The dangers of religion

[yovargas]

I don't doubt for a second your examples to the contrary, Prim, but the broad validity of the point can't be refuted by a few exceptions. And they are few, I believe. <snip> Do the Jihadists ignore the peaceful side and scripture of Islam?

To my knowledge, the jihadists remain the distinct minority in their religion.

[baby tuckoo]

I agree, but they are the most public and the most problematic, and they provide a rallying point for others who are less inclined to jihad.

[Frelga]

I agree, but they are the most public and the most problematic, and they provide a rallying point for others who are less inclined to jihad.

A rallying point for some, yes. Even worse, they intimidate and terrorize others of their own religion into supporting or at least not opposing them. All based on the word of God as they understand it.

And speaking of Communism - I wrote a longish post in one of the recent threads where I argued that Communism as a political and economic system has never been attempted. Not even the Soviets ever claimed to live in the Communist society, only that it was the ultimate but distant goal. What the Soviet Union had instead was a totalitarian dictatorship politically and a giant state monopoly economically. Not the same as Communism at all. That said, I think it would have failed anyway had it been tried.

[WampusCat]

I have been dismayed and disgusted but never surprised by the horrific behavior of organized religion through the ages. How could it be otherwise, given our human determination to manipulate and control each other? That greed for power corrupts even the best truths that we discover.

Most of us acknowledge, for instance, the value and goodness of a committed, loving relationship between two people. But all too often that truth has been warped by the desire of one partner to dominate the other. And it has been repeated not just in individual relationships but has at times been built into the societal institution. So a wife, for instance, might be considered property. Does that make marriage a false and evil institution? Or does it mean that we have to be vigilant to keep it from being twisted from a life-giving, positive force into something destructive?

I see religion being defined here as a set of rules, an authoritarian and exclusionary power trip. Has it been abused and twisted in that way? Of course. But that is not how I (and many others) experience it.

I go to church not for answers but to brush against mystery. Yes, I am told of a certain standard of behavior, but the intent is not to control my actions but to challenge me to see beyond my own petty pleasure-seeking. In my church, at least, the emphasis is on challenging us to think of the poor, to welcome the outcast, to look past whatever the TV ads are screaming that we need and to find what really feeds our souls. Nobody tells me what to do, but I am urged to follow the example of Jesus -- who displayed love and forgiveness, not judgmental control.

In every religion, in every denomination, in every individual house of worship -- just as in every government, in every school, in every human endeavor -- there are some who want to use the good that draws people in as a weapon. And there are others who resist that, who are empowered not to dominate other people but to be more alive, more compassionate, more aware, more at one with the universe and each other.

Going to church is an outward sign of my inward journey. Being with other believers -- even though we believe in many different ways -- challenges and delights me. When I see religion being misused, I try to call it back to its own ideals. I do not insist that other people believe as I do, or at all. I do not look down on those who reject religion entirely.

But I admit that it does bother me a great deal to hear something in which I find such depth and worth to be dismissed as dangerous, as if that is all there is to it. It's the same sort of feeling I got once when I heard an academic dismiss "Lord of the Rings" as a silly tale that no intelligent adult could possibly appreciate. He couldn't see past what he would consider the "fairy tale" aspect. He couldn't see that there might be something deeper going on, despite the presence of elves and dwarves and magic rings.

[Frelga]

But I admit that it does bother me a great deal to hear something in which I find such depth and worth to be dismissed as dangerous, as if that is all there is to it. It's the same sort of feeling I got once when I heard an academic dismiss "Lord of the Rings" as a silly tale that no intelligent adult could possibly appreciate. He couldn't see past what he would consider the "fairy tale" aspect. He couldn't see that there might be something deeper going on, despite the presence of elves and dwarves and magic rings.

Wampus, I don't think people are saying that this is ALL there is to it. However, the topic is "the DANGERS of religion." If the topic were "dangers of hiking" I would expect people to mention bears and cougars, poison ivy, treacherous trails, etc. That would not mean that hiking is evil and should be abandoned, just that it is not without its risks and that there are places one probably should not go.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm looking around for the Crusades that are happening now, here, in America and Europe. And the Inquisitions.

It may just be our differing perspectives, but from where I'm standing tens of millions of people are members of organized religions in this country without repressing or murdering anyone. The peaceful religions are not the exceptions, and they are not few. The true proportions are exactly the opposite. As in Islam with the jihadists, the radicals and the people who act to impose their beliefs by force or legislation are a small minority. Just much louder—so outsiders think they are representative of the majority of believers when that is far, far from the case.

[MithLuin]

Nin - it's your thread. No one can ask you to respond in a different way on your own topic! Sharing your own views is fine - there is little that would be added by making this conversation theological, anyway. I understand the distinction you drew between political or philosophical ideologies and religions based on the supernatural. Is it possible, though, to set up "mankind" as an overarching concept that would be substituted for God with similar results to these destructive religions? I realize that you don't tend to get something like Waco without someone claiming to be God. But, I dunno - a cult that thinks the aliens are coming to take them away - is that a religion? Or a philosophy? What about one that believes in the collective soul of the planet? Or the inherent worth of human life? I guess the question is...at what point does your philosophy become 'safe' from radicalism because it's 'just' human?

As for secular society - American society is pretty much secular, too. Most people don't really discuss religion at all, though maybe it comes up more often here. It is taboo to mention such things during a job interview, of course. Speaking of which, many organists do not belong to the religion of the church they play the organ for. It's a paying job, and they love music, and that is that. Obviously some are part of the community of believers, and that's why they took the job. But not all. But anyway, while people talk about stuff on the internet, it would be eye-opening to see how they live, I think. That's why I suggested that you take personal acquaintances more seriously...but if you don't have any religious acquaintances, I don't know what to tell you. It would be a silly question to ask if you thought the local organized religions were a detriment to your community - I'm not sure I know what the question means!


Tosh, it is my experience that the most necessary requirement in a religious discussion is both a willingness and ability to listen (really listen) to what the other person has to say. I don't have to change what I think (that is not a requirement), but I will never understand the person I am talking to if I don't listen. And in my own personal experience, the people who have been most skilled at listening to others have also been people I respected for their deep spirituality. They were religious. (And no, they didn't listen to me - I meant, listening to people with whom they were not in agreement!)

It is the people who aren't very sure of their beliefs, to whom everything is tenuous and superficial, who cannot listen. Oh, and fundamentalists of any persuasion . But really, I don't think that religion is more likely to breed this type of scary inability to listen to reason than anything else. It's not that I think there are exceptions, bt - it's that I think cases were this happens are bad religion, and while that is prevalent enough, it is certainly the minority of organized religion. I consider Tosh's scenarios to be the exceptions, not Prim's examples.

But seriously, if god is "an anonymous silent absent divinity figure," then it is no wonder the religion would turn out scary! My God is neither silent, absent, nor anonymous. And He's always right . And yet, for some reason, I can continue to talk to people without sharpening my hatchet. Who would have thought?

Edit: Cross-posted with Frelga, Wampus, and Prim. I agree with Wampus!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Voronwë, you know how much I admire you, but there were far more priests silent towards the Nazi crimes or even actively supporting it - when lists were asked abotu conversion of jews, who did give them out? -then those opposed to it. Whereas the church actively opposed to the Nazi so called euthanasia programm tending towarsd the extermination of "unworthy" life. And they succeeded in their protest... but did not help massively the jews (however that is another question).

Yes, you are right, Nin, that is my understanding as well. In fact that is exactly why I used that example. Because I wanted to show that even in situations where a religious body experienced a moral failure, there were individuals within that religious body whose faith AND their religion were the source of tremendous moral strength. I think the point that I wanted to make was that there are no absolutes. Religion can be the source of both good and evil, sometimes at the same time.

I personally am not, never have been, and never will be, religious. I was not brought up within a religious tradition, and I am not hardwired to be part of any organization, really. I am very much an independent sort. I have over time developed a very personal relationship with God, but that is another issue altogether.

But I don't condemn religion, either, nor deny the tremendous good that it can do for many people. What I do see as a problem, however, is when religion (or, frankly, religious leaders) come between people and God. That is when religion becomes most dangerous, in my opinion, because then religion (and religious leaders!) tend to exercise an undue influence over potentially many individuals, and sometimes that undue influence can be used in dangerous ways.

Nin, you have nothing to apologize for. Your contribution is very valuable. And I admire you very much, as well.

[baby tuckoo]

As for secular society - American society is pretty much secular, too. Most people don't really discuss religion at all, though maybe it comes up more often here. It is taboo to mention such things during a job interview, of course. But anyway, while people talk about stuff on the internet, it would be eye-opening to see how they live, I think.

I think you're right about public (even private) discussion, Mith. It surprises me a bit. But then I think of the disparity of beliefs and maybe it doesn't surprise me, it's part of being a plural nation.


I'm an atheist. Even so, I love casual social discussions of religion and I can carry them on without contention, as I hope you all have seen here. I consider it a philosophical discussion and it interests me to hear what people believe and why they believe it.

Yet, it often (yes, often) makes someone in the group uncomfortable. (My ex-wife was once that person, which bobbed my impulse somewhat.) Discomfort or not, I can't think of a more revealing and engaging topic for a group to grope. Like here, it is a challenge to social civility, which is a good thing.

[Primula Baggins]

It is. It's a real challenge. But I agree that it's a good thing. It wasn't until I came here, specifically, that my outlook on religion was challenged in a way that seriously made me try to examine my easy assumptions about my own and other people's beliefs.

I don't mean that I have ever been consciously prejudiced, consciously thought ill of good people because their beliefs are different from mine. I also don't mean that anyone has made logical points that have shaken my faith (we have had that discussion , and I have not converted anyone, either).

I mean that I have, sometimes in a way that is shocking to me, had to confront places where my placid assumptions are hurtful or unfair to others—where the understanding I was once so proud of has failed. Where I have a whole lot more to learn than I once thought.

I know I probably still tread on toes, but I'm trying not to. I'm trying to, well, listen.

[Frelga]

I mean that I have, sometimes in a way that is shocking to me, had to confront places where my placid assumptions are hurtful or unfair to others—where the understanding I was once so proud of has failed. Where I have a whole lot more to learn than I once thought.

I know I probably still tread on toes, but I'm trying not to. I'm trying to, well, listen.

Prim, you are not just adorable, you are admirable.

Yes, that is where I see one of the "dangers" we are talking about. The great blessing that a religious community brings to our lives is to be surrounded by others who share our beliefs and our view of the world. At the same time, if our religious community and secular community are largely one and the same, it is easy to forget that so many other do not share those beliefs.

Talking about religion is fraught with emotional hazards, to the point that simply stating my beliefs, with no reference or judgment of the beliefs of others can hurt or anger other people. Why should it make any difference to anybody whether I believe that Jesus is my Lord and Savior? Yet I've seen people react as if by not sharing their beliefs I take something away from them, so that they become defensive or strike out in anger. Why should it be so?

[Misha]

I agree with you Frelga, that conversations about religion tend to bring out intense reactions and fervent admonitions. I think it is of great value to discuss faith and religious conviction as often as it can be tolerated. I think it is important to understand where beliefs come from and how they have developed over time.

My values may be different from those of the kids my son attends college with for instance, but I would prefer to listen to them share what goes on in their lives - really listen - without conveying a judgmental response.

There is no loss, threat or malice involved in true listening.

[Holbytla]

There has been a lot said that I would like to respond to, but due to lack of time and a tired brain I'll just briefly address a couple of things.

Prim wrote:

I'm looking around for the Crusades that are happening now, here, in America and Europe. And the Inquisitions.

I won't cite any specific examples, but there are instances of abuse more subtle than crusades or inquisitions.

On the whole I think you are correct in a "sense" when you say that many organizations in this country are peaceful and have no vile ulterior motives.

However it it often the case that the outward signs are not the problems, and there are other inherent dangers besides murder and repression that cause more than a few problems.

There are numerous examples of illegal acts connected with religions in this country. In most cases it is not the religions themselves that are the problems, but the organizations and sometimes machines that are behind those religions that become powerful and unwieldy.

[anthriel]

But I don't condemn religion, either, nor deny the tremendous good that it can do for many people. What I do see as a problem, however, is when religion (or, frankly, religious leaders) come between people and God. That is when religion becomes most dangerous, in my opinion, because then religion (and religious leaders!) tend to exercise an undue influence over potentially many individuals, and sometimes that undue influence can be used in dangerous ways.

I couldn't agree more. Especially the part about organized religion (and the people who are involved) doing tremendous good for many people. Not just practically, although practically counts, I think. The church we sometimes attend has built a (secular) school in South Africa, and contributed heavily to a home for unwed mothers here in Phoenix. I think that type of thing is overlooked when people focus on the "bad" things about organized religious groups. A lot of good comes from them, too, and not just for the spiritual growth of the people involved. Although THAT counts, too. It does.

But sometimes, in my experience, religion does come between people and God. (That is so well put!) And that is a shame.

I'm an atheist. Even so, I love casual social discussions of religion and I can carry them on without contention, as I hope you all have seen here. I consider it a philosophical discussion and it interests me to hear what people believe and why they believe it.

I really admire you, bt. You really do give everyone the latitude to be themselves. I think that is all kinds of cool.

[Crucifer]

Just because people have abused Religion does not necesarily mean that it is all bad.

People abuse democracy all the time. That's pretty good.

Religion comes between people and God when people start to think that they have to be in a church being told what to do in order to be 'religious'.

One shouldn't need a building, a book or a person saying archaic stuff to connect with the world. The church of the spirit and the church of the flesh are two very different things.

[Windfola]

Hi folks.

It's been awhile . . . I hope you don't mind if I take us all back to the first page of the thread for a moment, in order to make a point that I hope will contribute to the very worthy and important concern about the dangers of religion (which certainly abound).

Nerdanel said:

I find faith dangerous where it clashes with conscience because I am suspicious whether and how faith is linked to the Divine (particularly since different religions, whose teachings contradict each other, claim to be linked to the Divine.)

This disqualifying notion about religion and religious traditions, that they have teachings which contradict each other, is one that is quite common, and may seem self evident based on the way that we typically understand and evalutate religions.

However, I would argue it can be demonstrated, (despite the fact that it may cause some discomfort for those who are certain their particular faith has the corner on truth) that there are certain essential truths toward which all of the great human faith traditions point. And, it seems to me, it is at that nexus that anyone who is looking for Truth should begin their search.

When we strip away the outer trappings of religious traditions, inevitably corrupted by human greed and hunger for power, they are all saying precisely the same thing, if we would only open our hearts and minds to the message.

Those of you who know me know that I have posted on more than one occasion about Aldous Huxley's brilliant anthology of religious thought "The Perennial Philosophy". I heartily recommend it to anyone who might be interested in some amazing (although sometimes difficult) reading. And once you have read Jesus, Lao Tzu and Jalal-uddin Rumi, all on a single page (!), you might begin to rid yourself of the notion that religions, at their core, contradict each other at all.

To get to back to the original thread topic, I would say that the very real danger of religion, and the part that seems so scary to Nin, lies in the fact that so many of us get caught in those outer trappings (for example, impoverishing the concept of faith by equating it to the belief that a certain set of unprovable propositions are true), and that so few of us actually ever glimpse the Truth toward which all religious traditions point.



Nin said:

Morality and ethics do not depend on religion. I think it is possible to state universal human, ethical laws without relying on religion or justifying them by some divine aspect. In my vision of the world, the singularity of the position of mankind is reason enough to protect and ensure human rights

.

Whether the common truths of the great religions come from mankind or some divine source is for each person to decide. But the commonalities themselves are undeniable and should be a potential source of comfort to you, rather than a source of fear or anger.

[Windfola]

Oops.

dp

Guess I have to get the hang of this again . . .

[WampusCat]

Worth saying twice, Windfola.

The mystics in every religious tradition (as well as outside organized religion) find they have much in common. Dogma separates. The experience of divinity in its purest essence does not divide but unites.

The dangers come not from the heart of any religion but from its all-too-human trappings.

It would be foolish to expect religion to ever appear in its purest form, since we are, of course, human. So there will always be dangers, but those dangers do not necessarily contradict the Truth that lies beneath.

[baby tuckoo]

Nicely said, Windfo, and welcome back.


I would like to believe that there is an ecumenical impulse in the heart of every religion, but I can't, for I study the past and take note of the present.



Too many truths exist in the land of belief, and the most dangerous of them also use a capital T. It is the True Believers who scare me most.



Let me repeat something I've said before: I would die in battle for the right of any True Believer to believe those very strange things they have chosen to believe. I want a society that allows it.


Would that True Believer die for my right not to believe in any such superstitious nonsense? It is just as important.

[MithLuin]

I would never force or badger anyone into agreeing with me when it came to religious belief - for the simple fact that that would be counter-productive . I think that religious freedom is one of the most important things in the world. It was one of the rights Vatican II explicitly stated, and one that some people struggled with - the idea of a state religion did not totally turn everyone off (particularly European bishops...). But JP II, living in Communist Poland, saw the problems with that and decided human freedom was more important than the church staying in control.

He didn't die for it, but he lived for it, and never gave up. That has to count for something.