It is somewhat surprising that a professor of comparative religion like Arvind Sharma would so thoroughly misunderstand the structure and nature of organized religions. In his Huffington Post piece, "The Religious and the Secular in the Modern World", he also clearly doesn't quite grasp the basic definition of secularism.
So here's a quick review of the term:
"secularism (noun)
1. Philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, especially in ethics.
2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.
3. the state of being secular.
Derived words: secularist noun, adjective, secularistic adjective."
Collins Collins English Dictionary, HarperCollins Publishers 2000
Essentially, it is about keeping religion out of public matters. There is nothing about denying individuals the right to believe or worship how they see fit so long as they don't drag the rest of us into it. Sharma's insistence that there must be a balance between the religious and secular is ignorant for two main reasons. He admits to the dominant role religion played in society but fails to realize that this was not due merely to a few misguided leaders. Religion by its nature is authoritarian. It will always try to dominate. Secularism is not a mirror image like he implies. Secularism, by definition, has no interest in what people personally believe or do outside the realm of public policy. It can't dominate religion. I have never heard of any secular advocates seeking to strip individual rights away from others. I know there are those who would love to do that but what is it they are seeking to impose? It is not secularism.
Unfortunately Sharma is not alone in his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of secularism. Elizabeth Hunter fails to grasp a few things as well. In "Courts Confuse Our Thinking on What 'Secular' Means" she does seem to make a valid point but once you examine it closer it falls apart. Perhaps simply using public space for worship services does not then make that venue a "church." So what? A religious body is still using a publicly paid for space for non-public purposes. Did they pay to use it? How often do outside groups without any connection to public education get to use public school grounds without paying some sort of fee? Basically she is whining that a religious group failed to gain special treatment. How is that an abuse or over-extension of what secular means? Seems pretty appropriate to me.
Religious people need to get over themselves. Your beliefs are no better or more special than anyone else. Go ahead and worship how you choose. You can even do it in a publicly available venue if you do not currently have a church, temple, synagogue, etc. However, you don't deserve to get it for free. In a lot of ways religions are already getting a free ride since they don't pay taxes yet still use public funds and services. So stop whining already!
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The Tyranny of Absolutes
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest."
Denis Diderot
I want to be clear that I am in no way encouraging or condoning violence. It is not violence that I take to be inspirational from the above quotation. It is a passion for freedom that strikes me the most. It is provocative and exaggerated but that, I do believe, was intended. It also is explicit in its application to both secular and religious sources of authority.
In effect, I see this as a call to action for all human beings to resist the urge to grant special status of any other individual or group. No one should ever be viewed as infallible or beyond question. No one should ever be seen as an absolute authority in anything. There is no legitimate excuse or circumstance that should allow any person or group of people to escape accountability or shirk responsibility. Such special status inevitably leads to corruption and to stripping others of their rights and freedom.
It is sad that today the institutions of Government and Religion (especially religion) are still routinely allowed to usurp authority that does not truly belong to them while dodging responsibility for the negative consequences of their actions.
Denis Diderot
I want to be clear that I am in no way encouraging or condoning violence. It is not violence that I take to be inspirational from the above quotation. It is a passion for freedom that strikes me the most. It is provocative and exaggerated but that, I do believe, was intended. It also is explicit in its application to both secular and religious sources of authority.
In effect, I see this as a call to action for all human beings to resist the urge to grant special status of any other individual or group. No one should ever be viewed as infallible or beyond question. No one should ever be seen as an absolute authority in anything. There is no legitimate excuse or circumstance that should allow any person or group of people to escape accountability or shirk responsibility. Such special status inevitably leads to corruption and to stripping others of their rights and freedom.
It is sad that today the institutions of Government and Religion (especially religion) are still routinely allowed to usurp authority that does not truly belong to them while dodging responsibility for the negative consequences of their actions.
"Real" Catholics
I certainly agree with Stephen Prothero that it is important to "distinguish between the Catholic hierarchy and rank-and-file Catholics". However, I'm not sure I fully accept some of the other implications of his CNN Belief Blog piece, "My Take: 'Real Catholics' not opposed to birth control." It is true that there are a number of differences between the leaders of the Church and the followers of the Church. I have noted in previous posts that Religions, Catholicism among them, are not democratic. The average Catholic has no direct say in how doctrines are created and enforced or who leads the Church.
These circumstances do not absolve "rank-and-file Catholics" of the consequences of the hierarchy's policies and behaviors. Leaders can not lead if there are not those willing to follow. I do agree that when evaluating and criticizing a specific religion the focus should be on the doctrines and the leadership. But the average follower should not be excluded from scrutiny. Just last week I pointed out that we are all responsible for the institutions we belong to. If Catholics find fault with the Church's doctrines and/or leadership they have an obligation to make those objections known. There is always the option of leaving the church. The simple act of joining a specific religion does carry with it a certain level of responsibility and accountability.
Personally, I consider any Catholic who self-identifies as such to be a "real" Catholic so long as they accept the consequences of that identity. Simply shrugging off what you don't like about the group you have chosen to be a part of does imply a lack of commitment. It is the individuals who take that approach that I would consider superficial rather than real Catholics. If you have a strong connection to your chosen Faith why would you not want to see it thrive. Nothing thrives without change and progress. Criticism and protest can be healthy and reinvigorating.
This approach does lead to somewhat of a dilemma since religions by their nature resist change, especially from below. I do not know if this innate conflict can ever be resolved. I just know that the average Catholic needs to accept their share of the responsibility. Otherwise, I strongly encourage them to just shut up and go away. When non-Catholics point out legitimate concerns about the religion you have no grounds to attack them since you yourselves have done nothing about the problems.
These circumstances do not absolve "rank-and-file Catholics" of the consequences of the hierarchy's policies and behaviors. Leaders can not lead if there are not those willing to follow. I do agree that when evaluating and criticizing a specific religion the focus should be on the doctrines and the leadership. But the average follower should not be excluded from scrutiny. Just last week I pointed out that we are all responsible for the institutions we belong to. If Catholics find fault with the Church's doctrines and/or leadership they have an obligation to make those objections known. There is always the option of leaving the church. The simple act of joining a specific religion does carry with it a certain level of responsibility and accountability.
Personally, I consider any Catholic who self-identifies as such to be a "real" Catholic so long as they accept the consequences of that identity. Simply shrugging off what you don't like about the group you have chosen to be a part of does imply a lack of commitment. It is the individuals who take that approach that I would consider superficial rather than real Catholics. If you have a strong connection to your chosen Faith why would you not want to see it thrive. Nothing thrives without change and progress. Criticism and protest can be healthy and reinvigorating.
This approach does lead to somewhat of a dilemma since religions by their nature resist change, especially from below. I do not know if this innate conflict can ever be resolved. I just know that the average Catholic needs to accept their share of the responsibility. Otherwise, I strongly encourage them to just shut up and go away. When non-Catholics point out legitimate concerns about the religion you have no grounds to attack them since you yourselves have done nothing about the problems.
AVN Atheist Smear Campaign, revisited
After several months the assholes at American Values Network are still at it (originally posted on them "Christians do 'have it both ways'" August 6, 2011). Their "Ayn Rand Vs. The Bible" campaign is still underway. The fact that these so called liberals find it necessary to smear all atheist to achieve their political goals is pathetic. Doesn't seem to matter that her social and political views don't seem to have had anything to do with her being an atheist.
A Theism
non, or without System of belief related to a god or gods
By definition atheism is open to virtually any other belief system so long as it does not directly relate to a god or gods (basically, all religions). I happen to be a liberal and an atheist who despises virtually everything Rand believed in. The fact that the AVN cannot make a case for its views without initiating baseless attacks on other only demonstrates their own lack of merit and values.
Please, email them to let them know what a bunch of scumbags they are being.
A Theism
non, or without System of belief related to a god or gods
By definition atheism is open to virtually any other belief system so long as it does not directly relate to a god or gods (basically, all religions). I happen to be a liberal and an atheist who despises virtually everything Rand believed in. The fact that the AVN cannot make a case for its views without initiating baseless attacks on other only demonstrates their own lack of merit and values.
Please, email them to let them know what a bunch of scumbags they are being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)