Religion’s Chosen Peoples
It seems to me there's a contradiction between certain strong unifying and even universalizing tendencies within religious and spiritual traditions – for example, Jesus on love, the Buddha on compassion, and the emphasis on unity in Islam, e.g., its acknowledgment of Jews, Christians and Muslims alike as “people of the book” and as present in the Sufi tradition – and the way that religion is often institutionalized and practiced.
I think, for example, of the pope's pronouncement about Catholicism being the only true church. But this is only one recent example: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, or Muslim, it seems that many adherents to religious traditions, especially in the west, view themselves as God's special people.
It seems to me that these two trends – a great hearted generosity and inclusiveness on the one hand, and “we’re number one” on the other – run in opposite directions. To me, the first sounds truly religious but it's hard for me to see the second, especially in modern times, as more than an expression of ego.
I think, for example, of the pope's pronouncement about Catholicism being the only true church. But this is only one recent example: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, or Muslim, it seems that many adherents to religious traditions, especially in the west, view themselves as God's special people.
It seems to me that these two trends – a great hearted generosity and inclusiveness on the one hand, and “we’re number one” on the other – run in opposite directions. To me, the first sounds truly religious but it's hard for me to see the second, especially in modern times, as more than an expression of ego.
Posted by Paul at 12:20 AM Permalink
20 Comments:
Of course the priest is going to produce arguments that his sect is the best, just as you would provide arguments to a wavering reader to buy your book and not another's.
My point is that it's not just "ego" but a practical marketing need. Religions aren't always about "truth". They are about "product" too.
I agree it is about ego, and I will add elitist, to believe one faith is the only path to GOD and the only true religion. It's also about business (selling the product) as Vincent said. All are disaffecting for me. That's why institutionalized religion and I are not a good fit.
I had to find my own path, which is a combination of various paths that resonate with me.
Dogma put it best talking about SPirituality is a great idea, ideas can be questioned and changed. However take an idea and build a belief structure arround it and that were the troubles start. People will kill or die for a belief.
There is a part of everyone that really loves being right, on some level. Why should a person beliefs be any different. I think your last paragraph say it all...
THanks for the thoughts on an idle (although i should be working) monday!
VISHESH: To me, the central problem with it seems like it may be the idea that the thing of chief importance to being a religious person is allegiance to the right doctrine. While most believers can walk the line of believing their doctrine is the right one while continuing to behave toward others with respect, some can't.
I do think the idea that there are multiple authentic paths makes mutual respect easy - no longer a balancing act.
LEE, thanks --
OCEANSHAMAN: Wow. Never heard that. It does seem to me that religion at its best ends up being about something bigger than a personal reward/punishment system.
CRYSTAL: The one true church vs. a group of special people – like you say, there may be a distinction but at the least the two ideas look related.
“Our community sees valid and sufficient reasons for having chosen our religion but we affirm that other paths are equally valid and sufficient for their adherents.” I don’t know, that’s not really so good, but I agree with your closing thought and found myself thinking too bad it couldn’t be somehow written into the official creeds of all religions…
MWM: I wonder what’s behind that “one true faith” idea? You would think it would be unnecessary. Given that it’s belief and not certain knowledge, what makes a minority of believers sometimes literally oppressive to others in the effort to get them to share their beliefs?
AIDAN: “There is a part of everyone that really loves being right.” That’s a really succinct way to put it and maybe provides part of the answer to the question I just asked MWM above. I wonder if it might not come close to a useful way of defining “sin" - to love being right not for the rightness, but for the selfness.
Personally, I have always struggled with the "one path" approach to religion. (The reason I headed off to Quakerism). I like to think that there are many paths to the same destination.
But, as a Sociologist by training, I have to point out that this reaction is not limited to religion.
I have a close friend who was born and grew up in Slovakia. In the days following 9/11, she lamented to me, "Why is it absolutely impossible for Americans to just say that the U.S. is good -- why do they have to say it is the 'best country in the world?' It is so exclusionary!"
Sometimes I think that people with low self-esteem have in-group bias because if they can believe "their group" is "the best," it vicariously makes them feel better than others.
Love what oceanshaman said! I suspect that there will be many surprised people when we pass into the next realm, whatever you want to call it. I think it, and who is there, will be so far beyond anything we can imagine!
NANCY: "Less concern with being right than with being..." I like that. I know what you mean about "beyond what we can imagine". The more highly detailed that philosophers and theologians get in describing ultimate reality, the more I wonder how they know.
Thankfully they let me keep my name, and even let me keep my sense of humor, though that last isn't always appreciated by a few...
HA! Fat chance of THAT changing any time soon!
So, did I mention that I found an item that jews, muslims, christians, and atheists all agree on? Oddly enough.... the fact that they all agree with each other on this makes me suspicious of its validity.
All four say there is no way to prove the SPIRIT exists.
(don't just leap at the answer, either. It could be that it is easily provable.... just,...
how?)
Great observation. It's called sitting on the fence, attempting to please all.
Actually, even just trying to define "supernatural" is trickier than it can sound at first...
CHRISTINE: Sounds to me like you refer to the in-group point of view...
MARK: What's called "sitting on the fence, attempting to please all?"
But that was in the past and these days religion is becoming businesses and selfishness has started creeping into religious practices, as in any other aspect of life... I believe, all these recent expressions are natural manifestations of such a shift.
This messenger who conveniently invented the one, true, God, has a one, true, demographic group that he wants to obey him.
Really is there anything more impressive to lord over people than a monopoly on the thoughts and wishes of the one, true, God.
Worked great in the good old days when shopping and comparing the wrathful vengeance/benefits package of each one, true, God was prohibited.
MV, it does seem to me that some good things continue to happen in organized religion today, and that horrors occurred in the past as well as present. So I see the dichotomy you point to, but think it might be hard to do it strictly on an historical timetable.
HE - I'd want to modify your opening statement to read "Monotheism is absolutely meaningless if the one, true, God, doesn't have one, true message."
Seems like the messengers could easily get just part of the story, or even misread it to some extent, but if there's any truth to religion, then in the end, it has to be shareable truth - something no more subjective or arbitrary than science.
Post a Comment