Barbelith Underground > Head Shop > The Role of the Church in Modern Society

23:19 / 09.10.05

(It's not a Temple thread... yet. It's still in Headshop.)

It's interesting to me that one function of religion is thought to be the propping up of the weak-willed. Some of the strongest-willed people I've known have had religious faith of one kind or another. Moreover, their strength of character wasn't dependent on their religious faith, because they could thoroughly question their faith and even reject portions of it when those portions ceased to work. Whereas weak-willed people will generally find something to lean on, be it the law, popular opinion, the media, their friends/family, materialism, or some other secular ideology.

Lurid, of course religion and reason aren't mutually exclusive. The foundations of Western thought were formed largely by people of faith, and one should never forget that Occam was a theologian. I'd prefer that people based their notions of what is good on reason, as well— especially if part of their motivation for "good" is religious faith. And I'd much prefer general belief, within a framework of reason, to "voices from God" as a motivation for action, even when that action seems to me to be a benefit to humanity rather than destructive.

RobertRosen, I'm sorry for my misinterpretation of your enthusiasm and the harsh words which followed from it.

I also have a problem with religious groups who use their doctrines as an excuse to hurt people or to restrict them by fiat from rights which are available to others. But I know of very few religions whose central tenets actually demand this kind of action. Indeed, I can't think of any. But as Petey points out, some interpretations of certain religions seem to impel people to hateful behavior.

I wonder if there could be found some criteria for determining whether people are making religious interpretations from a worldview which presumes certain kinds of hatred and prejudice. For instance, there are many believers of Islam who, as they read the Qu'ran, see no impetus to expansionism. I believe there are even lines which can be quoted which seem to directly forbid expansionist urges in Islam, although I can't call these to mind. But some people read the Qu'ran and believe that it exhorts its followers to violence. Many of these people are not Muslim and know little or nothing of the culture; some of them are perhaps Islamic extremists (although it seems obvious to me a large portion of the motivation for the Islamic extremist movement is political, couched in religious language). I would venture to suggest that non-Muslims who read the Qu'ran and see clear exhortations to violence where many Muslims do not, are reading through an incorrect lens filtered by prejudice against Muslims, just as many Christians who read into Jesus' teachings hatred of homosexuals are reading through a lens filtered by prejudice against homosexuals.

It seems like a pretty clear guideline to me is "If your religion says not to do something, then don't do it— other people's religion may differ, and so long as they are not causing anyone harm, leave them alone and tend to your own right living." A problem comes in when there is the belief that, for instance, homosexuals are harming themselves and others by causing themselves and their lovers to sin. I'd like to qualify "harm" with "externally verifiable out of context of religious belief."