Prove it... My take on religion.

Remove all ads!

I don't have problem with the beliefs of people in general. People are free to think how they like, even racists, genocidal manicas and whatnot are entitled to their opinions. When they start to act upon those opinions however is when the trouble starts. Generally I think that religion is a beneficial thing in society and brings unity among people and a community for many. So I see it as sort of a hobby, like being a member of most other organisations.

I have a problem with political religion however, I have a big problem with priests with a religious political agenda. In Finland we have it quite good since the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is essentially bound to the state and has taken the stance not to speak of political issues. It does not take stance to the legalization of abortion nor does it condemn gay marriages (allthough it refuses to administer those, for obvious reasons). Various members of the clergy have been dissatisfied with this approach though and have founded various "rogue" churches. Of course their membership has so far been quite limited and will probably continue to be so. Finns are mostly quite secular in their thinking.

 

First off, there is a difference between belief and opinion. Religious beliefs are beliefs, not opinions. There either is a God or there isn't, Jesus either was raised from the dead or He wasn't. I'm either right or I'm wrong about my religion. It's just a point I find far too much confusion on.

As for people acting on their beliefs, I have a problem with anyone who doesn't, provided that they include the strength of those beliefs in the consideration. What I mean is, if someone is certain of something, they should act accordingly. If that happens to be illegal, that should certainly influence their actions. If someone believes something, but isn't very certain, they should act as is appropriate for someone who suspects something is true, but isn't sure.

Finally, by and large, I agree with the issue of political religion, but on particular issues I have to disagree. Where politics has gone into the realm of religion (abortion and gay marriage are prime examples of this), religion should not fall back. Any Christian church that specifically avoids condemning homosexuality is being dishonest with their beliefs.

 

Each and every religion has so many contradictions within itself that they're going to be dishonest with themselves no matter what. I'd rather they be dishonest in a way that is less discriminatory from a social perspective.

I don't see why you establish such a clear distinction between belief and opinion. A belief is a type of opinion: whether you believe that there is a God (or that there isn't) and that Jesus was raised from the dead (or that he wasn't) has no relevance to whether there really is a God and/or that Jesus really rose from the dead. That's precisely what an opinion is: a thought process that you feel comfortable with irrespective of what the "truth" is, and specifically one that you hold on matters where the real truth cannot be easily discerned one way or the other. I agree that you're either right or wrong about your religion (and this applies to each and every one of them, including atheism) but you're not going to find out if you were right or wrong any time soon, and that's not going to stop you from believing you're right. Again, that pretty much fits what an opinion is.

As for politics and religion: I see it the other way round. Abortion and gay marriage are social issues that religion has gone into, and as such it should fall back. Just because it went into these issues millenia ago and just will not let go doesn't mean that it has any right to be there in the first place. In this respect, it is the role of politics to separate religion from social issues. Just like politics shouldn't stop people from going to church (or synagogue, or mosque, or temple, or whatever), it should also stop religion from deciding who has a right to live with who.

 

I'd like to see some support on that claim. Just because each religion has its wackos that want to write their own version doesn't mean that the religion itself is contradictory.

Sorry, no. An opinion is a belief on an issue that is entirely subjective, and for which no absolute or objective truth can exist. "Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate" is an opinion, because the definition of "tastes better", the criteria for judgement of accuracy, is entirely subjective. "God exists", on the other hand, is a factual claim. Whether it can ever be proven or not is independant of the nature of the claim. Factual claims are either right or wrong, while opinion claims cannot be either. This is what bugs me so much. In much of modern culture, the term "opinion" has become a derogatory term for "belief", meaning the person doesn't hold your belief and feels there's nothing substantial to said belief. In reality, there is an important and valuable distinction between the two.

Since the origins of both religion and politics are shrouded in the mists of time, it is impossible to determine which really came first. Do cave paintings of the sun represent an early religion, one that may have had moral teachings about sex, marriage, and children? Maybe, maybe not. Does it evidence a culture with specified social and political norms seperate from any existant religion? Maybe, maybe not. In reality, what little evidence we have shows the two closely intertwined for all of known human history. Society and religion went hand-in-hand until very recently.

With that in mind, maybe we should move to a more general topic. Ultimately, religion is concerned with these topics because of morality. Unfortunately, the law is similarly concerned. Any attempt to define what men (and women) should or should not do is a moral issue. Morality lies at the heart of both society and religion. You really can't ask either one to entirely cede the issue to the other. With that said, though, some balance should be determined based on the society's view of religion, since that's far more likely to be mostly-uniform than religion's view on society. By that, I mean that, in the US, since we allow everyone to practice more-or-less equally, but don't allow anyone to force such beliefs on others, we should allow religions to preach their beliefs, but not enforce those beliefs on unbelievers without other justification. Therefore, churches should be allowed to preach against gay marriage, but states should be allowed to perform them. Abortion is a bit touchier, as there is the issue of when life begins, but, once decided, that standard should be stuck to.

 

There is a difference between a church condemning homosexuality and a state condemning homosexuality. A church should have no say in how the state treats homosexuality. It's none of their concern to be quite frank.

Also in my opinion gay marriage and abortion do not trample in the grounds of religion. Both are matters of laws and as long as we live in a democracy and not a theocracy both issues are for the legistlature and again, not an issue for the churches. When the state decides that say, church sponsored clinics have to peform abortions or give their blessings to gay marriage, then they'd have a legitimate right for concern. A church takes care of it's faithful, I do not wish it to become a morality watch for society.

 

I'll say that the Church should have no more say than any other non-State entity. If Microsoft or Google decides to publicly condemn the practice of homosexuality, they should have the right to, and so should the Church.

Ultimately, though, all laws are based on a perception of morality, be it to protect society as a whole, or individual members, or idealized rights, they are based on a moral perception. The Church has helped and will continue to help shape that moral perception, whether you like it or not. I'll agree that going any further than that is too far, though. Historically, mixing religious and governmental authority hasn't ended well.

 

So you are saying that religion shouldn't change it's viewpoints just because something they don't approve of like gay marriage or abortion has been legalized? I agree with this. Religion, however, crosses a line when it tries to flex its political muscle by blocking such legislation or injecting religious arguments into our legislative process.

I'm not of course arguing that the faithful have no right to argue against abortion or gay marriage, merely that their arguments as they pertain to pending or existing legislation should be secular in nature. This is no big deal, really. "Abortion should be illegal because God says it's a grievous sin tantamount to murder" is a really weak argument, since it can be easilly countered by simply saying "who is this God person of whom you speak, why does he think that, and why is his opinion more important than mine?" For the argument to carry any weight, the person levying it not only needs to prove that God actually exists (hard enough on its own), but that God thinks what he says God thinks -- and that God's opinion actually matters. God, in this case, only serves as a distraction from the real issue.

A wiser man of faith would just skip the God distraction and instead talk about why God thinks abortion is a grievous sin tantamount to murder. Arguing that abortion violates the civil rights of the unborn child is somewhat stronger, especially if the argument is using, say, a case in which a man who murdered a pregnant woman was charged with two murders as legal precedent for our government recognizing the civil rights of the unborn.

Microsoft and Google pay taxes. When Churches start paying taxes, they can have a say in the political process, too.

 

To a certain degree of course. I'm not saying that a Church can't preach against homosexuality. However if they condemn a party that accepts homosexuality they are stepping over the line, if they are actively campaigning for a proposition to prevent gay marriage they are again stepping over the line. Mind, I'm not saying that such things should be illegal for a church just that they should abstain from such actions and abstain from playing the political game since it's better for the country in the whole in my honest opinion, and has the people think with their head when they vote instead of heeding an religious authority figure. Religion can be a really powerful tool in politics and one I'd prefer not to see used at all. Of course the next time any of the major corporations takes an official side in politics and meddles with the problem by say preassuring their employees to vote for the "right" candidate then I can guarantee that I'll be outraged by the incident.

This is also why I would have a problem with voting for someone with close ties to a Church with very centralized leadership (Mormons, Catholic Church). I could never be certain to which authority they bow first, to the people or his Church?

EDIT: Aaargh! When I tried to edit I kept being redirected to a church of scientology page. Might be good idea to check for spyware

 

That depends on what you mean by "it's political muscle". If you mean mobilizing supporters, I can't disagree more. In a democracy, everyone has their say, and that includes the faithful. If you mean spending Church resources to fund political campaigns, etc. then I completely agree.

I disagree here, at least on the "should" part (back at the beginning). People have the right to support or oppose legislation on any grounds they like, even racism if they really want it. Their arguements should reflect that. And anyway, it doesn't matter who this God figure is, just that X number of voting citizens are swayed by Him.

Doe PETA pay taxes? Does the Red Cross? Are these groups banned from stating their opinions on pending legislation?

Let's be honest here. How many voters do you really think vote with their heads in the first place? Every other organization with any interest in anything the government does can voice their opinion and even use a whole slew of very persuasive and even questionable tactics to persuade people to side with them (fear, hate, greed, confusion, suspicion, etc.) and not use their heads. Why should the Church be any different?


All in all, what I'm saying is that religious organizations should be free to say whatever they want whenever they want (as long as they aren't advocating breaking the law or anything) just like any other concerned organization. Just like any other organization, they should be punished if they try to exert pressure on their employees to vote one way or another, but ultimately they don't hold any more sway over their congregations that their moral authority and trustworthyness, which are much better persuasion tactics, IMO, than most of what is used in politics. I also believe that religious organizations should avoid using any of their funds to further any political campaigns, because their funds were donated by their congregation to further the Chruch (or Mosque, or Temple, or whatever), not a politician. If they want to organize a volunteer rally or something, that's fine, but no mixing of Church and political money.

 

I should have been more clear. The Red Cross doesn't actively lobby the government. PETA is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation and unlike Churches, donations to PETA are not tax deductible. If churches want to become political organizations, they can, but they'll need to re-categorize themselves to do it, and donations to them would no longer be tax deductible.

 

I'm not advocating Churches being able to actively lobby the government, just be allowed to publicly voice their opinions. And as for PETA, donations may not be tax deductable (I didn't know that), but PETA is a tax-exempt entity. They don't pay taxes any more than the Church does.

 

Because unlike unions and corporations, Churches lack a direct financial interest in government decisions. If they'd have one I'd understand their case better. I'm allways somewhat pissed when corporatism steps to block the political process. This has been fairly usual in Finland. Corporations have done it (it has been rumoured and written about Nokia essentially blackmailing the government to pass a law on telecommunications surveliance) and unions have done it (a few months back they threatend with a general strike if the government would go on with their plans to increase the retirement age). I prefer to keep these organizations out from directly intervening in politics and the same goes for churches. This sort of corporatist bickering hurts the country as a whole in my opinion.

There is also a difference between the two. Unions and corporations allways protect first and foremost their financial interests, while the Churches also sometimes understandably defend their financial interets they more often than unions and corporations deal with moral issues. Churches have no direct interest invested in how the state law deals with moral issues like euthanasia, death penalty, abortion or gay marriage. It's not really none of their business. They can tell their congregation to abstain from any of these but who are they to tell the rest of society what they should do?

In short I think the Church should take the same stance in matters of law as Corporations and Unions and similar groups and stick to their immediate interets, tell their membership how to behave but stop trying to tell the rest of society to live up to their standards.

 

Wait, because churches don't have the same financial interest as unions and corporations, they should be treated the same way? That doesn't make sense. Actually, if we're looking at motives, the Church's only motive is the wellbeing of the people (you may disagree with their vision of that good, but that's the motive), which should be a motive we're encouraging to get involved.

Actually, I think most churches, clergy, and congregations would disagree with you on this. It's exactly their business.

To tell them? They're members of the society. To force them? They're no one.

I'm not sure, but I think you more-or-less agreed with me, though I still don't see any logic to it. To make sure, churches should be able to preach homosexuality is a sin condemned by God, even if protected by man, but should not be allowed to lobby, contribute funds, or donate goods to politicians or political campaigns. I'll even go so far as to say churches should be allowed to publicly endorse individual candidates, so long as no material support follows.

 

IMO this is a problem which should be solved by making PETA pay their taxes. Just because PETA is tax-exempt when they shouldn't be doesn't mean that we should also make churches tax-exempt when they shouldn't be.

And the Red Cross versus either PETA or a church is a poor comparison.

 

No, they should be treated the same way because they are all non-governmental organizations. I was just trying to say that financial interests are not quite the same as trying to set moral standards for the society. The former being understandable if not at times disturbing, the latter being allways disturbing in my opinion. Perhaps I came across a bit unclearly.

Not in this country and that's really all that matters for me (for now, with the EU things might change at some point). It's extremely rare to see Christian clergy "guiding" people on how to vote. Some muslim groups and some smaller Christian churches are of course an exception but they are in a tiny minority and have no real pull in the political process. Of coruse a critic might argue that this is because the state has gone and pretty much neutered the Church, but atleast it keeps the religious rethoric away from the political debate which I'm quite grateful of.

In funding campaigns, endorsing candidates and encouraging/scaring people how to vote they are effectively trying to force their moral view on the rest of society. Of course in the end democracy prevails but I'd rather see Churches have next to no pull on the political process. I simply don't believe it's their place to be telling other people than their congregation what to do. They have no inherent interest so they should not be doing it.

I think our differences is mostly in the manner we hope to see a Church behave. As I said earlier, I'm not seeking to deny religious groups the opportunity to speak out about anything just like I'm not seeking to deny the right from any other organization. However I'd hope that they'd abstain from intervening in the political and legistlative process unless their own basic rights or financial interests are for some reason under threat. So I disagree with you about them having an interest invested in gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion or the death penalty. If they see matters differently, then they'll obviously intervene in the political process and that's their right, I certainly don't want their rights compromised in that regard. I however would not stay a member of a Church that meddles in any way with the political process.

 

My take on this subject has evolved a bit over the years, but these days it boils down to this: a person's faith shouldn't have to be proven, that isn't the point. It's not about fact, it's about faith. You can't prove it to others, only to yourself. Faith is a personal matter. All that matters is what you believe, and you get out of that faith what you put into it.

That said, when someone is evangelical about their beliefs, and insists on taking their beliefs out of their personal sphere and spreading them into yours - telling you that you are on the wrong path; that you don't know the "truth"; that you need to be "saved"; that your belief system is wrong and theirs is right - then it's on that person to provide proof, and not unreasonable for someone to demand it.

To me, religion (or more to the point, the religious) become offensive when the individual feels the need to push their beliefs into the sphere of others, aggressively so. I'm not talking about reasonable conversation (i.e., "This is what I believe firmly, and I'd like to share this with you, if you're open to it. If not, that's cool."), but about really preaching (i.e., "You need to understand and accept God's truth..." or "You couldn't be more wrong about that..."). If more evangelicals were like my first example, I don't think there would be as much hostility to them out there. Sadly I think the latter is much more common. It's offensive because it is dismissive of the beliefs, intellect and life experience of the other person. To be so sure that YOU know "God's truth" and that I don't, that you have it so right and that I'm so lost, is immensely frustrating. To me, anyway. I find it extremely difficult to tolerate evangelicals with this attitude, and I've encountered it far more often than not.

Basically:
"This is my belief, my truth, but to each his own." = Cool, no "proof" required.
"This is 'God's Truth,' and you need to accept it." = You better put up or shut up.

But that's me.

 

IMHO, religious beliefs also don't have to be proved scientifically in the political sphere. A religious person has just as much right to his opinion on delicate matters as any other citizen. He also has the right to lobby government based on any belief that he has -- he does not have to scientifically prove his beliefs before he can take part in society's discussions.

So do churches -- I think that we are walking a very dangerous road when we start to limit the groups who can and cannot lobby government. I don't really think it matters if the organization is for profit or non profit -- certainly to my knowledge that has never been a criterion for any group to engage in public discourse (at least in North America)

Now as for how much a group can contribute to a candidate, that's a different story -- there are strict limits in some places on contribution maximums.

 

Neither do 527 groups. That said, I did a little research and discovered that I was wrong. PETA donations are now tax deductible (They either changed over at some point or I was simply misinformed). That said, I did a little more digging still. Launching issues-based ads does not cross the line for a non-profit, but pushing for a specific candidate or party does. In other words, the churches that specifically endorsed McCain during the last election (there were several) are in serious danger of losing their tax-exempt status, but the catholic church is in no danger for admonishing their parishioners that voting for a pro-choice politician can endanger their immortal soul. Go figure.

I nevertheless stand by my argument about using religious arguments to pass laws for one very good reason. Laws passed only to serve a religious purpose get overturned by the courts as soon as the affected party sues, because of the first amendment. Unlike churches, private organizations are not hamstrung by the first amendment, which rightly limits their political influence. On the flip side, arguments from private organizations will be judged on their own merit, not on the size or fervency of their flock. Religious arguments often are judged by the size and fervency of their flock, which is one of the reasons we spelled out separation of church and state in our constitution. One relgigions agenda should not be allowed to take precedence over another's.

 

Sorry, I was generalizing too much there. What I meant was that you cannot prove things outside of mathematics and logic. The correctness of proven propositions in those fields are a different and quite theoretical matter since it only goes as far as the correctness of the method and axioms allow it to go.

 

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that religious arguements have no bearing. Laws are usually passed, on one level or another, based on their percieved support by the public. A large part of that public is religious in one context or another, and thus religious arguements are valid methods of persuasion. Another large portion of the public is not religious in (just about) any way. Religious arguements will not sway them. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that, between the Atheist community (active and not) and the protections inherrant in the US system, fear of religious oppression of the non-religious should be pretty low these days. With that, fears of the potential of a religious arguement seem pretty weak, while the potential damage of silencing a sizable and well-respected voice in most communities is both significant and unjustified.

More in general, what I'm saying is that religious arguements are just as valid as any other basis for arguement. If you want to silence religious arguements simply because they garner popular support, you're talking about silencing the opposition (presumably). If you want to silence them because they are logically faulty, pointing out the logical flaws is usually enough for lawmakers, lawyers, and a large portion (I won't say majority, though I do suspect it) of the religious community. In truth, striking down laws because they are blatantly unconstitutional is pretty rare, and for good reason: they don't tend to get that far.