I am not interested in discussing the nuances of ancient
Greek texts. I am not here to tell you how to read the Bible. I am not trying
to make devotions. I’m not here to rally the people behind a religious cause.If you want anything like that, there are plenty of other
religion blogs out there for you.
I am here to bring about the points that make
both religious and non-religious people uncomfortable.
I have no religion
degree, no Sunday school diploma, absolutely no credentials. I’m just an
individual who was raised in the church, and therefore I feel prepared to make
the statements you will see here.
This blog is an attempt to fill a need that I see: a place
for reasonable, civil discussion. I will present my views, then we will discuss
them, either in the comments below, on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, wherever we
decide to discuss.
Now less formal :D
My name is Matt, and I'm the son of a minister. While that might not sound like much, it has allowed me to see a side of the organized church that not everyone has seen. Maybe someday I'll take the plunge and become a minister myself, but right now I'm content to run a simple blog about my religious experiences.
Also, don't expect to see very many Biblical references. I'll refer to stories, but specific verse citations aren't something that I feel like I'll need to do.
Or maybe I will. Who knows? The nice thing about beginning a blog like this is that I can sort of write what I want, and eventually it will mold itself into some kind of ministerial objective.
So let's start with a preview, since I've already talked enough for one week.
What is the role of religion? It could be in your life, in the world, in this country, in politics, wherever. Religion influences people's daily lives, so it makes sense that it would influence other decisions that they make.
I've heard many people say that a person's religion shouldn't influence things like...
- How they vote
- How they raise children
- How they make decisions outside of the church
2 and 3 are a bit of a generalization (remember, no degree. Also, it's 11:30 pm). But I think my point is clear.
So to those people, I would remind that a person's religion is synonymous with a moral code, and it would be pretty ridiculous to ask them to abandon it when making decisions (boy I'm good at writing).
So, armed with this knowledge, can you give an example of a time when someone's religion shouldn't be used to make a decision?
Next week I'll follow up (if I get any responses) and introduce a new topic: our current "church" formula.
I do not disagree. Religion and moral cords are extremely similar, yet religion carries with it a slightly different connotation and frankly much more depth. To make a decision (practically any) without considering your moral code would be a flawed decision, but to make a decision without consulting your religious beliefs to me is something different. I think it depends upon the decision and the factors which go into that decision. I believe that perhaps... deciding which friend to ask to prom shouldn't involve your religion (a purposely ludicrous example) because it doesn't need to, they are largely unrelated. Just to provide an example lol.
ReplyDeleteOn another note Matt, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this first entry and intend to continue to follow it and be involved. Love it.
Drew,
Good point. Perhaps a prom date would be a bit much if you would be running them through a religious checklist. What what about looking for a boy/girlfriend? A spouse? How about just looking for friends?
DeleteFirst of all: YAYYYY for this blog. I think about stuff like this a lot and I never know who to talk about it with because frankly, people freak out about topics of religion and/or are not interested or willing to discuss it at all. So I'm interested to see where this goes! :)
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I will now answer your question of the day with a non-answer. I really do agree that religion is reflective of a person's moral code, and therefore it makes sense that someone would allow their religion to affect their vote or how they raise their kids or any other kind of decision-making. And for the most part, I think that living out your personal beliefs, whatever they may be, is your prerogative. However, there is a really blurry line between exercising your freedom to live by your own moral code and taking away other people's freedom to do the same. For instance, voting on marriage equality and abortion is obviously affected by religious belief. Should a non-Christian be obligated by law to adhere to a Christian worldview? I don't believe so. However, is it fair to tell someone they shouldn't use their very personal moral compass in their decision to vote one way or another? I don't know what the right answer is. I get pissed off when people fight against gay rights because of their religion, but my stance on gay rights is likewise affected by my own personal moral code, and if someone told me I couldn't use my moral code in voting, I feel that would also be unfair. I really don't know where I stand on this. When it comes right down to it, I think we (the human race) are all just trying to live our lives in ways that fulfill us spiritually - regardless of whether you are religious or not. And the decisions we make are guided by that need for fulfillment. And we are all so different, we don't need the same things and sometimes we need things that take away from the things that other people need. It's really hard to say who should have the right of way, so to speak.
-Anna
I definitely agree with you, especially when you say "we don't need the same things and sometimes we need things that take away from the things that other people need". It raises a difficult point, though, that some people genuinely do not know what they need. The first example that comes to mind is very young children who don't yet have the capacity for original thoughts. And I'm sure that there's some adults who have no idea what to do, maybe they're lost spiritually or something. In those cases, is it okay for religious parents to raise their children religiously? Is that "taking away other people's freedom to [exercise their freedom]"? As always, these aren't simple answers, I'm just curious to know what you would say.
DeleteI agree with a lot of these sentiments. I think it's honestly one of the most prevalent struggles that we humans constantly attempt to even out. The U.S. has the freedom of religion, which seems to be a step in the right direction, but as you basically pointed out, how can policies that affect the entire nation be made if they originate from specific, individual beliefs of a politician? With the way the government is structured, is it possible to actually achieve a regime that does not infringe on any religion through it's policies (i. e. on abortion, gay marriage, etc)? Or should our goal be entirely different? There are a lot of tough questions concerning this topic, and I think you opened up an important one perfectly. The problem though is that time keeps moving on, and people have to make decisions. People will have their beliefs, and they run for congress or they vote... how else will they know to make decisions other than looking at their moral code? or their religion? The beliefs that they've always lived by, or at least what they want to base their decisions on. So, is it possible to avoid the problem you've brought up? I think it would take a drastic change of some kind to make this happen. Some type of restructuring perhaps? of how things are run? But I haven't thought of such specific things.
DeleteYeah, I literally have no clue. I think it's a fine line that we tread every day, and I don't think that it's a black-or-white answer. That's kind of the point that I was trying to make was... who can really say where beliefs/religion/spirituality should or should not be inserted? I think that's the beauty (and crux) of democracy. Everybody decides what they believe is right and if enough people agree with them, they win. And perhaps that's unsatisfying to the minority, but I'm unsure there is a better way to run things. The thing is that people are resilient and we tend to adapt to things not going our way. So whether the people in power or the majority are making choices that satisfy your moral code... that really doesn't change your moral code. Your beliefs will still be your beliefs and you can still stand up for them and live them out in varying degrees.
DeleteAs far as people not knowing what they need... YUP. I think that can be said of all of us to some degree or another. I think you're lucky if you ever actually know exactly what you need to be happy/fulfilled. I feel like life is all about that search. And I do feel like many people who don't know what they need end up hurting others in their search - or in the context of this discussion, they take away from what others need to be spiritually fulfilled. It's this weird give-and-take that goes on forever and ever and will never not be a part of life. So do we put safeguards out there for those people and say "You can't make this decision because your moral/religious instinct might be misguided..."? I feel like that's saying "You're way too human to make that call." Um... aren't we all? So I don't know what the right answer is or where the line should be drawn. I think there are instances where it's obvious that your religious ideals are harmful to others - an extreme example being terrorism. But I think there is a whole lot of gray area where no one has the right to say "keep your beliefs out of this."
We do tend to adapt to things not going are way, but what happens when it's too much? I feel like that's very easy for us to say now, but what if a politician or somebody else in charge deeply infringes on what we believe? I understand what you mean when you say "your beliefs will still be your beliefs and you can still stand up for them and live them out in varying degrees," but can a minority live like that if it's a major issue? I guess for an example, what if the president (whoever, I'm not specifically meaning Obama), was against abortion, and with Congress, managed to pass a law that abortions and abortion clinics were now illegal? In that case, a lot of people would feel their moral codes or beliefs being stepped on, and while we can protest and propose new bills, it may or may not be enough. It wouldn't be so easy to adapt then, because it's such a major issue. And while people could still stand up for what they believed (in this case, legal abortion), it wouldn't be about self-preservation and taking comfort in the fact that their morals or beliefs were still theirs. Their goal is to make Congress change the law. I guess my point is that I don't think this question of whether our form of democracy is right is so easily put to rest with the fact that our ideals, no matter what happens, belong to us.
DeleteI LOVE THIS.
ReplyDeleteWhen should religious beliefs not be applied to making [logical?] decisions:
ReplyDelete- Abortion
- Contraception
- Medical emergencies
- Legal disputes including court cases
- Legislation
- Education
- Therapy, psychiatry, and other mental health treatments and diagnostics
- Financial investments
- Nutrition, exercise, and other measures of self-preservation
Basically, it seems to me that *organized* religion has no place in most daily survival decisions, as well as in anything where ethical concerns are of primary importance. I do believe there is a distinction between "morality" and "ethics," though explaining why without leaving out anything critical might take pages. Then again, that may be because I don't understand it well enough myself. I also believe in a distinction between religion and spirituality, the latter of which can be considered exclusive from taking part in decision-making because it is not really related to morality and can be treated on a more personal level, where your cognitive framing schemas about your own spirituality (i.e. your "personal god") do not impinge ethically upon anybody else.
But that's just what I believe.
I think you have to remember that one person's religious beliefs are not widespread among all religious people. Most, if not all, of your examples have had some negative effects when religion is applied, but you've left out the fact that these are things than *can* be affected negatively by religion, organized or not, they aren't necessarily universally negative.
DeleteMy example to when someone's religion shouldn't be used to make a decision is when they are picking the type of comforter they want on their bed. I don't see how religion would really influence that, though that's a pretty small decision isn't it? Maybe that's a point in itself... that most decisions in our lives are really based on our religion or our moral code, and we leave the less impactful decisions just to straight up personal preference on appearance and emotional response.
ReplyDeleteWhen you said that religion was synonymous with a moral code, I initially didn't agree with you. Religion always seemed deeper to me, and it seemed more encompassing of someone's life. You got me thinking though, and I can see why a moral code and religion could be the same. Both influence you in your decisions throughout your life, and no one should be asked to remove or give up their moral code or religion. In that sense, I can call them both the same. I think the problem that I'm having is, as I said, I always saw religion as more encompassing, something that not only you consulted to base your decisions off of but something that helped to explain the world around you. A moral code, in my mind, serves as a compass for when you are in a particular problem, challenge, or decisive moment. A religion also can function in this way for a person, but I feel religions go even further, explaining life or elements of it, and giving you a type of stance on how to view the world. However, this might just be a stereotype I've formed over religions, especially since I don't know about most religions in the world.
That's a fair thing to say, and a good point. Maybe a better way that I could have said it is that religion can kind of have a moral code nested inside it? Explaining is hard haha.
Delete