![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Religious Faith and Violence...
Jul. 12th, 2015 03:54 pmThe Unitarian Church can be rather interesting at times. I've suggested it to various friends who have replied...
"I don't like organized religion."
"Oh, Unitarians aren't organized."
They aren't. Religious, yes, well sort of, organized, no. To be organized you sort of need consensus, and Unitarians live to debate just about everything.
During the summer months, our Ministers are off on sabbatical and we have lay-worship leaders who develop a service, provide music, and a homily or what amounts to a mini-lecture. [One of my friends stated that going to a Unitarian Service was a bit like going to a lecture with music, rituals, and meditation. Personally, I found other church services to be much the same -- except with more rituals. Not being much into ritual (I find most religious rituals to be silly, particularly since people take things that were meant to be taken metaphorically way too literally), Unitarianism works for me.]
Anywho...today, the lay minister decided that the root of all evil was religion or religious faith. And that it was impossible to separate religious faith from violence. And violence was an inherent part of religious belief or faith. While he was willing to acknowledge that violence was also part of non-religious systems and organizations, he stated that humanism or cultural humanism was less likely to swing towards fanacticism or violence.
Halfway through, I was struggling not to roll my eyes. Apparently science and the search for knowledge has not ended in bloodshed or violence. It's all the fault of religion.
And faith. How faith without reason ends in violence. While reason without morality and ethics does as well. Not completely untrue that bit - you do need to find a middle ground and fanaticism can lead to violence, not always but often.
However, it's incredibly naive to think that religion in of itself equals violence. No, violence, whether we like it or not, is an inherently human vice. It exists in all human activities and organizations, religious in otherwise. How anyone who has watched a football game can claim otherwise is beyond me. And it is instinctual. Animals who have no religion as far as I can tell, are violent. It defies logic to state that religion in of itself equals violence or being part of a religion or having a religious faith means you will become violent. It's actually often the reverse. Religion often tempers violence. The belief in something greater than yourself can in some people act as a choice against using violence to resolve problems. Religious doctrine proposes other means of resolving problems, non-violent means. The recent reactions of the congregants of the Emmanual Church in South Carolina are testament to that fact. As are the preachings of the current Pope, who advises that the problems of the world be addressed through compassionate means.
In most cases, violence erupts due to economic and class warfare, not religious. Religion, granted, is often used as an excuse, but it is not the root cause. The fanatic is drawn to violence due to his/her frustration and dissatisfaction in relation to his/her current fashion of living or the sense that world is not going they he/she wishes it world. Anger, rage, dissatisfaction and a sense of futility often lead to fanaticism.
Cultural Humanists and Atheists can be just as morally bankrupt and fanatical as any religious leader. It's not limited to the devout or the faithful. The world, I'm sorry, isn't that black and white. There's no neat little formula that we can use to eradicate evil or violence. If you study the bulk of history and don't just pick and choose isolated incidents to support your theory, you'll see that. The Atomic Bomb was not created for religious reasons, it was created by scientists seeking knowledge and a way to end a war. Religion dictated against its use. The Holocaust and the insanely unethical experiments conducted during it by the Nazi regime were not under the guise of religion.
And most terrorism isn't really about Islam, which if you've bothered to read the Koran, is actually against violence to resolve problems, but about power and economic superiority.
The rational mind is not always critical - apparently. It doesn't look deeper and see that human beings aren't simple. And are, capable, of evil, with the flip of a switch. In the name of scientific discovery - men and women have committed acts of great evil and good. You don't need to be a science fiction geek to know that, or perhaps you do?
Blaming religion for the world's ills is easy, but rather naive and short-sighted. If we were to do away with religion tomorrow, I promise you that people would still walk into a school and shoot kids, they would still declare war, and they would still watch violent video games and think, hmmm, can I do that too? It's like saying -- oh if I do away with violent movies, there will be no violence.
Or if I do away with guns, there will be no killings. (Actually I think if we do away with guns, we'll probably have better results, so I take that back.)
At the end of the day there no easy solutions or simple answers. Life can't be generalized. There is not a one-size fits all answer...each day we choose. Do we want to use violence to resolve this problem or is there a better, more peaceful way of accomplishing our ends? Do the ends always justify the means, or should we take a moment or two to think it through and hunt another way? Think about the consequences of our actions, first?
We make a million and one choices each day. Our choices affect everything around us. While it is easy to blame external things like religion, the government, organizations, etc - our choices remain our own. Someone who chooses to solve their problems with violence does so, because they choose to do it.
They may use religion as a justification or the government or their job or their poor economic standing, but at the end of the day it is their choice and the responsibility for that choice is theirs. But, as I write this, I find myself even questioning the simplicity of that statement. For so many variables enter into the choice. Including mental competency.
I was a former criminal defense lawyer - I defended clients in Leavenworth Penitentiary one summer under supervision. And I went to law school. I know that under our legal system, someone's guilt and or innocence is not simply determined. Were they mentally competent at the time? Were they under the influence of drugs? Coercion? Were they without their meds? Had they suffered brain damage? Were they legally insane?
So much factors into the choices people make. I remember years ago having a lengthy debate/discussion online about the meaning of a soul in a television series. After a bit the discussion jumped away from what the television writers intended and/or defined a soul in their series to what the individuals discussing a soul defined it as. What I found fascinating about the discussion was we could not reach a consensus. At one point, someone stated that it concerned them greatly that people did not share the same basic human values. I vaguely remember responding with the quip: " well, considering we can't agree on the definition of a soul, I think you may be asking a bit much for people to agree with your definition of basic human values and morality." (Also who made you the best judge of this sort of thing? But that's another discussion.) People were quite vehement in regards to how a soul should be defined. This is what it is! You're wrong! We actually were fighting over it. It was quite amusing in retrospect.
I've often found religious discussions much like political discussions to be intellectually amusing, yet emotionally frustrating. As an old uncle used to opine: "Religion and Politics should never be discussed in polite company." Too true. Get an angry Atheist and a devout Christian in a room and watch the fur fly - it's almost as bad as watching a Spuffy Shipper and Bangle Shipper go at it.
Neither will win. It's a pointless debate. Mainly because they won't listen to each other - instead they'll both pontificate at each other.
To me, or so I've discovered, everyone has their own religion. Whether it be cultural humanism, science, Judeo/Christian, Pagan/Wiccan, Buddhism, Confusism, Shamanism, Islam, Hindu, etc...it is their religion and it bodes well to respect it for what it is. That it is vital to who they are, and it can shift and change as time wears on. But to denounce religion or religious faith as means of promoting our own...I don't believe works. It's easy to do though. And it's hard to understand another's faith, particularly when it runs counter to your own.
I think violence - when it occurs in association with religion is more often or not the result of the above conflict. The inability to accept that someone devoutly believes a doctrine or belief system that is not your own or outside your own or in some cases, contrary to your own. Similar to politics, violence erupts from the discord or dissonance of a set of political beliefs that run contrary to your own and threaten to overtake your own. If you are a conservative Republican who believes that communities are better equipped to handle social problems and the government should remain a distant oversight, with little to no direct involvement - you may find the progressive Democratic approach of government social programs, excessive, costly, and highly bureaucratic. And you just can't understand why they don't see that. On the other hand, if you are a progressive Democrat, you may see the abject poverty and violence around you and believe that communities are ill-equipped to handle it and often ignore it, so government oversight is required along with regulations and laws to enforce and implement, and the bureaucracy is just an unfortunate side-effect of the implementation process.
The two views are not completely opposed - both do want a common good, but they see completely different ways of achieving it. Violence occurs from the dissonance or frustration of not achieving the goal you want. But it is not the fault of politics, any more than it is the fault of religion, but rather the individuals who decide that it is their way or hell on earth.
I think, until human beings can see that resorting to violence does not resolve problems but just create new and much larger and horrible problems, we will continue to be a violent world. Faith in a God and/or something beyond ourselves or the absence of faith has little to do with it.
"I don't like organized religion."
"Oh, Unitarians aren't organized."
They aren't. Religious, yes, well sort of, organized, no. To be organized you sort of need consensus, and Unitarians live to debate just about everything.
During the summer months, our Ministers are off on sabbatical and we have lay-worship leaders who develop a service, provide music, and a homily or what amounts to a mini-lecture. [One of my friends stated that going to a Unitarian Service was a bit like going to a lecture with music, rituals, and meditation. Personally, I found other church services to be much the same -- except with more rituals. Not being much into ritual (I find most religious rituals to be silly, particularly since people take things that were meant to be taken metaphorically way too literally), Unitarianism works for me.]
Anywho...today, the lay minister decided that the root of all evil was religion or religious faith. And that it was impossible to separate religious faith from violence. And violence was an inherent part of religious belief or faith. While he was willing to acknowledge that violence was also part of non-religious systems and organizations, he stated that humanism or cultural humanism was less likely to swing towards fanacticism or violence.
Halfway through, I was struggling not to roll my eyes. Apparently science and the search for knowledge has not ended in bloodshed or violence. It's all the fault of religion.
And faith. How faith without reason ends in violence. While reason without morality and ethics does as well. Not completely untrue that bit - you do need to find a middle ground and fanaticism can lead to violence, not always but often.
However, it's incredibly naive to think that religion in of itself equals violence. No, violence, whether we like it or not, is an inherently human vice. It exists in all human activities and organizations, religious in otherwise. How anyone who has watched a football game can claim otherwise is beyond me. And it is instinctual. Animals who have no religion as far as I can tell, are violent. It defies logic to state that religion in of itself equals violence or being part of a religion or having a religious faith means you will become violent. It's actually often the reverse. Religion often tempers violence. The belief in something greater than yourself can in some people act as a choice against using violence to resolve problems. Religious doctrine proposes other means of resolving problems, non-violent means. The recent reactions of the congregants of the Emmanual Church in South Carolina are testament to that fact. As are the preachings of the current Pope, who advises that the problems of the world be addressed through compassionate means.
In most cases, violence erupts due to economic and class warfare, not religious. Religion, granted, is often used as an excuse, but it is not the root cause. The fanatic is drawn to violence due to his/her frustration and dissatisfaction in relation to his/her current fashion of living or the sense that world is not going they he/she wishes it world. Anger, rage, dissatisfaction and a sense of futility often lead to fanaticism.
Cultural Humanists and Atheists can be just as morally bankrupt and fanatical as any religious leader. It's not limited to the devout or the faithful. The world, I'm sorry, isn't that black and white. There's no neat little formula that we can use to eradicate evil or violence. If you study the bulk of history and don't just pick and choose isolated incidents to support your theory, you'll see that. The Atomic Bomb was not created for religious reasons, it was created by scientists seeking knowledge and a way to end a war. Religion dictated against its use. The Holocaust and the insanely unethical experiments conducted during it by the Nazi regime were not under the guise of religion.
And most terrorism isn't really about Islam, which if you've bothered to read the Koran, is actually against violence to resolve problems, but about power and economic superiority.
The rational mind is not always critical - apparently. It doesn't look deeper and see that human beings aren't simple. And are, capable, of evil, with the flip of a switch. In the name of scientific discovery - men and women have committed acts of great evil and good. You don't need to be a science fiction geek to know that, or perhaps you do?
Blaming religion for the world's ills is easy, but rather naive and short-sighted. If we were to do away with religion tomorrow, I promise you that people would still walk into a school and shoot kids, they would still declare war, and they would still watch violent video games and think, hmmm, can I do that too? It's like saying -- oh if I do away with violent movies, there will be no violence.
Or if I do away with guns, there will be no killings. (Actually I think if we do away with guns, we'll probably have better results, so I take that back.)
At the end of the day there no easy solutions or simple answers. Life can't be generalized. There is not a one-size fits all answer...each day we choose. Do we want to use violence to resolve this problem or is there a better, more peaceful way of accomplishing our ends? Do the ends always justify the means, or should we take a moment or two to think it through and hunt another way? Think about the consequences of our actions, first?
We make a million and one choices each day. Our choices affect everything around us. While it is easy to blame external things like religion, the government, organizations, etc - our choices remain our own. Someone who chooses to solve their problems with violence does so, because they choose to do it.
They may use religion as a justification or the government or their job or their poor economic standing, but at the end of the day it is their choice and the responsibility for that choice is theirs. But, as I write this, I find myself even questioning the simplicity of that statement. For so many variables enter into the choice. Including mental competency.
I was a former criminal defense lawyer - I defended clients in Leavenworth Penitentiary one summer under supervision. And I went to law school. I know that under our legal system, someone's guilt and or innocence is not simply determined. Were they mentally competent at the time? Were they under the influence of drugs? Coercion? Were they without their meds? Had they suffered brain damage? Were they legally insane?
So much factors into the choices people make. I remember years ago having a lengthy debate/discussion online about the meaning of a soul in a television series. After a bit the discussion jumped away from what the television writers intended and/or defined a soul in their series to what the individuals discussing a soul defined it as. What I found fascinating about the discussion was we could not reach a consensus. At one point, someone stated that it concerned them greatly that people did not share the same basic human values. I vaguely remember responding with the quip: " well, considering we can't agree on the definition of a soul, I think you may be asking a bit much for people to agree with your definition of basic human values and morality." (Also who made you the best judge of this sort of thing? But that's another discussion.) People were quite vehement in regards to how a soul should be defined. This is what it is! You're wrong! We actually were fighting over it. It was quite amusing in retrospect.
I've often found religious discussions much like political discussions to be intellectually amusing, yet emotionally frustrating. As an old uncle used to opine: "Religion and Politics should never be discussed in polite company." Too true. Get an angry Atheist and a devout Christian in a room and watch the fur fly - it's almost as bad as watching a Spuffy Shipper and Bangle Shipper go at it.
Neither will win. It's a pointless debate. Mainly because they won't listen to each other - instead they'll both pontificate at each other.
To me, or so I've discovered, everyone has their own religion. Whether it be cultural humanism, science, Judeo/Christian, Pagan/Wiccan, Buddhism, Confusism, Shamanism, Islam, Hindu, etc...it is their religion and it bodes well to respect it for what it is. That it is vital to who they are, and it can shift and change as time wears on. But to denounce religion or religious faith as means of promoting our own...I don't believe works. It's easy to do though. And it's hard to understand another's faith, particularly when it runs counter to your own.
I think violence - when it occurs in association with religion is more often or not the result of the above conflict. The inability to accept that someone devoutly believes a doctrine or belief system that is not your own or outside your own or in some cases, contrary to your own. Similar to politics, violence erupts from the discord or dissonance of a set of political beliefs that run contrary to your own and threaten to overtake your own. If you are a conservative Republican who believes that communities are better equipped to handle social problems and the government should remain a distant oversight, with little to no direct involvement - you may find the progressive Democratic approach of government social programs, excessive, costly, and highly bureaucratic. And you just can't understand why they don't see that. On the other hand, if you are a progressive Democrat, you may see the abject poverty and violence around you and believe that communities are ill-equipped to handle it and often ignore it, so government oversight is required along with regulations and laws to enforce and implement, and the bureaucracy is just an unfortunate side-effect of the implementation process.
The two views are not completely opposed - both do want a common good, but they see completely different ways of achieving it. Violence occurs from the dissonance or frustration of not achieving the goal you want. But it is not the fault of politics, any more than it is the fault of religion, but rather the individuals who decide that it is their way or hell on earth.
I think, until human beings can see that resorting to violence does not resolve problems but just create new and much larger and horrible problems, we will continue to be a violent world. Faith in a God and/or something beyond ourselves or the absence of faith has little to do with it.
