I agree with you, Dave, when you say that Maher chose the most ridiculous examples--that he made it too easy. Yup. I agree.
But for a person like me, still grappling with my "coming out" phase from Christianity, this film, for me, served a purpose. It reminded me that I left the religion because of more than simple distaste--I left it because I truly believe it (in most cases, but not all) that it does more harm than good.
I can see why you would take offense at the film...but please, go see it...then we can talk about it better.
All throughout the film, Maher talks to "unbelievers" and he states: "Stop apologizing!"
I feel that often I feel pressure from family and friends to apologize for my position. And Maher reminded me there is nothing to be ashamed of...I am allowed my opinion.
Lastly, to argue against your last paragraph: I would venture to say that yes, you are right about Christians making progress in this country. However, I would argue that this is based on sheer probability. As most Americans would state, when asked, that they identify as a Christian (whatever denomination), that doesn't mean they practice. As Christianity is the dominant, and "acceptable" religion of this country, then yes--of course there have been institutions created by Christians. Would it make sense any other way?
(In reply to the last paragraph you wrote here) - yes, there are those who identify themselves as Christians, and don't really practice it. But, the examples that Dave was referring to above were examples of Christians who were actually living out their faith doing something - we aren't talking about just random people who happen to associate themselves with Christianity.
The search for meaning IS religion, so yes, it is engrained in all of us. We all want meaning in our lives - how is that not our religion?
Also, the whole missionary thing - I think of Andy when he first started with weight watchers. Remember how he was all over everyone about what they ate and how they took care of themselves? No one that he was absurd - because it was something that he was passionate about and truly believed in. He had experienced something so much better- something that made him feel alive, and he couldn't help but share that with everyone. That is how Christians feel - and I'm sure Buddhists do too - it's not a "we've got it right, you poor soul" mentality - it's an experience that you can't help but share with others. How is that wrong? Yes, some people have gone too far and have been flat out offensive, but not everyone. I have some friends that are missionaries in China that are just so excited to share God with others there, and I think it's wonderful. They have been kind and as un-offensive as possible.
Also, just like you call Buddhism a religion that is really more a way of life than a religion, that's what I call Christianity. I almost cringe when it's diminished to merely a "religion" - just a set of things that people think, or rules that they follow. It is is so much more than that, which I'm sure you feel the same way about Buddhism. I think it is unwise to suggest that Buddhists have never been un-peaceful - because the second that one of them isn't, what will you have to say? The same thing as we are all saying - they got it wrong. Just because someone gets it wrong doesn't damn the whole thing - it gives us a reality check. No one is perfect, it's just how it is.
To claim that Buddhists have never been violent is extremely audacious, especially unchecked. A simple google search produces plenty of examples. http://www.trimondi.de/EN/links.htm#BVW I won't argue against the legitimacy of Buddhism as teaching non-violence because of these examples. In the same way, Christianity teaches non-violence - regardless of the many examples in our history to the contrary and the popular opinion of American Christians today. Buddhism is not superior simply because it is not familiar.
I have never expected you, nor anyone, to "apologize" for your beliefs. I HAVE expected you to think about them.
"Good for its own sake." I don't know whose version of Christianity you constantly caricature and reject, but it isn't mine. This is a beautiful summary of Christianity to me - to pursue good because God IS good, Jesus' teachings ARE good, and lead us (both personally and globally) into goodness. I am not driven by fear or tradition at all. Heather, I don't have any problem whatsoever with you deciding to not practice Christianity. I DO take issue with it when the reasons you've consistently given for choosing to reject it are not reflective of orthodox Christianity at all and more reflective of a cultural, sentimental, "hallmarky" American semi-religiosity.
Again, I disagree with your assertion that Christianity has done more harm than good, and with your assertion that those doing good in Jesus' name have done so under cultural & nominal Christianity only. The examples I provided are of people who are directly driven to their work by the gospel. Read the biographies. Again, I directly challenge you to demonstrate that "non-religious" people have contributed more to human progress than "religious" people.
One further point. You stated, "I personally believe it is a kind of blasphemy for humans to claim they KNOW the way to live. That their path is the path everyone else should take. To claim that they know God and how God works is just plain crazy to me." I'd like to point out that your insistence that claims about life and God (doctrines) do not matter is a doctrine in itself. It holds a specific view of God, which is touted as superior and more enlightened than the beliefs of most major religions. You're doing the very thing you condemn in others. I am sure you've heard the example of several blind people all feeling an elephant, describing the creature they cannot see in different ways. But this illustration falls short. The story is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How could you know that each blind man only sees part of the elephant unless YOU claim to be able to see the whole elephant? The protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp carries with it an appearance of humility, but amounts to an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge that is superior to all others. What is the absolute vantage ground from which YOU claim to be able to relativize all the absolute claims these different scriptures make? It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right. The truth is, we all must do the hard work of asking which affirmations about God, human nature, and spiritual reality are true and which are false. We will have to base our life on some answer to that questions. We all make truth claims of some sort - which amount to unprovable faith assumptions that must be weighed. We need to reframe the question. What is religion? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. Call it what you will, it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, worldview, or "religion," whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not.
One more thing. I am in NO WAY offended by Maher's film. I firmly believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, and that the truth stands up under scrutiny. I welcome any opportunity to discuss matters of ultimate importance, and my taking issue with certain points should not in any way be interpreted as offense or a feeling that they should not have been brought up.
Yup. I agree.
But for a person like me, still grappling with my "coming out" phase from Christianity, this film, for me, served a purpose. It reminded me that I left the religion because of more than simple distaste--I left it because I truly believe it (in most cases, but not all) that it does more harm than good.
I can see why you would take offense at the film...but please, go see it...then we can talk about it better.
All throughout the film, Maher talks to "unbelievers" and he states: "Stop apologizing!"
I feel that often I feel pressure from family and friends to apologize for my position. And Maher reminded me there is nothing to be ashamed of...I am allowed my opinion.
Lastly, to argue against your last paragraph: I would venture to say that yes, you are right about Christians making progress in this country. However, I would argue that this is based on sheer probability. As most Americans would state, when asked, that they identify as a Christian (whatever denomination), that doesn't mean they practice. As Christianity is the dominant, and "acceptable" religion of this country, then yes--of course there have been institutions created by Christians. Would it make sense any other way?
Reply
The search for meaning IS religion, so yes, it is engrained in all of us. We all want meaning in our lives - how is that not our religion?
Also, the whole missionary thing - I think of Andy when he first started with weight watchers. Remember how he was all over everyone about what they ate and how they took care of themselves? No one that he was absurd - because it was something that he was passionate about and truly believed in. He had experienced something so much better- something that made him feel alive, and he couldn't help but share that with everyone. That is how Christians feel - and I'm sure Buddhists do too - it's not a "we've got it right, you poor soul" mentality - it's an experience that you can't help but share with others. How is that wrong? Yes, some people have gone too far and have been flat out offensive, but not everyone. I have some friends that are missionaries in China that are just so excited to share God with others there, and I think it's wonderful. They have been kind and as un-offensive as possible.
Also, just like you call Buddhism a religion that is really more a way of life than a religion, that's what I call Christianity. I almost cringe when it's diminished to merely a "religion" - just a set of things that people think, or rules that they follow. It is is so much more than that, which I'm sure you feel the same way about Buddhism. I think it is unwise to suggest that Buddhists have never been un-peaceful - because the second that one of them isn't, what will you have to say? The same thing as we are all saying - they got it wrong. Just because someone gets it wrong doesn't damn the whole thing - it gives us a reality check. No one is perfect, it's just how it is.
Reply
Here a brief thoughts:
To claim that Buddhists have never been violent is extremely audacious, especially unchecked. A simple google search produces plenty of examples.
http://www.trimondi.de/EN/links.htm#BVW
I won't argue against the legitimacy of Buddhism as teaching non-violence because of these examples. In the same way, Christianity teaches non-violence - regardless of the many examples in our history to the contrary and the popular opinion of American Christians today. Buddhism is not superior simply because it is not familiar.
I have never expected you, nor anyone, to "apologize" for your beliefs. I HAVE expected you to think about them.
"Good for its own sake." I don't know whose version of Christianity you constantly caricature and reject, but it isn't mine. This is a beautiful summary of Christianity to me - to pursue good because God IS good, Jesus' teachings ARE good, and lead us (both personally and globally) into goodness. I am not driven by fear or tradition at all. Heather, I don't have any problem whatsoever with you deciding to not practice Christianity. I DO take issue with it when the reasons you've consistently given for choosing to reject it are not reflective of orthodox Christianity at all and more reflective of a cultural, sentimental, "hallmarky" American semi-religiosity.
Again, I disagree with your assertion that Christianity has done more harm than good, and with your assertion that those doing good in Jesus' name have done so under cultural & nominal Christianity only. The examples I provided are of people who are directly driven to their work by the gospel. Read the biographies. Again, I directly challenge you to demonstrate that "non-religious" people have contributed more to human progress than "religious" people.
One further point. You stated, "I personally believe it is a kind of blasphemy for humans to claim they KNOW the way to live. That their path is the path everyone else should take. To claim that they know God and how God works is just plain crazy to me." I'd like to point out that your insistence that claims about life and God (doctrines) do not matter is a doctrine in itself. It holds a specific view of God, which is touted as superior and more enlightened than the beliefs of most major religions. You're doing the very thing you condemn in others. I am sure you've heard the example of several blind people all feeling an elephant, describing the creature they cannot see in different ways. But this illustration falls short. The story is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How could you know that each blind man only sees part of the elephant unless YOU claim to be able to see the whole elephant? The protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp carries with it an appearance of humility, but amounts to an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge that is superior to all others. What is the absolute vantage ground from which YOU claim to be able to relativize all the absolute claims these different scriptures make? It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right. The truth is, we all must do the hard work of asking which affirmations about God, human nature, and spiritual reality are true and which are false. We will have to base our life on some answer to that questions. We all make truth claims of some sort - which amount to unprovable faith assumptions that must be weighed. We need to reframe the question. What is religion? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. Call it what you will, it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, worldview, or "religion," whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment