Each man or woman to his or her own, I say. It is what we are granted by our Creator and our constitution. But somehow there's this mob, this mob cloaked in tangled words and marginal prophecies that insist we give up ourselves for the church, the temple, the mosque...pick your house of worship. Leave it be already.
What's even more ludicrous is that this nation and many other nations are founded on the principle of freedom of religion. FREEDOM. I love to say that word. Freedom to worship or not worship. Freedom to write blog entries criticizing wholesale religious proselytizing. Freedom to pray for positive change in our time.
Instead, we continue to have so-called freedom lovers that demand religious hegemony play an active role in government. Our god is much better than your god - neh neh ne na neh neh. By all means, we must invoke our god's spirited catechism in each and every aspect of YOUR life. Freedom is simply, at this point, thrown out the window. One's own freewill, individuality, and even the esprit du corps are all put at risk. Much of this comes from those that want maximum freedom - freedom from socialism, freedom from taxes, and the ever interesting, freedom to bear arms (see my blog entry, The Bad Things in Life http://spotonwithtrivedi.blogspot.com/2009/03/bad-things-in-life.html.
Why then push, as a drug dealer pushes, your goods on the rest of us? What's so compelling? Why all the divisiveness? The extremism? The insane amount of PRIDE (a mortal sin in most world religions) in one's own religious dogma? Please, someone explain! Explain without quoting any sort of religious verbiage - men wrote those words. Please speaketh for thyselfeth. How does one rationalize what I see as hypocrisy - OURS is better than YOURS - with the notion that saying that, in and of itself, is also sinful.
Religious fervor is a means of dividing all of us from what it is supposed to uphold and cement - kindness, charity, and love towards others. For those that care (and based on the number of blog followers, there's not much interest), I will be over here in the corner of my flat, praying that we don't annihilate one another on the grounds of god greed. Dang! Another deadly sin rears its ugly head.
As always, be thankful for what you have, buy only what you need, and work diligently for peace. I shall try to do the same. From the home office just outside the gates of the most affluent suburb in Cincinnati, I bid you well.
6 years ago
2 comments:
So Arp, I've been thinking about this post for several months, and finally I'm putting some thoughts to print. All in all I agree.
Freedom core to human health, goodness, and rightness:
My spiritual tradition hails back to groups that died standing up for their rights to dissent from the major religion of the day and for the rights of other faiths to practice without fear. Once I was trying to "help," commandeer is a more honest verb choice, a friend to stop selling drugs, and called my daddy with the moral dilemna of giving money to pay the big dealer and throwing the crack down the gutter - is this buying drugs? My father said get out of there and get to my office. My father's lesson of the day: If God allows people free choice, even the freedom for destructive choices, then shouldn't I give them as well.
Self-righteousness in any form stinks:
Religious people often act self-righteously, as do environmentalist, political fanatics, etc.
Tim Keller, in his book, The Reason for God, notes "The tendency of religious people, however, is to use spiritual and ethical observance as a lever to gain power over others and over God, appeasing him through ritual and good works. This leads to both an emphasis on external religious forms as well as greed, materialism, and oppression in social arrangements. Those who believe they have pleased God by the quality of their devotion and moral goodness naturally feel that they and their group deserve deference and power over others. The God of Jesus and the prophets however, saves completely by grace. He cannot be manipulated by religious and moral performance - he can only be reached through repentance, through the giving up of power. If we are saved by sheer grace we can only become grateful, willing servants of god and of everyone around us. Jesus charged his disciples: 'Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be servant of all (Mark 10:43-45)'"
Maybe the fanatic needs more of God's grace rather than having too much. (Keller's thought as well.)
My challenge becomes how to passionately live centred on Christ and respectively let those I love ignore or even debase Him. More broadly how does anyone hold strongly to ideas (religious, economic, social policy, political, philosophical), share the ideas for sharpening/clarifying by others questions and observations, offer alternative views, and remain humble and respectful. Granting grace to a broad spectrum of thoughts, approaches.
Which comes to my third thought which is more of a question. How can one humbly respect the freedom of others and still share what one has found to be life-giving, hope-filling, character-sustaining? It seems unkind, and certainly, deceitful in some conversations when I don't bring up the resurrecting hope I have found in Christ because I don't want to offend or impinge. Does our society have space for the public dialogue (not debate) of spiritual truth, experience, curiousity, questions, frustrations?
How can we dialogue without pushing?
A free exchange of many ideas gives us the potential for understanding one another, at least, and maybe for developing deeper, richer worldviews.
Ellen, I thank you for your thought-provoking feedback. In writing the blog entry, I sought to bring the most critical element to the forefront, freedom. I have this sense that many modern religions, including to some degree my own, tend to marginalize the other religions, and seek to incorporate non-believers into their own flock. Is it not enough that we have governments continually interceding upon our lives that we now need the religion(s) doing the same?
I completely understand and appreciate your perspective. However, I am not convinced that the majority of religious overture is to persuade instead of to uplift. The pious message, though constructive and meaningful, loses some of its meaning with the quid pro quo attached to it. Let us love God and let that be that. Wanting others to love God, mine or yours, seems disenchanting, particularly in a society that relishes human freedom the way that we do.
Post a Comment