Category Archives: Christianity - Page 2

The ethics of conversion

Posted by on February 13, 2011 1 comment

I’ve been a party to a few conversations at work regarding Atheism and Religion.  I’ve also been fortunate enough to speak to some Muslims and Sikhs, so I have a little perspective now on those faiths.  We have quite a mix of faiths (or lack of faith) at work, though I am the only Buddhist there.  There are a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses there and some are very militant and will not even read an email that might cause them to question their faith (I know this through read receipts).  What interests me is the constant drive they, and other faiths, have for converts.

My thoughts recently, especially as I have been making secular arguments in a number of areas, have been really more towards the ethics of conversion.  When does proselytizing and converting someone become wrong?  Yes, I appreciate that a given Atheist or Agnostic might have lots of answers and ammunition to fire.  The same it true for a door knocking Theist, but at what point does it become unethical to fire it, no matter how right you think you are?

I was pondering my own secular arguments, as a Buddhist I feel I can make secular agnostic arguments quite comfortably, as I find that Buddhism is a very agnostic thing at its root.  But I must also make the effort to observe the first precept, “I undertake to refrain from harming living beings”.  It’s not just physical harm, but emotional and mental hurt as well.  This left me wondering if was there a point at which I would have to tactfully remain silent.

Let me give an example of what I was pondering.  What happens when someones faith is all that is allowing them to cope with a personal tragedy?  Yes we may discuss things, but once I learn this is it right for me to continue arguing when I know it will cause suffering?  Does there come a time when, because of the high ethical cost, it’s not worth winning or being proved right?

On reflection, I think at this point I would have to try to suggest that we simply agree to disagree and simply respect one another’s views.

Signs of the Times

Posted by on January 19, 2011 2 comments

Today, I read the news that a gay couple have won a court case against the proprietors of a hotel. The proprietors are a devout Christian couple who denied them a room for the night after they had previously booked it.  The whole thing has been covered to death in the UK media, so I will simply refer you to the media coverage for the in depth details, Google News is your friend.

This really does seem to have been portrayed as a victory for Gay Rights legislation against religious doctrine, but I’d like to suggest a different take.  My take on this comes from a secular humanist perspective, and I should point out that this is in fact a case where secular law delivered a rebuke to a faith based morality.

This is something that I perceive as a sign of the times, and it was inevitable with the tensions in certain areas between secular law and religious doctrine.  I have to admit this walking this line is going to be difficult as both parties are standing up for something they believe in passionately, but I consider that ultimately the rule of secular law will eclipse religious objection; it has to for our society to work.  There have been claims that Christians are a persecuted group, that their rights are infringed.  I imagine we would hear the same from any religious group.  My response is : “No, you’re just being asked to abide by the same laws everyone else is”.

The Religion of Society Part 3 – The Priesthood

Posted by on August 8, 2010 1 comment

Welcome to the third part of my series on The Religion of Society. If you’re new to this series, you can find the whole series linked on my articles page. So without further ado, I’ll get started.

I’ve previously drawn parallels between the structure of a religion and that of a society. I’ve covered the tenets and also the structure, but what about the priesthood? In my opinion, it can certainly be said that society has a pseudo-priesthood. A religion has an easily recognisable priesthood (most of the time), but a society? The function of a priesthood in society seems to me to be performed by politicians, the judiciary and celebrities, though whether this is knowingly is a matter for some debate. Of course, there is a more grass roots presence, I have always considered Paganism to be more like that. Similarly in society, we have local celebrities “characters” and also local politicians. These people might be home grown, but they have a similar (if locally limited) effect to the national and international public figures.

The ‘priesthood’ creates and interprets the ‘scriptures’ and helps enforce the ‘orthodoxy’ of the society or religion. In a religion, the creation of scripture and orthodoxy tends to be more formally done. For example, the Council of Nicea in 325AD; which resulted in the creation of an orthodox Christian doctrine. A similar thing happened in Buddhism with the first Buddhist Council in 543-542 BCE. Interpretation is a matter for priests and laymen were certainly discouraged from putting their own interpretations on things. Of course, things are different these days, though I think this is due to the influence of western society on religion.

In society, this tends to be an ongoing process. Laws are passed, repealed and amended. Then interpreted in courts and enforced with varying levels of strictness. Celebrities set or magnify trends and crazes and have an impact that neither law nor religion can emulate. But all of this does have a coherence, think national character, each nation has a distinct flavour.

Of course, both priesthoods are really part of a feedback process. As society got more sophisticated, the actual interpretations evolved a little as did the attitudes of the religious priesthood. Less of the fire and brimstone, more of the meek and mild. A message that might work on a deprived inner city congregation might not be so effective on a wealthier suburban audience. The sermons might also reflect that communities challenges, what they’re going through and would have to be tailored a little to their group character. So the priesthood could be seen, in ways, to act as a weathervane (or a mirror) for their followers.

Politicians are the same, they’ll change their tune quite readily. Celebrities caught getting a little too far away from orthodoxy will often issue public mea culpas, apologising to their public. It’s an interesting turn of phrase that one, their public, or maybe their flock? Worth a ponder in my opinion.

Ascension to the priesthood is strictly controlled in both cases, in the regular priesthood there is the seminary (or priest school). A society has various methods, taking the route into politics is one and from there into local or national government. Non-politicians can try the celebrity route, either the old fashioned way, or more recently via reality television. This does tend to lead to people who are famous for being famous, with no real idea what they contribute, but that’s getting off the subject.

OK, that concludes this part. I will attempt to write a shorter concluding part to wrap all this up and bring it to closure. With any luck I’ll manage it for next weekend, but no promises.

Creative Commons Acknowledgement.

The photo of the Priests Canteen is by sgatto and is under by-nc-nd.

The Religion of Society Part 1 – Society as a Religion.

Posted by on July 25, 2010 No comments

Image of a crowdI asked a friend who writes more then I do for some feedback on my previous post, she was good enough to give me some clear pointers.  But one thing that she made clear was that I’d glossed things over, in fact I’d covered things much too quickly.  She’s right and I’m going to make an attempt in the next couple of weeks to explore my ideas in a bit more depth.

I think it’s fair to start with the observation that our religions have, and still can, play a highly controlling part in society.  This is usually informally and hand in hand with secular rulers (think religious politicians), but often with enough power of their own that these rulers would not provoke them thoughtlessly.  After all, priests could have you executed or banished for arguing with them, and whilst kings have their glamour, priests had a hotline to the ineffable. Of course, as we can see in the West, this power has now shifted heavily towards the secular rulers, to the point that the words of the priests are often disregarded and the police will happily raid a church if they feel they need to (as happened recently in Belgium).

This has, in my opinion, caused a significant move towards faith in a society and its agencies and away from faith in a religion and its agencies.  This tends to have a lot of the same characteristics, including an unquestioning belief for many that their society is always right and better, whatever the actual facts might be.  Of course, we have a lot invested in these things mentally and often physically and financially, thus the world view that stems from a persons faith (or indeed their society) can frame everything for them.  Any challenge to this is highly unwelcome, an observation that leads me onwards.

As in the case of religious faith, questioning this ‘societal faith’ invites swift and harsh criticism from some quarters, which is very understandable in light of my previous paragraph.  After all, any challenge to that faith is more than intellectual, it strikes emotionally as well.  Our answers to life’s questions and problems are found in the framework of our society or faith.  To question that can feel like a very personal attack, it attacks the persons life choices and possibly their sense of who they are.

In religious terms, you’d be a “Heretic”, an “Infidel”, or a “Heathen” and in secular terms you’re a “Commie”, a “Traitor” or a “Subversive”.  Interestingly, all of these are ‘ad hominem’ in that they condemn the person without addressing their ideas.  I think it’s fair to say that these sort of terms are used to put down the ideas of both secular and religious heretics without thought or consideration.  Of course, this is very likely because the faith (whichever that is) can’t afford to have those ideas examined closely.  In each respective system you can be ‘excommunicated’ or ‘ostracised’ and capital punishment has been an option in both systems and still is in many places.

In both secular and religious systems we have competing groups and also sub factions within those groups.  We can call the groups, ‘faiths’ or ‘nations’, it might then also be fair to call the factions ‘sects’ or ‘political parties’.  These groups most often form around a charismatic leader, be it a “Koresh” or a “Stalin”, then power hierarchies form and a dogma is drawn up.  There are always disagreements between groups, which can result in conflicts (armed or verbal) for ideology or practical power or the calving of sub groups.

To wrap up this first part, let me say that I take the view that there are definite parallels between a religion and a society.  I hope I’ve demonstrated this, or at least planted the seeds of further thought, as is my usual aim.  I’m hoping to get more into the ‘Tenets of the Religion’ in Part 2.

Creative Commons Acknowledgement.

The crowd image is by victoriapeckham and is licensed under Attribution 2.0 Generic.

You couldn’t make it up……

Posted by on July 20, 2010 1 comment

….. or could you?

Actually, I suspect that a comedian somewhere is getting some great material out of the Catholic Church’s recent announcement.  It seems that they’ve made the attempted ordination of women a serious crime, right up there with child abuse and heresy.  No, I’m not making this up, the Richard Dawkins Foundation has the story here.

I’ve spoken up in support of women priests before, and also here (also in support of gay clergy) but I would like to say a bit more as I find my patience is wearing very thin.

Now, quite aside from the fact that they’re dismissing half the human race out of hand and showing a breathtaking level of arrogance into the bargain.  Just who the hell do they think they’re impressing?

Maybe the Catholic church missed the part where we moved into the 20th century, and then from there into the 21st.  If anything is guaranteed to show how out of touch they are with modern society this is it.  The zeitgeist has moved on, things are changing and rapidly.  The church is going to have to adapt with the times or be swept away, do they not grasp this?

You want my advice?  You speak of your faith as a ‘rock’, well the tides of change are wearing at it.  Old handholds you thought you had are vanishing, in order to get a good grip again you will need to change position or be carried off by the tide.

A Gradual Awakening

Posted by on June 26, 2010 No comments

I have to say that I believe that an awareness of our society’s problems with Peak Oil and the end of growth is creeping slowly further into the mainstream consciousness.  The assumptions that our Western way of life is based on are being called further into question over time and the voices doing the questioning are growing more numerous and louder with the passing of time.

With each problem, each speed bump along the way, more people get bumped onto the road towards waking up and people already on the road get moved along.  With that said, I know that many people have a colossal investment in Business As Usual, there are many who will fight the coming changes fanatically; even though their position in that of King Canute, their belief in the status quo is almost religious in it’s intensity.

For their part, the Vested Interests; the powers that be, are deploying every while and weapon in their not inconsiderable arsenals to fight this.  Every person whose consciousness is raised and who starts thinking freely is a loss for them, a body blow, and the more people that awaken to our situation the easier it is for others to do so.

For my part, I think the VIs are fighting a losing battle.  Once a person awakens, it’s impossible to unawaken; a consciousness raised cannot truly be lowered.  You may have denial and suppression but that’s all you have, consider that a religion knows that once the conditioning is broken that person is lost to them, it’s the same here.  This is a secular raising of consciousness that goes far beyond anything we’ve seen in religious terms.

But that’s a thought, and I will swing towards religion as my final thought in this post.  Religions hold views that are in some cases counter to the coming reality, those faiths are in for a shock.  For example consider Catholicism and contraception.  The coming population issues will challenge and break that teaching, the faithful believe the Pope is infallible, they are about to see both their leader and their faith shown to be in error.  Where does that lead?

Supression of Science

Posted by on February 16, 2010 No comments

I’ve been getting a little further into Cosmos, and I’m reading about Johannes Kepler and his theories of the solar system.  It’s interesting to read, as we hear of these things, but never really put them in historical context.

Once again I’m left with the strong impression that the Catholic Church seems to have been responsible for the suppression of a lot of knowledge and scientific progress.  I think this is one of the things that should worry us all about the rise of so-called “Creation Science” and the resistance to the teaching of Evolution in the classroom.  Do we really want another lost millennium?  Do we really want the scientific investigation of the universe to be modulated and limited by the unverified and adulterated writings of a bunch of near stone age priests?

When Galileo said that the Earth moved around the sun, Martin Luther said:

“An upstart astrologer …. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of Astronomy.  But Sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth” [1][2]

Some years ago, someone tried to tell me that it was the other way around, that the Catholic church had said the Earth orbited the Sun and Galileo that it did not.  To this day, I still shake my head now as I think of that incident.  My response to anyone who thinks that is to read the words of the Pope John Paul II on the issue:

“Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture….”

Remember this was followed by a formal apology in 2000 for a lot of things in the Catholic Church’s history, including what happened to Galileo.
—
[1] Cosmos, Carl Sagan, page 69. ISBN 0-349-10703-3
[2] Refer to New International Version Bible.  Joshua 10: 12:13.