human, at the core of who you are, there are a few things you know. People have value. For whatever reason you want to accept, human beings have value. You are at your core beautiful and creative, and that beauty and creativity is capable of doing more good in the world than any amount of hostility can ever achieve. Relax and let your beliefs be a foundation for how you will be in the world rather than a weapon to be used against it. Let your beliefs inform how you will honor yourself and other people and the world around you, not whether anyone is worthy of respect. When your beliefs become a justification for violence, you've slipped over into fear. And ultimately, your fear hurts you most of all. Start instead from the truth that people have value, and leave it to your beliefs to tell you why.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Deuteronomy 7-11: Fear is the Opposite of Love (The Illusory Threat of Other People's Beliefs)
Many people think that hatred is the opposite of love. In terms of pure linguistics, it's an accurate assumption. In terms of the human mind and heart, however, fear is actually love's opposing force. One cannot truly love and fear simultaneously. Perhaps one can be devoted to something one fears. One can be obedient and faithful to the object of one's fear. But love and fear are mutually exclusive in the human psyche. Even the Bible claims that "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because
fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in
love" (1 John 4:18). If your goal is to love, you must put aside fear.
This is something the writers of Deuteronomy apparently did not understand, and perhaps the reason the next several books of the Bible tell the tale of the Israelites' repeated failure to live up to the impossible standards of their religion. In Deuteronomy 7-11, there are three basic themes aside from the recounting of the business with the Ten Commandments and the golden calf. The Israelites are told to abhor and destroy all of the spiritual paraphernalia of the cultures they displace or slaughter. They are told that everything they have of value (including the displacement and slaughtering of other people) is not by their own merit, but is something that their god provides. It is also asserted that they will be punished if their god gets angry with them; all of those blessings will be taken away if the Israelites don't behave themselves. We're just going to look at that first theme for the moment.
Religion and spiritual identity are two different things entirely. Religion and dogma are used to draw lines of distinction, to illustrate how one group of people is different from another group of people. At one time, before cultures came into close contact with one another, religion was a way to codify the beliefs of a community -- to explain the unknown for a group of people. When those groups of people encountered other groups of people, though, it became quickly apparent that they had come to accept explanations that were different from the other people. If neither side was willing to modify their beliefs, then the two cultures experienced conflict on some level, because their religious identities were challenged.
Now, we understand so much more about human nature and the world around us, we see how religion breeds conflict, and yet we are still stubborn enough to dig in our heels and insist that our belief is better than what some other group of people believe. And we are threatened enough by their beliefs that we are often willing to resort to violence to defend our religious identities. We make decisions based on religion that would otherwise seem irrational or immoral, but we excuse those actions in the name of a religious belief. At least that's what we convince ourselves. Actually, we make those decisions based on fear.
Our actual spiritual identities are not dependent upon dogma. Our spirituality is the unifying quality underlying all of the beliefs that people have developed over the millenia. Our spiritual identities urge us toward love, not fear. The truth is that our religious beliefs don't matter all that much. What matters is the way that we treat one another. If we are convinced that our religion wants us to abuse or kill people who believe differently, we are actually acting against our spiritual nature. In many cases, we are also acting against the modern-day interpretation of our faith tradition as well. That all gets glossed over when we give fear control.
The truth of the matter is that other people's beliefs don't threaten us. If one person believes in biblical Christianity, and another person believes in the teachings of Islam, and a third person believes in the Nordic pantheon, all three of those people can arrive at the same conclusions about how to relate to themselves and other people and the world around them. Instead of recognizing the vast swaths of similarity, however, people are drawn toward the points of distinction. People want to assert that they are right about what they believe. They want to be right about something that cannot be proven by any means, and they can get so caught up in that crusade that they give themselves over to fear instead of love.
We do not need to destroy the things that others hold dear in order to bolster our own beliefs. We do not need to denigrate the beliefs of others in order to strengthen our spiritual stability. The answer is quite the opposite. Love drives out fear. Love helps us recognize that our beliefs are not something that other people have to validate. Our beliefs are simply the way we have come to articulate the spiritual truths that are common to every person. Our individual beliefs are like different languages we use to describe the same landscape. The landscape doesn't change because someone else uses a different set of words to label it. There is no legitimate reason to fear someone else's beliefs, even if we have reason to be concerned about their actions.
So, since it is our actions that truly make a difference in the world, it's important that we understand how our beliefs are compelling us to behave. Sometimes we wind up believing things that actually create conflict within us, and that leads to us creating conflict with things outside of ourselves. The way to avoid giving in to fear is to examine what we actually believe and to be willing to modify the beliefs that don't make sense to the way we want to be in the world. We'll get into the implications of the beliefs about blessings and punishments from on high in a few days. In the meantime, consider how closely the possible covenant from a couple of weeks back fits the way you want to be in the world. What would you change about it? Why would you change that? Do you have a better set of agreements with yourself that truly reflects how you want to be with yourself, other people, and the world around you?
1. Recognize the deep truth, genuine beauty, and intentional creativity within you.
2. Value yourself as much as every other human being, and more than external things and concepts.
3. Prioritize time for self-examination to become more adept at seeing the truth, beauty, and creativity within yourself (and in other people).
4. Acknowledge the close relationships in your life and the sacrifices that other people have made on your behalf.
5. Honor and respect other people -- all people regardless of their culture or beliefs.
6. Be grateful for your life and celebrate what you have.
This is something the writers of Deuteronomy apparently did not understand, and perhaps the reason the next several books of the Bible tell the tale of the Israelites' repeated failure to live up to the impossible standards of their religion. In Deuteronomy 7-11, there are three basic themes aside from the recounting of the business with the Ten Commandments and the golden calf. The Israelites are told to abhor and destroy all of the spiritual paraphernalia of the cultures they displace or slaughter. They are told that everything they have of value (including the displacement and slaughtering of other people) is not by their own merit, but is something that their god provides. It is also asserted that they will be punished if their god gets angry with them; all of those blessings will be taken away if the Israelites don't behave themselves. We're just going to look at that first theme for the moment.
Religion and spiritual identity are two different things entirely. Religion and dogma are used to draw lines of distinction, to illustrate how one group of people is different from another group of people. At one time, before cultures came into close contact with one another, religion was a way to codify the beliefs of a community -- to explain the unknown for a group of people. When those groups of people encountered other groups of people, though, it became quickly apparent that they had come to accept explanations that were different from the other people. If neither side was willing to modify their beliefs, then the two cultures experienced conflict on some level, because their religious identities were challenged.
Now, we understand so much more about human nature and the world around us, we see how religion breeds conflict, and yet we are still stubborn enough to dig in our heels and insist that our belief is better than what some other group of people believe. And we are threatened enough by their beliefs that we are often willing to resort to violence to defend our religious identities. We make decisions based on religion that would otherwise seem irrational or immoral, but we excuse those actions in the name of a religious belief. At least that's what we convince ourselves. Actually, we make those decisions based on fear.
Our actual spiritual identities are not dependent upon dogma. Our spirituality is the unifying quality underlying all of the beliefs that people have developed over the millenia. Our spiritual identities urge us toward love, not fear. The truth is that our religious beliefs don't matter all that much. What matters is the way that we treat one another. If we are convinced that our religion wants us to abuse or kill people who believe differently, we are actually acting against our spiritual nature. In many cases, we are also acting against the modern-day interpretation of our faith tradition as well. That all gets glossed over when we give fear control.
The truth of the matter is that other people's beliefs don't threaten us. If one person believes in biblical Christianity, and another person believes in the teachings of Islam, and a third person believes in the Nordic pantheon, all three of those people can arrive at the same conclusions about how to relate to themselves and other people and the world around them. Instead of recognizing the vast swaths of similarity, however, people are drawn toward the points of distinction. People want to assert that they are right about what they believe. They want to be right about something that cannot be proven by any means, and they can get so caught up in that crusade that they give themselves over to fear instead of love.
We do not need to destroy the things that others hold dear in order to bolster our own beliefs. We do not need to denigrate the beliefs of others in order to strengthen our spiritual stability. The answer is quite the opposite. Love drives out fear. Love helps us recognize that our beliefs are not something that other people have to validate. Our beliefs are simply the way we have come to articulate the spiritual truths that are common to every person. Our individual beliefs are like different languages we use to describe the same landscape. The landscape doesn't change because someone else uses a different set of words to label it. There is no legitimate reason to fear someone else's beliefs, even if we have reason to be concerned about their actions.
So, since it is our actions that truly make a difference in the world, it's important that we understand how our beliefs are compelling us to behave. Sometimes we wind up believing things that actually create conflict within us, and that leads to us creating conflict with things outside of ourselves. The way to avoid giving in to fear is to examine what we actually believe and to be willing to modify the beliefs that don't make sense to the way we want to be in the world. We'll get into the implications of the beliefs about blessings and punishments from on high in a few days. In the meantime, consider how closely the possible covenant from a couple of weeks back fits the way you want to be in the world. What would you change about it? Why would you change that? Do you have a better set of agreements with yourself that truly reflects how you want to be with yourself, other people, and the world around you?
1. Recognize the deep truth, genuine beauty, and intentional creativity within you.
2. Value yourself as much as every other human being, and more than external things and concepts.
3. Prioritize time for self-examination to become more adept at seeing the truth, beauty, and creativity within yourself (and in other people).
4. Acknowledge the close relationships in your life and the sacrifices that other people have made on your behalf.
5. Honor and respect other people -- all people regardless of their culture or beliefs.
6. Be grateful for your life and celebrate what you have.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Religious Faith Is Often Just a Synonym for Fear
One sometimes hears the argument that morality cannot exist without a god. There is an often aggressive and even belligerent claim among believers that religion is necessary for society to keep on existing. They claim that religion does more good than harm. Many people have enumerated the horrific acts of violence that were fueled by religious fervor throughout humanity's history, and such acts continue today. While the homosexual lifestyle is mostly verbally attacked in the United States, there are places in the world where suspected homosexuals are being killed, largely because of faith-based prejudice. Women may be killed or mutilated without consequence in some parts of the twenty-first-century world because of the religious beliefs of the society into which they are born. Moral behavior does not follow from religious belief.
Despite massive evidence against it, the mythical link between religion and morality remains so strong that many Americans would have a problem voting for an atheist president. Presumably, they would prefer a leader who believes that he answers to a higher power, who embraces a responsibility to lead righteously. And yet, faith has justified wars, excused oppressive laws, and masked hatred and bigotry. Rather than ask whether there can be morality without religion, one must question why the two were ever rationally linked to begin with. Religious belief may allow for unquestioned forgiveness, but it doesn't prevent abominable behavior. Some people would also claim that religion provides a number of services as well, that faith motivates people to do good, and that good outweighs the evil that is done in the name of religion.
Fear is in some way the motivator for most claims of faith, however. People believe in salvation because they fear damnation. People believe in faith healing because they fear dying. People believe in prayer because they fear all sorts of things: personal responsibility, medical procedures, collection agencies. Groups who become targeted by religious leaders are actually the groups those leaders fear. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry out of fear. Women are denied the right to make decisions about their own bodies because of fear. National healthcare is opposed because of fear. Dire predictions are made about "what will happen if...", and a segment of the population trembles.
Some of the fear gets expressed as righteous indignation or moral outrage. Fervent believers fear that their faith will be marginalized in society, so they have to fight. Religious leaders fear that they will have control over a smaller sector of the population, so they have to pronounce judgment loudly and foster more fear in those who still cling to their words. In turn, believers are infused with a fear that the Others (homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, etc.) will somehow harm them just by existing. They become afraid of letting their children be taught science by an atheist. They become afraid of allowing a homosexual couple to move in on their street. They become afraid of doing yoga because it is somehow connected with worshiping Hindu gods. They become afraid of anyone with different clothing or accent or skin color, because different is somehow threatening.
But fear doesn't really convince anyone to change. Yanking your child out of the atheist teacher's biology class won't ultimately keep your child from learning science, and it won't change the teacher's beliefs. Denying a young single mother the opportunity to decide for herself whether she can realistically take care of an unwanted child doesn't guarantee that either person's life will be improved. Prohibiting the homosexual couple from attending neighborhood social events won't convince them to change their lifestyle, although perhaps the belief is that your spot in heaven will be secure because you have refrained from socializing with heathens. Look around! Churches are full of people doing deplorable things. Sinful things. Immoral things. Why don't they warrant a little fear?
Ah, but if we had to admit that immorality co-exists with faith, we'd have less of a reason to judge those scary Others who believe and behave differently from us. Fear can make people just a little bit crazy. Fearful people can fire a weapon without thinking. Fearful people can start a hate campaign against someone without letting the truth get in the way of juicy accusations. Fearful people can act without worrying about the consequences in someone else's life. Fear is a very selfish emotion. It doesn't allow room for much else, even though a person may believe that they are being compassionate or loving in some twisted way while doing something entirely motivated by fear.
Fear is not exclusive to people of faith, however. The wealthy are afraid of being impoverished. The employed are afraid of being jobless. Everyone has to deal with fears. When the fears are justified by belief in a perfect higher power, however, there is little one can do to combat those fears. If one realizes that the fears are all a product of one's own mind, they can be much more easily dispelled. In many ways, religion relies on people being afraid. The more conservative a sect is, the more fear is fostered in its faithful. It's particularly strange for believers in an all-powerful deity to be so fearful. Their fear suggests that perhaps their god is not powerful enough to handle the existence of atheists and homosexuals, that they somehow have to take matters into their own hands. Or perhaps their fear is that their god will turn on them in wrath and judgment if they don't take action. Either way, people who live with such fear paint a very strange and primitive picture of their god.
What about compassionate and loving acts done by people of faith, though? Isn't there some counterbalance to the fear? Of course there is, because people who are not overwhelmed by fear can relax and be nurturing to others. Some people can be very compassionate in feeding the homeless people that they don't fear at a shelter and then turn around and be profoundly dispassionate toward one of those homeless people when they walk into a religious service. In one instance, the person isn't at all threatening, and in the other, the person is threatening to upset comfortable norms. But when fear is put aside, we can see the humanity in other people much more clearly. We don't actually need a god to tell us to clothe people and feed them and treat people like human beings. The absence of fear leaves room for compassionate behavior.
We have the ability and the responsibility to question our fear. When you find yourself in judgment over someone else, what is it you're honestly fearing? When you feel violently toward a person, or a group of people, what are you afraid they will do to upset the norms of your life? When you become indignant or outraged about something, what are you really afraid of? And is that fear in any way reasonable? It is rational in that instance to be afraid? Is it possible to set aside irrational fear -- no matter where that fear comes from -- to see another person's humanity?
Unfounded fear won't lead you to do anything good. Believe instead in your ability to see that the people you're tempted to fear are just like you in so many ways, and believe in your ability to treat them with love and compassion. You don't have to agree with everything about another person in order to treat him with love and compassion. There's really nothing threatening about someone being different from you in some small ways. Without fear, there is no cause for violence or oppression -- although it's important to realize that the whole world will not become rational and fearless all at once. In the end, though, violence and hatred work against faith, even when they seem to be fueled by it. You could be a vanguard for rational fearlessness, even if you believe in a higher power. After all, wouldn't a reasonable god want you to be fearless in your faith?
Despite massive evidence against it, the mythical link between religion and morality remains so strong that many Americans would have a problem voting for an atheist president. Presumably, they would prefer a leader who believes that he answers to a higher power, who embraces a responsibility to lead righteously. And yet, faith has justified wars, excused oppressive laws, and masked hatred and bigotry. Rather than ask whether there can be morality without religion, one must question why the two were ever rationally linked to begin with. Religious belief may allow for unquestioned forgiveness, but it doesn't prevent abominable behavior. Some people would also claim that religion provides a number of services as well, that faith motivates people to do good, and that good outweighs the evil that is done in the name of religion.
Fear is in some way the motivator for most claims of faith, however. People believe in salvation because they fear damnation. People believe in faith healing because they fear dying. People believe in prayer because they fear all sorts of things: personal responsibility, medical procedures, collection agencies. Groups who become targeted by religious leaders are actually the groups those leaders fear. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry out of fear. Women are denied the right to make decisions about their own bodies because of fear. National healthcare is opposed because of fear. Dire predictions are made about "what will happen if...", and a segment of the population trembles.
Some of the fear gets expressed as righteous indignation or moral outrage. Fervent believers fear that their faith will be marginalized in society, so they have to fight. Religious leaders fear that they will have control over a smaller sector of the population, so they have to pronounce judgment loudly and foster more fear in those who still cling to their words. In turn, believers are infused with a fear that the Others (homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, etc.) will somehow harm them just by existing. They become afraid of letting their children be taught science by an atheist. They become afraid of allowing a homosexual couple to move in on their street. They become afraid of doing yoga because it is somehow connected with worshiping Hindu gods. They become afraid of anyone with different clothing or accent or skin color, because different is somehow threatening.
But fear doesn't really convince anyone to change. Yanking your child out of the atheist teacher's biology class won't ultimately keep your child from learning science, and it won't change the teacher's beliefs. Denying a young single mother the opportunity to decide for herself whether she can realistically take care of an unwanted child doesn't guarantee that either person's life will be improved. Prohibiting the homosexual couple from attending neighborhood social events won't convince them to change their lifestyle, although perhaps the belief is that your spot in heaven will be secure because you have refrained from socializing with heathens. Look around! Churches are full of people doing deplorable things. Sinful things. Immoral things. Why don't they warrant a little fear?
Ah, but if we had to admit that immorality co-exists with faith, we'd have less of a reason to judge those scary Others who believe and behave differently from us. Fear can make people just a little bit crazy. Fearful people can fire a weapon without thinking. Fearful people can start a hate campaign against someone without letting the truth get in the way of juicy accusations. Fearful people can act without worrying about the consequences in someone else's life. Fear is a very selfish emotion. It doesn't allow room for much else, even though a person may believe that they are being compassionate or loving in some twisted way while doing something entirely motivated by fear.
Fear is not exclusive to people of faith, however. The wealthy are afraid of being impoverished. The employed are afraid of being jobless. Everyone has to deal with fears. When the fears are justified by belief in a perfect higher power, however, there is little one can do to combat those fears. If one realizes that the fears are all a product of one's own mind, they can be much more easily dispelled. In many ways, religion relies on people being afraid. The more conservative a sect is, the more fear is fostered in its faithful. It's particularly strange for believers in an all-powerful deity to be so fearful. Their fear suggests that perhaps their god is not powerful enough to handle the existence of atheists and homosexuals, that they somehow have to take matters into their own hands. Or perhaps their fear is that their god will turn on them in wrath and judgment if they don't take action. Either way, people who live with such fear paint a very strange and primitive picture of their god.
What about compassionate and loving acts done by people of faith, though? Isn't there some counterbalance to the fear? Of course there is, because people who are not overwhelmed by fear can relax and be nurturing to others. Some people can be very compassionate in feeding the homeless people that they don't fear at a shelter and then turn around and be profoundly dispassionate toward one of those homeless people when they walk into a religious service. In one instance, the person isn't at all threatening, and in the other, the person is threatening to upset comfortable norms. But when fear is put aside, we can see the humanity in other people much more clearly. We don't actually need a god to tell us to clothe people and feed them and treat people like human beings. The absence of fear leaves room for compassionate behavior.
We have the ability and the responsibility to question our fear. When you find yourself in judgment over someone else, what is it you're honestly fearing? When you feel violently toward a person, or a group of people, what are you afraid they will do to upset the norms of your life? When you become indignant or outraged about something, what are you really afraid of? And is that fear in any way reasonable? It is rational in that instance to be afraid? Is it possible to set aside irrational fear -- no matter where that fear comes from -- to see another person's humanity?
Unfounded fear won't lead you to do anything good. Believe instead in your ability to see that the people you're tempted to fear are just like you in so many ways, and believe in your ability to treat them with love and compassion. You don't have to agree with everything about another person in order to treat him with love and compassion. There's really nothing threatening about someone being different from you in some small ways. Without fear, there is no cause for violence or oppression -- although it's important to realize that the whole world will not become rational and fearless all at once. In the end, though, violence and hatred work against faith, even when they seem to be fueled by it. You could be a vanguard for rational fearlessness, even if you believe in a higher power. After all, wouldn't a reasonable god want you to be fearless in your faith?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Freedom of Religious Thought
When I wrote a recent article Why Christians Should Back Down on Gay Marriage, I addressed some of the fallacies underneath the biblical reasons that some Conservative Christians offer against same-sex marriage. Although I didn't address any social or political arguments directly, I did receive some feedback about why some Christians believe that their rights are being threatened in the gay marriage debate. The fear is essentially, "By seeking the right to marry, homosexuals are trying to take away our right to define marriage the way we want to."
Since I've seen and heard this kind of thinking in multiple places, I want to address it seriously. People everywhere have the freedom to believe whatever they want. There are limitations on how those beliefs can be legally expressed, but no one can take away your freedom to believe something. If I believe that Barry Manilow is the greatest singer in the world, no one can deprive me of that belief. I can listen to Barry in the privacy of my own home, on my iPod at the gym, and while I'm driving around town, and there's no problem. When I decide that I can play Barry at 2 a.m. loud enough for the whole neighborhood to enjoy him, suddenly there's a problem. Other people have rights and freedoms, too. I don't have the freedom to make other people listen to Barry Manilow just because I believe he's the greatest singer in the world. (This is all hypothetical, you understand.)
If I define marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman, that really only has an impact on my life. It informs what my relationships will look like, and it might inform the people with whom I form close friendships. But I don't get to decide what everyone else's marriage will look like. I may think everyone should eat 13 servings of vegetables a day, but that doesn't mean I get to weigh in on everyone else's diet. If someone else defines marriage or their ideal diet differently from me, what impact does that actually have on my life? As long as they aren't forcing me to live my life by a different set of beliefs, they don't actually threaten my beliefs at all.
There can still be an impact when I witness someone living out a different belief than I have. If I see someone eating a diet that I consider unhealthy, or when I see someone allowing their children to behave in a way that annoys me, or when I see someone in a different kind of relationship than what I have, my beliefs may be challenged. Beliefs can be challenged without actually being threatened. Vegans don't actually threaten the diets of carnivorous people, but they may present a challenge to people who don't give their food choices much thought. When beliefs are challenged, two things can happen: A person either develops deeper conviction or broadens their view of what is acceptable. Either result is growth. So challenge is a good thing.
No matter how deep one's conviction, though, one person's belief does not grant power over how another person lives. That really is alright. Vegans don't really threaten butchers, Atheists don't really threaten the church, and homosexuals who want to marry don't really threaten the heterosexual lifestyle. Everyone has the right to believe what they choose to believe, and the freedom to live out that belief in their own lives, as long as doing so doesn't harm anyone else.
Although I don't plan to make same-sex marriage a frequent issue for this venue, it's obviously a huge issue in the U.S. touching on religious freedom, tolerance, and human rights. Should you want to read up on it yourself, a profound amount of information on all sides of the argument is available at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr_menu.htm.
Since I've seen and heard this kind of thinking in multiple places, I want to address it seriously. People everywhere have the freedom to believe whatever they want. There are limitations on how those beliefs can be legally expressed, but no one can take away your freedom to believe something. If I believe that Barry Manilow is the greatest singer in the world, no one can deprive me of that belief. I can listen to Barry in the privacy of my own home, on my iPod at the gym, and while I'm driving around town, and there's no problem. When I decide that I can play Barry at 2 a.m. loud enough for the whole neighborhood to enjoy him, suddenly there's a problem. Other people have rights and freedoms, too. I don't have the freedom to make other people listen to Barry Manilow just because I believe he's the greatest singer in the world. (This is all hypothetical, you understand.)
If I define marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman, that really only has an impact on my life. It informs what my relationships will look like, and it might inform the people with whom I form close friendships. But I don't get to decide what everyone else's marriage will look like. I may think everyone should eat 13 servings of vegetables a day, but that doesn't mean I get to weigh in on everyone else's diet. If someone else defines marriage or their ideal diet differently from me, what impact does that actually have on my life? As long as they aren't forcing me to live my life by a different set of beliefs, they don't actually threaten my beliefs at all.
There can still be an impact when I witness someone living out a different belief than I have. If I see someone eating a diet that I consider unhealthy, or when I see someone allowing their children to behave in a way that annoys me, or when I see someone in a different kind of relationship than what I have, my beliefs may be challenged. Beliefs can be challenged without actually being threatened. Vegans don't actually threaten the diets of carnivorous people, but they may present a challenge to people who don't give their food choices much thought. When beliefs are challenged, two things can happen: A person either develops deeper conviction or broadens their view of what is acceptable. Either result is growth. So challenge is a good thing.
No matter how deep one's conviction, though, one person's belief does not grant power over how another person lives. That really is alright. Vegans don't really threaten butchers, Atheists don't really threaten the church, and homosexuals who want to marry don't really threaten the heterosexual lifestyle. Everyone has the right to believe what they choose to believe, and the freedom to live out that belief in their own lives, as long as doing so doesn't harm anyone else.
Although I don't plan to make same-sex marriage a frequent issue for this venue, it's obviously a huge issue in the U.S. touching on religious freedom, tolerance, and human rights. Should you want to read up on it yourself, a profound amount of information on all sides of the argument is available at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr_menu.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)