"Being tolerant does not mean that I share another one's belief. But it does mean that I acknowledge another one's right to believe, and obey, his own conscience."
Victor Frankl
The Will To Meaning

What Would (insert legendary religious figure) Say About....

I have never understood why religious people would even want to seek the advice from individuals who died thousands of years ago. My background is in Social Studies so I understand the idea of learning from the past but that is not quite the same thing. Trying to figure out what some figure from the ancient near east might say about a specific issue is just silly. Most of the figures that people invoke, like Jesus, Moses, Job, Etc... in all likelihood never exist. Even if they did what could they possibly say about an issue that either did not exist or that the surrounding circumstances make any potential answer moot in today's world.  To learn from the past requires a sense of context. A lot can be learned from various themes, trends, and patterns. Specific issues are always tied to the historical conditions and rarely can be applied to present concerns.

Here's a thought, if you want advice on contemporary problems or issues you should seek current information and expertise. Why not apply a little critical thinking? Most humans have access to an amazing resource. It's called a brain. Anyone having trouble with the thinking for yourself scenario should do the rest of us a favor by staying the fuck away from public affairs. I do not want public policy being shaped by what some bronze age guy may or may not have thought about specific topics. I certainly don't want the imaginary views of mythical figures playing into how our country is governed.

Then again, Papa Smurf would probably be a better leader than any of the assholes currently running the country.

A Catholic Version of Wu Wei

My interpretation/translation of the Taoist concept of Wu Wei is somewhat simplified. In a nut shell, it is "action through inaction." Lately, I've come to think that many religions contain a distortion of this principle. Catholics are exceptionally good at it. Many religious believers seem to just go along with the Faith's hierarchy whether they agree at all. The Catholic clergy has continued its massive temper tantrum over insurance coverage of reproduction rights. In none of the mainstream articles and news segments have I heard even a passing acknowledgement that a large percentage of Catholics disagree with the Vatican's stance on reproductive rights, especially contraception.

Many Catholics claim they do not agree and do not support religious or government interference in such personal choices as using or not using contraception. Yet, no Catholics are publicly standing up to their own clergy. Personally, I see this as tacit acceptance. Catholics may not see themselves supporting repression but they are. Any consequences that come from a religions actions are the responsibility of those who make up the religion. If there were not so many Catholics who would actually give a shit what the Pope thinks?

To the Catholics and the various other believers who's Religion routinely interfere in our lives, the next time you hear about the horrors of forced pregnancies and unwanted children look in the mirror. You helped it happen. If you don't want that responsibility then speak up. Don't just shrug off the doctrines you disagree with, oppose them. At the very least ask yourself why you remain in a religion that does not support your personal beliefs.

In fairness, this principle applies equally to religious and non-religious alike. As citizens of a democracies we are all responsible for the actions of our government. When it comes to any number of US policies I am as guilty but at least I try to do something. Can you say the same? Try? I do not think that is too much to ask.

To Debate or not to Debate

I have all too often heard people claim that since religion is so personal it should not be a subject for debate. As often as I have heard it it has never ceased to amaze me at how truly pathetic of an excuse it is. Anyone would be hard pressed to find a topic worth debate that was not personal. So why make such a lame statement? It seems to vary. Some individuals just don't like conflict while others are either cowards or ignorant. I have come across a few who seem to think that discussing or arguing religion is by its nature rude and disrespectful. I see it as being the other way around. Making exceptions for religion that they would never think to do for other institutions and subjects is arrogant and insulting.

I find this classic dodge particularly offensive since the various religions have no trouble interfering in the personal lives of others. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and any other religion or sect/denomination within have always and continue to take public positions on a variety of issues. Reproductive rights (not just Abortion) is a good example. I fail to see how such a topic could be more personal.  Yet, various religious groups have always sought to tell others, not just their own believers, how the should think and behave when it comes to sex.

It is rare that I hear the individuals making the claim that religion is too personal to debate hold the various religions to the same standard. No matter what their motives for such a false assertion it remains a feeble attempt at avoiding critical thinking.

Impersonal nature of Organized Religion

I can understand the conclusion Kerry Egan reaches after the incident she describes on CNN's Belief Blog. Since it is her experience she writes about in "My Faith: What people talk about before they die" I will not disagree with her.

However, I will offer another possible interpretation to the type of exchange she experienced. I was in no way surprised by the professor's reaction to her response to being asked what she talks about as a student hospital chaplain. I was also not surprised by how he used her for his own purposes. He is an excellent example of the nature of organized religion.  The professor takes the approach encouraged by all formal religions, one-size-fits-all. By its structure religion tends to be cold and impersonal, not to mention arrogant and manipulative. What better time to reinforce the institutions favored concepts then when its followers are at their most vulnerable and impressionable.

Despite claims to the contrary, I do not believe religion focuses on the weak and vulnerable out of goodness alone. The average believer probably does but not the leadership. Those seeking to promote the faith seem to have far more selfish motives. So, the professor's ridiculing Egan is rather predictable. Her approach seems to be the better one, at least if your goal is to support the sick/dying patient. After all, who would know better what a sick patient wants to talk about aside from the patient him/herself. It is certainly the more humane and decent approach.

In the end, I fail to see organized religion as being all that concerned with the wants and needs of individuals. I see this as one of the main reasons more people are leaving organized religion. I also think it would be of great benefit to all if atheists did more to point this out. Many of us tend to focus on the irrational nonsensical nature of religion, which is certainly justified, but the cold impersonal nature of organized religion is just as important to note.