Religious pluralism, the phenomenon in the world of having so many different faiths, has been an issue for most of civilization. Orthodoxies and orthopraxies both had to deal with what to do with those that didn't follow their tenets. In many places in the world, in any given population, there may be a multitude of faiths and creeds to be found.
I have an honest question, one that has bothered me for awhile. It has to do with religion. Firstly, because of the ambiguous nature of the term religion, I will use the terms "belief system" or "faith" for the rest of this discussion. My question goes something like this; what do people that believe in the truth of whatever faith they follow think of people that follow other faiths? Furthermore, how can you place your confidence in any one faith?
Do they think that they are wrong? That these people will "fail" and suffer whatever consequences that faith has established for non-believers? Do they then just think that other faiths "misunderstand" and will be grandfathered into whatever final destination because of their true intentions? For me, such explanations do not hold. Most faiths have claims about some authority that gives their faith credence, but it seems impossible to determine which faith has the correct authority, given the notoriously difficult nature and origins of such entities, writings, or oral traditions.
How then can anyone feel confident in believing a faith? There are so many valuable lessons that can be garnered from each that limiting myself to one is terrifying. And if I did believe in one faith, then how could I honestly approach another and try to learn? I would be forced to adopt one of the outlooks above, and as I have said they are unsatisfying in the highest degree.
A somewhat popular conception of belief systems, at least among people my age, is that all faiths are attempting to reach the same truth and just have different ways about doing so. But this demeans all faiths, by saying that they are all wrong. I find this just as distasteful. In addition, some faiths are so different from one another that to say they are heading for the same ultimate answer is nonsensical (for example, Confucianism and Christianity or Buddhism and Islam). Generalizing about faiths is dangerous. Even saying they all have some higher power is dubious and misconstrues some aspects of eastern faiths by redefining them in western terms.
Even smaller differences, such as those between Catholics and Protestants, or sects of Protestantism (Lutheran vs Methodist) matter. If they didn't, we wouldn't have ever witnessed the birth of these faiths. This is something else that cannot be ignored. What makes you a Catholic, and what do you think of Lutherans? And if the differences don't really matter, why are they there? From what I know, there are not different levels of heaven, so if both Lutherans and Catholics are going to the same place the Protestant Reformation was a waste of time and life. Somehow I feel like Luther would disagree with me on that one.
And in reference to the various forms of non-belief, while certainly no less legitimate than any faith, I find it hard to say that some form of atheism has it right. Appealing to no authority hardly gives you more validity than appealing to one. It just removes a source of skepticism. I do not think (like some of the more virulent strains of atheism) that the world would be a better place without the world's faiths. That overestimates their problems, and underestimates their contributions over history. And so often, these types of people hate on Christianity, or even more specifically, Catholicism, while sparing other faiths their ire. Not to mention the hate that gets thrown the atheists' way.
The only way I understand one could feel such strong emotions towards someone is if they are reasonably certain in their rightness. As I have said, I do not understand how one could feel so certain.
So, what do you think?
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
Under God or Under-Educated?
With all the political hullabaloo going on currently, I think it is important that we do not let ourselves get carried away by ideological rhetoric. Of special importance I would like to warn against the religious rhetoric that is being used. It is not uncommon for such phrases to be used, as there is little that can manage to wrest the same level of dedication from us than our religious beliefs. Specifically I would like to address something I heard the GOP candidate Mitt Romney say while on the campaign trail this past week.
In one speech, he spoke of America being “one nation under God” and how we need to get back to this place. The phrase “under God” has been controversial in the past. It is a part of our pledge of allegiance, and therefore has been accused of being discriminatory to those of non-Christian faiths.
I am here to tell you that this is exactly what it is, and should be removed from our pledge immediately. Many will object, saying that the USA was founded on Christian principles. Others will say that it is non-specific, and that tradition dictates that we should preserve the phrase.
Here’s some history 101. “Under God” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. It was done in an attempt to distinguish God-fearing Americans from the godless commies in the USSR. Spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic men’s group, no less than 17 resolutions were started in Congress to change the pledge. Yet it wasn’t until a sermon by George Docherty that President Eisenhower and the majority of the public began to agree. Here’s a snippet of the sermon;
“Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow.”
The argument that the phrase is “primarily a statement related to the American political tradition” and therefore we should keep the phrase seems hardly valid in this light. For nearly 200 years we didn’t see the need to add such a phrase, until suddenly we had competition in the world. Since communism appeared to be a viable alternative to capitalism, we were forced to leave the world of debate and appeal to an authority to prove our superiority; God. If men like Tim Tebow would stop spouting nonsense and do their homework, maybe we wouldn’t have so many problems.
Now the wording has been challenged in the past, with the lower courts often ruling it unconstitutional and the Supreme Court ruling it constitutional, because in the words of Justice William Brennan, the words “have lost any true religious significance.”
However, I challenge that claim. Obviously Romney found the words to have some significance. And those that challenge the wording also feel that the words are religious. These people are ostracized, stigmatized, and shunned for their beliefs. Perhaps some of you had fellow students who refused to say the pledge in school. I myself remember the way they were judged, as weird or “other”. This is an unacceptable burden. No one should feel like an outsider because of their religious beliefs.
In any event, not all religions have a Christian concept of God. Some have barely any similar concept at all (such as Buddhism, or even better Confucianism). Why is it that we endorse something so discriminating as a nation? How is the wording of our Pledge of Allegiance not a violation of the establishment clause? It seems difficult to find a way to establish the spirit of a nation better than by the diction of the very pledge of that nation.
The discrepancy between the arguments highlights the problem. Some want to keep it because it is religious. Some want to remove it because it is religious. The legal experts say “sorry, it’s not religious.” Does that make any sense?
The problem is that people are ill-informed. The problem is that people don’t think it matters. The problem is that the reasonable citizens of the USA do not want to get involved, and leave it to the zealots on both sides to duke it out. Education is the first step. Finding the courage to share your thoughts is the next.
So, what do you think?
In one speech, he spoke of America being “one nation under God” and how we need to get back to this place. The phrase “under God” has been controversial in the past. It is a part of our pledge of allegiance, and therefore has been accused of being discriminatory to those of non-Christian faiths.
I am here to tell you that this is exactly what it is, and should be removed from our pledge immediately. Many will object, saying that the USA was founded on Christian principles. Others will say that it is non-specific, and that tradition dictates that we should preserve the phrase.
Here’s some history 101. “Under God” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. It was done in an attempt to distinguish God-fearing Americans from the godless commies in the USSR. Spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic men’s group, no less than 17 resolutions were started in Congress to change the pledge. Yet it wasn’t until a sermon by George Docherty that President Eisenhower and the majority of the public began to agree. Here’s a snippet of the sermon;
“Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow.”
The argument that the phrase is “primarily a statement related to the American political tradition” and therefore we should keep the phrase seems hardly valid in this light. For nearly 200 years we didn’t see the need to add such a phrase, until suddenly we had competition in the world. Since communism appeared to be a viable alternative to capitalism, we were forced to leave the world of debate and appeal to an authority to prove our superiority; God. If men like Tim Tebow would stop spouting nonsense and do their homework, maybe we wouldn’t have so many problems.
Now the wording has been challenged in the past, with the lower courts often ruling it unconstitutional and the Supreme Court ruling it constitutional, because in the words of Justice William Brennan, the words “have lost any true religious significance.”
However, I challenge that claim. Obviously Romney found the words to have some significance. And those that challenge the wording also feel that the words are religious. These people are ostracized, stigmatized, and shunned for their beliefs. Perhaps some of you had fellow students who refused to say the pledge in school. I myself remember the way they were judged, as weird or “other”. This is an unacceptable burden. No one should feel like an outsider because of their religious beliefs.
In any event, not all religions have a Christian concept of God. Some have barely any similar concept at all (such as Buddhism, or even better Confucianism). Why is it that we endorse something so discriminating as a nation? How is the wording of our Pledge of Allegiance not a violation of the establishment clause? It seems difficult to find a way to establish the spirit of a nation better than by the diction of the very pledge of that nation.
The discrepancy between the arguments highlights the problem. Some want to keep it because it is religious. Some want to remove it because it is religious. The legal experts say “sorry, it’s not religious.” Does that make any sense?
The problem is that people are ill-informed. The problem is that people don’t think it matters. The problem is that the reasonable citizens of the USA do not want to get involved, and leave it to the zealots on both sides to duke it out. Education is the first step. Finding the courage to share your thoughts is the next.
So, what do you think?
You can learn more by doing a simple google search, or by following the links below;
Monday, June 11, 2012
To begin, take one powdered thestral hoof...
While we often hear of peer pressure, a much less discussed phenomenon is that of peer envy. It is for that reason I find myself here, breaking ground on my own blog. Partly because of this man, and this one as well, who attributes his own blogging inspiration to this fine woman, I discovered that reading the thoughts, opinions, and experiences of others makes for a refreshing afternoon of mental stimulation. Now that my blogging ancestry has been established, let us move on to the topic at hand.
As this is my first attempt at blogging, I am sure there will be moments when I falter, or go astray on some highly irrelevant tangent. But as I have learned, without a summer project I quickly find myself in the doldrums of summer life as a student. Since this is perhaps my last of such summers, I think I should make the most of it!
Now my interests are varied, perhaps even eclectic, like so many of us out there. Books, current events, video games, politics, college life and beyond; so many topics, and such short attention spans.
Therefore I write of my thoughts, of how things could be and when I dare, how things should be. An English teacher of mine in high school convinced me that stories, regardless of their fiction and embellishment, have true messages. For this reason, I feel that there are things to be learned from the myriad forms of human expression. Where you find thinking people, you find thoughts worth knowing, be that in the “hard” sciences, mathematics, social sciences, theologies, philosophies, literature, visual and aural arts, or those disciplines that fall in between.
Unlike many people today, I do NOT feel that our country, society, or world is headed for disaster. Perhaps naively, I believe the majority of people work with honest intentions and worthwhile goals. I may have alternatives to these goals or means, but that does not invalidate the idea under inspection.
That said, I fully welcome any challenges to things I say here. The vada tradition of debate, dating back to ancient India, welcomes philosophies of many backgrounds, provided they make themselves debatable. In doing so, one learns to better understand what one believes by putting it in conversation with the beliefs of others.
So what do I think? Here are two quotes to give you an idea:
"You read it by grace," said Xaphania, looking at her, "and you can regain it by work."
"How long will that take?"
"A lifetime."
"That long..."
"But your reading will be even better then, after a lifetime of thought and effort, because it will come from conscious understanding. Grace attained like that is deeper and fuller than grace that comes freely, and furthermore, once you've gained it, it will never leave you." -Excerpt from The Amber Spyglass
“The day may and should come when a national reformer will appear who can be figured more in the guise of St. Michael, armed with a flaming sword and winged for flight.” -Excerpt from Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life
These are both personal goals of mine. At this point I won’t say anything further, since I’ve said a great deal already. Only one thing remains.
So, what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)