BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Religion causes something?

  
 
SMS
04:17 / 05.11.02

Often, I hear comments about religion having done a lot of harm to the world, or, perhaps, great good.

Some harm commonly attributed to religion:
Intolerance of or Oppression against
Other religions
Homosexuals/________
Women
Wars in God's name
Dogmatic disregard for certain scientific theories
Judgmentalism
Moral Codes that limit pleasure or happiness
Arrogance about one's status in the universe
Additional power structures held by clergy
Republicans
Comfort for the bereaved and other crutches
A place for sinners to be condemned

Some good commonly attributed to religion:
Spirituality
Contemplation of life
Communal gatherings
Multigenerational social structures
Promotion of Love and Compassion
Spiritual Leaders, and spiritual leadership
Comfort for the bereaved and other crutches
Humility of practitioners
A place for sinners to be forgiven and helped out of sin, whatever that may be.

I would add, under both categories, that many forms of spirituality, including faith and magic, can ease certain fears, such as the fear of death. This is usually attributed to the belief in an afterlife, but, from personal experience, I don't think it needs to be.

I think most people would agree that religion is unnecessary for any of the things listed, on either good or harm. Most people who would disagree would probably say that, once you put a bunch of characteristics together that belong to religion, you have a religion. This may be the case, but it isn't the question I would like to explore here.

Certainly, looking at history, we see all of the things listed occuring, and we see religion occuring as well. Often, a war will be said to be fought for God and country, or even called a holy war. Often, members of the religious right today condemn homosexuality, informs us that the other-religious will be punished by God, and suggest women may not have certain rights (depending on where and when you are in the world, these will vary).

We also see men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, with deep religious convictions, who helped many people peacefully even though they themselves have flaws. We see scholarship, science, and the like coming from religious people. We see some people who were able to change around their lives because of the ministry of some religious leader.

The question I would like to explore here, is whether, in fact, something called religion can really be said to cause these things.

For instance, I have heard a number of people say fairly negative things about homosexuality. Most of the comments I have heard have not come from deeply religious people. That may be a considerably different experience from other people, but it seems to be the case for me. I have heard people say, "I don't care if they're gay, but if they try to hit on me, man, then...." or "If they want to do it in private that's their business, but...." or "that's just sick." I have heard people discuss pedophilia as though it had a connection with homosexuals. I have heard the word fag used as an insult. And I have heard all of this from secular people. I must admit that I am not gay, and, as such, haven't been as keen to contemplate these issues greatly. I have walked in fear of being called a fag or any such thing, so maybe it is the right-wing Christians that do this most often? On television, of course, it does seem to be the religious that most often condemn homosexuals.

I have never noticed any correlation between sexist comments and religion. Nor have I noticed any correlation between views about the role & status of women and religion.

As far as intolerance of other religions, I think most of us will concede that this, in particular, is not lost when we reject religion altogether.

Now, we may be able to find a correlation between religion and some of these intolerances. This indicates a causal relation between the two, but that leaves three possibilities
*religion causes the intolerance
*those who are intolerant join the intolerant churches, while those who are not join other churches or none at all
*The religion and the intolerances are products of the same culture (They share a common cause)

Another example that may be useful for those who know history well is the holy war. No war, I suspect, is ever about just one thing. The conflict between Israel and Palestine right now is not simply a conflict between Jews and Muslims. It is a conflict between two cultures, and it is a conflict over land and political influence. I think the Zionist movement was kicked off by the same woman who wrote that wonderful poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty. I don't know if she did so because the Jews had been oppressed so often and needed their own country, or if she simply thought that God had promised the Holy Land and that was all there was to it. I do know that Israel, after World War II, seemed like a natural response for a people that had sufferered so greatly. It also was an important strategic ally during the cold war. I'm not arguing for or against the state of Israel, nor am I discussing the morality of their policies. I'm suggesting certain things that stand out to me as decidedly non-religious causes of the formation of the state, and their policies, and so on.


Now, regarding certain things like judgmentalism, arrogance about one's status in the universe, republicans, and a place for sinners to be condemned. A number of these seem to work contrary to the religious teachings. Judgmentalism and pride (and, by extension, I'll guess arrogance) are explicitly disallowed in Christianity. And I see little indication that suggests any religion must be connected to a particular political party. I'm not saying there isn't a correlation here, but it is an odd one, considering the fact that, if religion is the cause, it is promoting the very things it claims to discourage.

I'm going to stop here. I think my post is getting too long, and I hope my reasoning is clear. We should be asking the same questions about the list of good things religion is said to do. Right now, I don't think I have enough background knowledge to form any conclusions, but that's the purpose of this thread. Thoughts?
 
 
Ganesh
08:25 / 05.11.02
... so maybe it is the right-wing Christians that do this most often?

As one way of expanding your own anecdotal experience on the subject, you may wish to consider exploring the thing of wonder that is the Christian Bulletin Board Service. Not only does it directly tackle homosexuality in a repetitive and disturbingly obsessional manner, but it also showcases a range of Christian attitudes to women's rights (including the thorny subject of female pastors), other religions and tolerance in general.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that ChristianBBS is representative of all Christians, or that Internet message-boards are a great way of gauging religious attitudes. I am suggesting that, where religion is concerned, sites like this may be helpful in countering one's often naively uninformed impression of certain religious groups.
 
 
Ganesh
08:47 / 05.11.02
(Hoping another moderator will sort out dodgy links in above message soon-ish...)

I think you're correct in saying that "religious teachings" are often essentially pacifist, sensible, even beautiful. Problem is, they're often sufficiently vague and ambiguous - especially in translation from the original language and plucked from their historical and cultural context - that they can be (and are) used to justify any and all of the nastier excesses of human nature: the need to stigmatise and condemn, the tendency toward collective 'mob' action which devolves responsibility from the individual and the further denial of responsibility by projecting one's harmful actions onto a Satan-like Other.

To say 'oh but that's not really religion' is to miss the point. 'Pure' religion - organised religion, anyway - doesn't exist; the "teachings" are invariably filtered through humans with human agendas, insecurities and failings. As such, 'religion' is itself a specific extension of human nature, with all the altruism and selfishness that implies.
 
 
The Natural Way
10:20 / 05.11.02
But when people refer to "true religion" they are often nodding to the religion in its most *occult* aspect - the internal, "hidden" path of the thing, that, by and large, bears very little resemblance to the outward mode - the dogmas, laws and mythologies - expressed by organised religion.
 
 
Ganesh
10:26 / 05.11.02
That's a different matter altogether. If SMatthewStolte was referring to 'personal' faith divested of the trappings of organised religion, he might as well have asked whether ideas were good or evil, or directly "cause something"...
 
 
Pepsi Max
12:56 / 05.11.02
SMS> Now, regarding certain things like judgmentalism, arrogance about one's status in the universe, republicans, and a place for sinners to be condemned. A number of these seem to work contrary to the religious teachings. Judgmentalism and pride (and, by extension, I'll guess arrogance) are explicitly disallowed in Christianity.

Yes but then you simply reposition your intolerance. Your abuse and contempt of others is "witnessing the truth in love". Your judgement is simply "speaking the truth". The problem is that religion provides an ultimate sanction (i.e. God) for your actions.

And, as Ganesh intimated, most religions are flexible enough to be both tolerant or intolerant (Islam is a great example of this).

Now, we may be able to find a correlation between religion and some of these intolerances. This indicates a causal relation between the two, but that leaves three possibilities
*religion causes the intolerance
*those who are intolerant join the intolerant churches, while those who are not join other churches or none at all
*The religion and the intolerances are products of the same culture (They share a common cause)

A correlation does not mandate a causal relationship (but it may indicate or imply it). And I think loking for a simple cause-effect relationship here is unhelpful.

And I think your topic abstract is unanswerable.

Let us ground ourselves in the specific.
 
 
SMS
18:19 / 05.11.02
A correlation does not mandate a causal relationship (but it may indicate or imply it). And I think loking for a simple cause-effect relationship here is unhelpful.
I am, in a sense looking for a cause and effect relationship, though I doubt it is simple. I don't think it's unhelpful to do so, because I often hear people make claims about the causal relationship.

And I think your topic abstract is unanswerable.

Let us ground ourselves in the specific.

I don't think it's unanswerable at all, but it does cover a very wide range. I was trying to use somewhat specific examples in the original post, and I would welcome more information on those specific examples.

Here's one, concerning the middle east. I heard an interview with a man who follows the fundamentalist right Christian groups who support Israel, though they are themselves anti-semitic. They want to bring about the rapture through the state of Israel, which they believe takes them to heaven, and leaves Jews who don't convert to Christianity to suffer horrible fates. This, I think, is a specific example of religion causing something. It may be a relatively minor cause. I don't know how much support these groups have compared to other supporters of Israel.
 
 
Ganesh
19:36 / 05.11.02
If the concept of "religion" is going to be stretched as widely as that, what differentiates your examples from "people causing something"?
 
 
penitentvandal
21:03 / 05.11.02
Religion is only one of many causes for things.

Arguably, the intolerance of the Taliban was caused by their interpretation of Islam. However, it could also be argued that their intolerance was also fostered by a climate of continuous war, hunger, and poverty.

Religion, socially speaking, is never the only factor in anything, because there is never only one factor in the causes of historical events. It's all synergies. Islam alone won't create the Taliban, nor will years of warfare, but Islam + warfare + poverty + hunger + having to resist the Soviet colonisation + x other factors will.

In defence of religion, it does have to be pointed out that the most extreme genocides of the last century were carried out not by religious but by political groups, in the form of the Nazis and the Stalinists, and actually targeted religious groups, in the form of the Jews and the Church, respectively. I think there's a case to argue that Nazism did function as some kind of weird religion, but it's quite a tenuous one; and the Soviets were extremely secular. In the modern world, as well, you still have the situation in China, where the secular, communist (cough cough), government is engaged in the supression of the Tibetan people, mainly Buddhist, and the Falun Gong sect, for example.
 
 
Cliff and Ferry Street
01:52 / 06.11.02
Religion is a lot like cinema or rock music, in that it is powerful and beautiful and seemingly all-encompassing if you are in the right set of mind and willing to accept it. Celebration and myth and magic. It fills a void. For some people it's the tool of choice to let them live life.

Given such power, religion acts as a catalyst. Historically, while no particular religion caused ... or ..., it helped to create the scene, to set the mood if you will, so that ... or ..., if the doctrine supported it, could thrive and become a bigger and better and more important cause/goal/idea in the eyes of x amount of people.

That's what I'm thinking. Can't think of an example right now that would prove me wrong. Maybe I'll come up with something later. Or maybe someone else can?
 
  
Add Your Reply