the baron rants
MORE A LOFT THAN A DAMASCENE CONVERSION
“An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind” -Gandhi
There is little better deconstruction of selective religion than this. Nowadays religion is used to lend authenticity to things people want to do anyway. Ali’s post citing the one verse in the Koran that refers to the allowance of beating a woman whilst many others appear to contradict that stance is mirrored in Western Christianity. Domestic violence here is frowned upon, and yet it exists and in many areas appears quite widespread. Murder, rape, assault, GBH etc. are criminal offences and yet the “eye for an eye” verse of the old testament is cited and seemingly used for justification to extol far greater international conflicts.
It has always puzzled me how people wishing to use the bible to defend reactionary and fundamentalist positions only ever seem to use the old testament. Is it that they do not know the new testament or simply that they choose to ignore the more progressive teachings in it? After all “eye for an eye” is in direct contradiction to Jesus’ principle that you must forgive those that have wronged you 77 x 7 times - no-one would think of taking that literally and, breathing a sigh of relief, kill their neighbour on the 540th time s/he has wronged them. So why do they cherry pick the parts to take literally? It is because it suits what they wish to believe in nothing more, this isn’t religion it is more a fundamentalist political doctrine based around an outdated notion of theology.
When it comes to the interpretations of the bible itself I remain astonished that some wish to take it all so literally to deflect scientific study. If you had a science book that was 2000 years old you might well expect that much of it would have been superseded by modern studies. That does not degrade the study or the original premise, nor does it do so to the method of study which can well form the basis of future expansion in this area. However to disregard well-researched and backed up scientific principles for something which has been written by a bunch of enthusiastic laymen some 2000 years ago is utterly barking and does the human race neither credit nor good. It seems that the more scientific evidence contravenes what the dogmatic theologians would have us believe the more said clerics seek to bury their head in the sand with a “La la la I can’t hear you” hands over the ears approach.
Islam is purported, were you to believe the hype out of the West, to be the other side of this great clash of civilisations. It is portrayed as a strange, violent, fundamentalist religion to be feared. And yet we are expected to believe the same is not true of Christianity? This in spite of the fact that the two religions are both mono-deist and in fact share very many of the same beliefs not to mention the same figures of worship. In fact of all the religions practised by humanity these two along with Judaism are perhaps the most homogenous. Perhaps therein lies the problem. Besides this great clash of civilisations hardly seems at the forefront when the Western leaders deal with the House of Saud who preside over one of the more repressive regimes in the Middle East.
It reflects poorly on us as societies that we seem to have such basic irrational concepts when it comes to a more metaphysical outlook. Is, and more prevalent, should religion be immune from the scrutiny to which we subject science and technology? If it is then we are destined to be constantly dragged back to a regressive and arcane past by outdated conservative tenets. It is time for religion to evolve or die.
I ought perhaps to declare that personally I think organised religion is horse shit but then many people think the same of socialism which I do believe in so it’s all dogma really isn’t it. It is all about giving you the guidelines by which to form your advanced moral code and live your life. If people choose to do so in an aggressive fashion then they will look for any justification by which to do so. It’s just that religion makes it so easy for the zealots not to even have to work for a bloody reason.
/rant!
(guest post courtesy of the red baron)
La la la I can’t hear you.
Comment by ali — June 14, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
“We’re sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory
The one that justifies our daily lives
And backs us with quiver and arrows
To protect openings cause when the warring begins
How quickly the wide open narrows
Into the smallness of our deconstruction of love”–Indigo Girls
Comment by Kristie — June 14, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
This picking of convenient passages in religious texts to justify actions is the very reason why I will never, ever support a religious fundamentalist politician, regardless of religion.
I too find it extremely funny how the more religious folk are the ones who are furthest away from the true spirit of their religion. It’s just bizarre.
Comment by mac — June 14, 2005 @ 11:28 pm
Baron, the differences are clearly from the diferent nature of the religions. Judaism seems to have strict rules and quantifiable standards for every aspect of daily life. On the other hand the new testament seems to me more theoretical. It sets up a sort of moral standard to follow. The Koran tries to do both. But regardless of the tone or content of the message, all religions find their teaching twisted around to serve political enterprises.
But aren’t religion and politics the same thing. Aren’t Capitalism, Socialism, Nationalism etcetra etcetra religions too. They all have their prophets and holy books replete with promises of Utopias and warnings of hells. I used to think that religion was the root of all evil. But every position I take in life is based on one or more religions I prescribe to. All political and social movements are really religions. And if one is active in an organization that tries to uphold or spread that thought, they are part of an organized religious group.
Lastly, I don’t think the mindless masses would do any better without these religions. They would likely run amok. Taken to their logical extremes haven’t all our modern socio - political religions done just as much damage.
Ok, I lied. I am not really done. In my religion it is ok to lie if it does no harm and I confess immediately. So unless someone’s mind slipped on my lie I’ll go on a bit more.
Baron, what is up with the name in light of your socialism.
Nice job Kristie, bringing that number back to mind.
Comment by ali — June 15, 2005 @ 12:08 am
why can’t I see my comments. I comment once. can’t see it. Then comment again. can’t see that either. This way stinks. Now I am afraid I’d look like an idiot posting twice. Blame Rocky.
Comment by ali — June 15, 2005 @ 12:36 am
Now I see the new one. I look like an even bigger idiot. Rocky San is there a character limit here. If yes I’ll try to remember what I wrote and break it down.
Comment by ali — June 15, 2005 @ 12:38 am
well said, i really have nothing to add.
Comment by tim — June 15, 2005 @ 2:01 am
That’s too bad Tim, I am sure your views are worth something.
Comment by ali — June 15, 2005 @ 3:01 am
I see what you mean by questioning (wishing?) that religion is subject to the same rigours that science and technology are. You do see, though, that is not at all possible insofar as religion, if based purely and only on scientific fact, would cease to be a religion. A religion draws on the emtional and cultural leanings of an individual or community and proposes that this is the way for everyone to lead their lives. It is, of course, open to debate- hence many religions.
No religion and n science can prove the existence of heaven, hell, gods. No religion could, thus, survive the scrutiny of science, logic, fact and the need for evidence. If these were to be applied to any religion of the world, it would be the beginning of the end for that religion.
Relating this to the ali’s earlier post, though, I do see (and wish) that religion should not be rooted in some archaic ways of thinking. The need then, (at least from where I am looking at things) is for (any) religion to move with the times and be progressive, as you said. This adaptability, though, can have little do with science- and should have most to do with changing cultural, global and indeed human, norms.
Unfortunately though, I don’t see a religion that does not ‘evolve’ as per this definition dying out. There are too many people who lean on religion to justify their actions, knowing that the mass backing that the said way of thinking (or religion) has, will see to it that their actions can never be unequivivocally cobdemned.
Comment by vAgue — June 15, 2005 @ 5:25 am
and there you go. attack of the typos.
Comment by vAgue — June 15, 2005 @ 5:27 am
religion is all about FAITH…in fact, quite a few are about ‘blind’ faith i.e. you can’t see god, but you believe he’s out there and so you worship him.
science is all about evidence…so as Vague said, i don’t see religion surviving much scrutiny. to me, religion is the crutch of the weak - i think most humans use it the way a child uses a teddy bear to cling on to in the dark and abandons it in the morning.
however, religion WILL survive, simply because most of us ARE weak and feel the need to believe in something/anything (sometimes, just to get away from our lack of faith in ourselves).
and while i’d love to see religions (esp. islam) ‘evolve’ or adapt, the content of the religious texts discourages that sort of a movement, so i’m guessing it isn’t going to happen.
Comment by rocky — June 15, 2005 @ 1:34 pm
I don’t think it’s in the nature of religions to evolve, Rocky. And, at least here in America, we’ve started to see all these little upstart churches of MacReligion no one’s ever heard of. Come to church in jeans, play rock music, pick your nose! ‘Sall good.
If a person needs the strictures of religion to get through the night, and feel like there’s some order in his/her world, then why balk at those strictures? And if they don’t, why balk at walking away?
I don’t need a cop to tell me what’s right and what’s wrong, and if I followed everything the Church of my youth taught me, I’d be in a sorry way, and not necessarily any more moral. There is nothing wrong with my morals; I think I’ve got it figured out.
Man created god in his own image, and the evolution must start there, with people, not with the religion. Organized religion is a power structure like any other, dedicated to its own maintenance. No one surrenders power; it must be taken, and therefore any matrix like this will change more slowly than the population at large.
Comment by Kristie — June 15, 2005 @ 3:25 pm
I don’t think anyone here is balking at the strictures because they offer people succour, or define succour by contradicting it (”walking away”). That is just fine, either way. The question here is whether people go beyond using it as suuport, and use it as a cructh- indeed, as an excuse (or, to be less confrontational, as a justification).
I am sure you have your value system figured out, a lot of us would like to believe likewise. The issue here is with those actions (and people committing them) that are not in sync with our value systems, our societal beliefs, or expectaatins. To cite the example that probably started all of this off, a man beating up his wife is not ok by your value system (i suppose), nor by most that you an I would encounter. But for those who indulge in this atrocity to use religion as a cructh- that is the issue here.
Also, ‘evolution must start with the people’, yet a ‘matrix like religion will change slower than the population’. I am not sure I understand (what seems like a contraditciton to me). If the population holds the onus of changing the religion, then how can relion be slower in following its proponents?
Comment by vAgue — June 15, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
sigh. the typos strike again.
Comment by vAgue — June 15, 2005 @ 4:07 pm
vAgue,
Justification is justification, and tends to be done in hindsight. If it were not the Koran or the Bible or the Book of Mormon or Timothy Leary’s bio, it’d be something else. People do what they wish to do, and then look for justification after the fact, not rationale prior to engaging in the act. I’m fairly certain that anyone smacking his girl around didn’t have a lengthy mental debate on the Koranic precedent for the action before letting fly. It’s no different than a child, em>after getting caught, saying “Well, so-and-so does it,” or “So-and-so said it was okay.” Would the justification be made sans accusation by outsiders? I think not. People wouldn’t bother. You don’t need to have excuses ready for things people don’t ask about.
I did not say, nor imply, anyone here was balking at strictures. I was speaking generally. I know many people who prefer to describe themselves as spiritual rather than religious, having found little to inspire them in traditional religious organizations. I find it difficult to find sympathy for the chafing under the yoke, (be it religious or related to the -ism of the day), of those who feel the need to have a pastor for their sheeply selves. You asked for it, you got it, Toyota. Either you need to submit to your choice, or have the metaphysical fortitude to seek out what you need, or, not finding it, create it yourself.
In answer to your question, the comment was made to Rocky’s wish that religions would evolve, and guide their adherents. It doesn’t work that way. People evolve (or don’t), and drag the power matrix kicking and screaming with them, if they don’t destroy it entirely, because it will not be moved. For example, in America at least, few Catholics feel compelled to forgo chemical or barrier birth control methods, and yet the RC Church continues to reissue edicts against it. The people have evolved; the religion refuses to follow. People change more easily than institutions, always. However, that is not to imply that people change easily. Waiting around for people to change themselves to suit you is always a losing proposition. When you’re waiting for change from behemoth institutions, it’s even less likely. The Titanic doesn’t turn on a dime.
Comment by Kristie — June 15, 2005 @ 5:37 pm
I really think Kristie is one of the smartest people in the world.
Comment by ali — June 15, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
I think when it comes to the religion and proof arguement certain things ought to be considered. Ultimately your spiritual beliefs are down to you, you will have a belief based on impirical evidence. It may not hold up in a court of law or under scientific scrutiny but there are many who feel they have proof good enough for them.
There is a clear distinction between faith and the blatent disregard of fact. True one cannot prove there is or is not a heaven in the same way that one cannot prove categorically the date the universe was created. However it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Bishop Usher’s 4000 year old Earth hypothesis which seems to be often the basis of creationist thought is simply wrong. The idea of this being taught in schools appalls me.
Yet, I am happy for my children to receive religious education despite my athist beliefs because atheism is something you are not something you choose. I do not enjoy the nihilism that is the realisation that there is no grand plan, no scheme of things, the failing of the great logic of atheism is an admittance that when all is said and done there is no logic. We are the true embodiment of the epiphenominalist thesis - our consciousness representing nothing more than the hum of the machine. (Mmm Cartesian duality discussion anyone?!)
Ali is correct with his parallel between religion and politics, one which I originally alluded to in part both are figments of dogma designed to encompass our moral and social codes and responsibilities. The difference for me is that religion (the organised variety) seems to advocate it’s version of events as the ‘true and only representation’. Whereas I see politics as addressing problems and making representations as to how to try to fashion the answers. it’s only the politicians that claim to have the answers from their interpretation of the dogma the same as clerics do.
Left-wing politics tho’ is not a panacea, and should never seek to be, socialism is not cathartic, it isn’t trying to reduce people to drones it isn’t trying a ‘go back to bed your government/church/monarch/despot is in control’ despite what its detractors would have you believe. The same I think cannot be said of either right-wing politics nor religious dogmatism.
[Ali- the name is a rather nice contradiction which suits me and my background and what I became out of it. It was conferred at University and kind of stuck thereafter.]
Comment by Red Baron — June 16, 2005 @ 12:13 am
ok.
re: balking etc.: cool- we must live with the choices we make.
re: matrix, development of religion etc. ok, get it
re: justification. Of course justification is in hindsight, and it is a very good point that there would be no excuses sans allegations.
But the point I was trying to make is this- if the community I grow up in and live my life in in any way condones certain actions (say, wife beating), then I too am subliminally affected by this. I grow up and develop as a human being knowing that there will not be any repercussions if I beat my wife. In fact, because it is so ingrained, I probably do not even think about it when my character leans toward it. But when it is questioned, I have my texts as a justification. So the problem for me is that a sub-conscious knowledge of acceptance serves as a tacit sort of license to commit those actions.
Of course, this is not to take away all responsibility from the perpetrators of these actions. 2 people in the said community could have completely different actions in a given situation because of their persoanlity, individual outlook etc. I just feel a community’s (religion’s) condoning of some things make them easier to be done.
A slightly jumbled comment, but I really should try to work as well….
Comment by vAgue — June 16, 2005 @ 7:48 am
I think you’re right, but I think it only makes it easier for those who were happily plodding down that path in the first place. Which is the argument many of us atheists make–religion is a crutch and nothing more. How convenient for me to have a cosmic scapegoat for everything I want to do, for good or evil. Inshallah. God’s repsonsible, not me. It has gotten to proportions where my hubby and I have joked that we shall invoke god’s will for everything. I’m late for work–it’s god’s will. In the face of an almighty god, if he really wanted me at work on time, wouldn’t I have been there???
And if one argues that that is patently ridiculous (which it is) and that people do have responsibility for their actions, then whither do we draw the dividing line? Is god/religion (for they’re the same to me) 50% responsible? 20% responsible? And if you want to assign 100% responsibility to the puny human, well, then I guess we have free will, to follow the dictates of our culture, religion, whatever, or not, and it doesn’t hold up as much of an excuse. Saying “It’s ingrained, I didn’t think” is certainly not acceptable to me, nor is it to you, I’m betting.
Comment by Kristie — June 17, 2005 @ 12:40 am
you bet wisely, kristie, as do you write…do you have a blog?
(work means I cannot indulge in comments longer than stuff that needs to be written)
Comment by vAgue — June 20, 2005 @ 4:45 pm
‘deed I do, vAgue, and if’n you e-mail me at kristiesgu@gmail.com, I’ll give you the URL, and explain the cloak and dagger crap, too. And thanks.
Comment by Kristie — June 20, 2005 @ 7:37 pm
Hey All, My name is Kristie Baron — a different Kristie — all I have to say is that “many fingers can point at the moon”
Comment by Kristie Baron — July 5, 2005 @ 7:01 am
Kristie, is there something you’re not telling me about that night in Minneapolis?!!
Comment by Red Baron — July 12, 2005 @ 1:48 pm