Religion

They say you should never talk about religion or politics. Well, I've waded into politics more than once so I may as well dive head first into religion as well.

First - this is what Scott said when David defended my right to criticize people who are "believers."
David- I feel misunderstood, not stupid. I was taking issue with what seemed like stereotyping by Goody. The logic felt something like: I believe, zealots believe. Zealots do awful things and are intolerant= therefore all believers support those actions and are intolerant. There are as many versions of faith and belief as there are believers and faithful. Do you honestly think that all members of a faith agree and believe blindly everything they are told to believe? Faith is a living, evolving journey for most of us I suspect.

Each of us have the right to be accepted for who we are, and to take responsibility for our actions, regardless of our age, sex, sexuality, race, colour, or number of limbs, colour of hair (or lack of!), or our belief in God or not. I just objected to being lumped into the group of intolerant zealots of questionable intelligence because I call myself a believer. We're as varied as snowflakes or drops of rain, just as non believers and other believers are. I have no time for folks who push their beliefs on me either, religious or political or whatever. If two people choose to share their experiences in the quest of mutual enlightenment- perfect!

I only ask for an end of stereotyping, and open minded attitudes on all sides about possibilities. People who say they have all the answers are people I fear. Thanks for taking time to rebut- I hope my words better represent my thoughts this time.

David replied:

By saying that he's a believer, Scot lumped himself "into the group of intolerant zealots of questionable intelligence". It wasn't you who put him in that group. He did it himself. Of course there is a lot of variety and shades of gray in the group who classify themselves as believers. That doesn't mean it is not legitimate for you to wonder how any intelligent person could be a believer.

The evidence for the existence of any kind of deity is exactly the same as the evidence for Santa Claus or pink unicorns. How is it being intolerant, disrespectful or offensive for you to wonder how anybody who seems to be intelligent can hold such a belief?

And by saying that you were being "offensive", Scott was essentially telling you that your beliefs are not to be voiced, so shut up. It's okay for him to say he's a believer. It's not okay for you to say that you aren't a believer and can't understand how anybody of any intelligence could be a believer.

I would be happy to "friend" Scott and have a discussion with him. But his idea of offense and respect is a bit one sided. He's saying that believers have a right to their beliefs, and to express them. But the non-believers don't.

This is a blind spot for most believers. Very few of them think we should be offended if told we are somehow lacking if we don't believe. Lacking awareness. Lacking spirituality. Many of them feel free to mention Hell as our final destination. Maybe Scott is as accepting and tolerant as he claims, and would never say that to your face, but it is certainly central to the Christian religion. "The fool says in his heart there is no God." (Psalm 14:1) Yet merely saying that you don't believe, and can't understand how anybody COULD believe, is somehow "offensive". Sorry. That's not acceptable.

We've put up with this for centuries. Time we stopped being so.... inoffensive.

Much love

David in Wuxi, China

So now - where do I stand in all of this?

It's a difficult question for me to answer and the answer could be very, very long. The history of religion on our planet is not a nice one. More evil has been done in the name of religion than almost anything else I can think of. The wars against infidels, the pogroms against Jews, the Spanish Inquisition, the oppression of women in Muslim countries - it just doesn't every seem to stop. The things done in the name of Christ that are the exact opposite of what the man preached never fail to stun me. He was the long haired, bearded rebel who overturned the money lender's tables and who preached love for everyone. Now we amass money in his name (the Catholic church) and go to war in his name.

Should we be tolerant of all beliefs? Yes, of course we should. But when that belief becomes a dogma it become dangerous. If your belief (dogma) includes injuring me, killing me or depriving me of my rights as a human being, then no - I will not tolerate.

The danger is the dogma. I don't care if you believe the earth is flat - as long as you don't try to convince me of it or convert me to it. Believe what you will - but don't let harm arise from that belief.

So - religion - organized religion - is a system of beliefs that have become dogma that demonstrably do immense harm.

I am reminded of the old Abou Ben Adam poem about the angel making a list of those who loved God. Ben Adam was not on the list because he did not believe in God or love him. But he told the angel, "Put me down as one who loves his fellow man."

And in the end, Ben Adam's name came first on the list.

So I would say that I have no high regard for organized religion. Those who say that religious charities do good, I would say that so do non-religious charities, and without the added stigma of trying to convert people as they are helped. Look at the atrocities the church committed not even that long ago in our own country, tearing Native children away from their parents.

I prefer to be on the list as one who loves his fellow man. One who believes that there is an innately good spirit inside each of us. If we are to be brothers, we must shed the polarizing beliefs - to become one, let us recognize that we are one - one humanity with the ability to love each other just as we are.