Rewiring my brain, day 6?
I forgot to check back at previous entries and see what day "brain rewiring day" it is. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
GRATITUDE:
1. Humility. Geez, sometimes I am really bad at working with high-need kids. I do not do everything right by any stretch of the imagination, despite the fact that I want to and I'm trying my best to. It is a great learning opportunity.
2. Family! Mom, Dad, Snarf, and the pups and I are all together for Easter. It is great fun.
3. Debate. I've been thinking a lot about my views on politics and religion lately... and especially the intersection of the two. While I've no doubt pissed people off with my ruminations, I think it has been a positive thing... and will be the subject of my "reflection" post today.
REFLECTION:
It is a positive experience to do some soul-searching. I wasn't raised with any religious affiliation, mostly due to a conscious decision by my mother to let me make up my own mind about what to believe without indoctrinating me into any tradition. (My father is an atheist, though he never once brought up the subject of God - or whether he/she/it exists - that I recall.) I went to church with my friends when I felt like it or they invited me. I can recite the Lord's Prayer from memory because we always used to say it before football games when I was on the drill team in Texas. I have a few devoutly religious friends who I love. I am a huge fan of C.S. Lewis's nonfiction theological writings, I think gospel music rules, and I play the Hallelujah chorus on repeat for hours. I have read papal encyclicals. I have researched Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism. I went to an audience given by Pope John Paul II in Vatican City. Beauty like the Creation of Adam fresco in the Sistine Chapel is holy in my eyes... despite the fact that I don't put any stock in the biblical creation narrative. At one point I seriously considered converting to Catholicism. I own a copy of the Bible that I treat as reverently as I do my other books. When one of my friends died in a car accident in high school and my mom left her rosary at the accident site, I bought her another one for Christmas from the somewhat creepy Catholic paraphernalia store. I celebrate Christmas, and have attended religious services on Christmas Eve. I have fervently prayed multiple times in my life. I still acknowledge my own helplessness and mortality every time I fly on a plane in the form of what can only be described as a prayer. (It is probably also part superstition.) My sisters are both atheists. I am not. But I am not religious, either. I occasionally succumb to my frustration with staunchly religious people who are impervious to logic and therefore impossible to reason with and proclaim traditional religious faith "stupid!" or "ignorant!" ... but I always try to remember my Catholic friend Teresa who is the polar opposite of stupid or ignorant. I think many good things have arisen from organized religion - community-building, the idea of religious tolerance which I can probably thank for the fact that I haven't been stoned yet for not being part of a church, ritual as a concrete reminder of philosophy-in-practice, humanitarian efforts when no other social institution had any motivation to undertake them, and beautiful edifices like churches (which I totally love... only the Gothic ones and the cute country chapels, though. Not a fan of the modern "malls of God"). I also think it has done - and continues to do - many terrible things. I am horrified by the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the burning of alleged witches. Nothing can convince me that "homosexuality is a sin" is a morally justifiable position or that denying people equal rights under the law based on their sexual orientation is anything less than barbaric. My relationship with faith is complex and deeply personal, but I am not a member of any organized religion for several reasons, both rational and irrational (purely emotional):
1. I find fault with the prospect of putting my absolute faith in any document written hundreds of years ago by human beings in a language I cannot fluently read and which has been mistranslated and heavily edited through the centuries. I will not accept it as the basis for my worldview, especially when it is internally contradictory, rife with cruelty, murder, judgment, and intolerance (in addition to some good things), and the veracity of the claims made therein about the nature/existence of God cannot be reliably verified. I'm referring mostly to the Bible because I know the most about it, but the same principle would hold true for any other "holy" book.
2. While I think many religions have interesting things to say about the prospect of God, I don't believe that any of them have claim to exclusive truth. I don't think any human being, attribute, or institution has claim to exclusive truth, including reason and science. I also think the idea of certainty about uncertain things and about things which we do not have a means to "prove" is dangerous and reductive. Being unwilling to admit to the possibility of error in any of your beliefs or judgments make it considerably easier to label different views as "wrong" and dehumanize the people who hold them. If God *is*, our interpretations of who/how/what God is have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of its existence. I think my interpretation of God has just as much potential to be true as "institutionalized" interpretation of God... but I don't share the confidence required by most faiths that one or the other is the way God ACTUALLY is. I have no idea what - or if - God actually is. That is why I'm not an atheist, either, because that would require me to believe that there is no God. I don't, and I think atheists often fall into the same trap that religious people do - claiming exclusive truth. Lack of proof is not proof that God doesn't exist... it just means we don't yet (or possibly ever) have the means to find proof.
3. I really dislike the idea of personifying God. I don't believe that people were made in the image of God (except in the most general sense), I don't believe people are "closer" to God, valued more by God than any other form of life or granted a divine mandate to exploit the natural world, I don't believe that God would have a "chosen people" or demand that people only use one path to get to heaven... if heaven exists. I don't think God intervenes in human affairs and I don't think God "listens" to our prayers or conspires to lure us to or bar us from a celestial ever-after based on conditional belief. I think we are really limited by attempting to make God in OUR image; we miss the opportunity to think of him/her/it outside of consciousness, gender, form, or life as we know it. I think the most powerful kind of love is respecting and seeing value in things that are completely apart from ourselves. Any God that is described as being vengeful, angry, demanding, intolerant, or even loving in the strictly human sense sounds to me like a human conceit, not like a divine being, and I am thoroughly uncomfortable with the idea of the worship of such a being becoming central to decisions about how I should live my life. I'm not against trying to "know" God in more personal terms, or try to describe God's "personality" if some people feel like they need that kind of connection, and I realize that that's what a lot of organized religion (especially the Jesus story) is about. I understand that a lot of people find comfort in imagining the bearded face of a Jesus who looks like they do, being enfolded in his arms, crying on his shoulder, looking into his eyes. They like tangible tokens of religious symbolism. I'm cool with that, if that's what gives them comfort. But it doesn't work for me. To be perfectly honest, it kind of creeps me out. I prefer to see God in the vivid colors of sunset, a canopy of spring-green leaves, the microscopic view of cells dividing, the pictures from the Hubble telescope, evidence of evolution, the fantastic diversity of the natural world... Those things remind me that God might be so.much.more than human beings. I also prefer to see God in every charitable, wholehearted, authentic, well-meaning, compassionate, and apologetic gesture made by individual human beings. I prefer to see God in the remarkable and beautiful things human beings can accomplish through teamwork and community. These things makes me feel connected to all life and all "creation" in a profoundly compassionate and humbling way. It makes me feel huge and tiny at the same time. And when I try to confine that feeling to the pages of the Bible or the image of a man hanging from a cross, I feel limited. I squirm. It feels WRONG. It feels like a lie, or at least a half-truth. That being said, I don't argue with other people's right to believe in what they feel, too. I don't think my way is the only way. If people need a human face to put on God and that belief makes them good, kind, charitable, tolerant, self-disciplined, forgiving, authentic, happy people - that's great. It's only when it makes them judgmental, hateful, angry, or defensive when confronted with contravening evidence that I take issue with it.
4. The crucifixion/resurrection narrative doesn't resonate with me at all. I don't find it inspirational or noble or beautiful; I think it is disturbing. I am repelled by the idea of anyone having to suffer to "redeem the sinners;" I think it is disgusting and unnecessary and - again - it sounds more like a human invention than a stroke of divine genius or charity. I realize that that statement will get people up in arms immediately, defending their interpretations and explaining to me with patronizing patience (or even pity of my unenlightened state which will cause them to condescendingly tell me that they are praying for my soul and hoping that something will happen to me to force me to finally see the "truth") how inevitable everything was, and how it justifies bad things happening and that persevering through them with Christlike patience, docility, and love is the model for a spiritual perfection we should all strive for. (And lots of other justifications that I didn't include in that very quick summary.) Well, I disagree. I disagree with the fundamental premise - that human beings are sinners who must be "saved" by a Christ figure to be worthy of a hypothetical heaven. YES, I think human beings are flawed... but I think our imperfection is part of our design, not a fallen state. I don't buy the Eden narrative at all, and I don't believe in the heaven that is described in the Bible or in the hell of the superstitious rantings of Revelations. I don't believe in Satan. I also don't buy the "Jesus as son of God sent to us because we can't have any connection with God otherwise, and if we don't believe that we're rejecting God and the selfless sacrifice of his son" argument that underlies that story. I realize the apologetics are infinitely less dismissive and more nuanced, but fundamentally that's what the Jesus narrative is about. Ultimately, I think it is kind of ridiculous that saying, "I believe Jesus is the son of God who suffered and died to redeem me" is somehow more important than how you behaved in your life. I absolutely do not accept the idea that - if heaven exists and there is a figure like God who passes ultimate judgement - being good, generous, kind, tolerant, charitable, gentle, helpful, empathetic, loving, and productive (granted, with failings and mistakes just like everyone else) would not qualify you for "eternal life in the kingdom of heaven" without a profession of faith in Jesus as son of God. Trying to be the best person you can be day-in and day-out with a loving heart seems to me infinitely more important than toeing some doctrinal line. I think the most important lessons from Jesus came from how he LIVED, not the circumstances surrounding his fantastical birth, death and supposed resurrection. To me, the crucifixion is more indicative of the inhuman things we can do to one another if we're divided over ideas of God and/or if Machiavellian power is threatened by a grassroots up-swelling of love and goodwill. I also struggle to find inspiration in the selfless death of a figure who came into the world knowing he would live briefly then suffer and die temporarily, only to be resurrected and live forever in the glory of God. I find much more inspiration in people who have no assurances, but who face the less pleasant vicissitudes of life with a mixture of courage, hope, and the backbone to fight for the right to live, provided their fight and continued way of life harms no one and helps as many people as possible. I have never liked the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, even though it profoundly affected my life and my decisions... the the point where I did just that, and discovered firsthand what little use it is. I don't advocate for "hit back" or "hit first" -- but I'm all about, "step away and say, 'I won't allow that to happen again.'" I tend to think that people who are eager for martyrdom or who are resigned to oppression or injustice because they believe passivity is the proper way to "love" one's "enemy" are mentally ill, not devout.
5. I reject the idea that religion is the source of all morality. I think "if an action harms someone in any way - including oneself - there is probably a better way" is a highly functional system of morality that has nothing to do with God. I also much prefer the idea of doing right for the sake of doing right - here and now, and for no other reason - to the threat of punishment in hell or reward in heaven. I think right behavior is an end in itself, not a means to an end. I also tend to believe that right action has immediate reward and wrong action has immediate consequence, even if they are not easily perceived; getting to a state of mind where hurting others becomes a real possibility means you already dwell in a place of punishment, simply because I think people who are truly happy and loving are not capable of hurting others or themselves. As Paulo Freire says, in an unjust system, the oppressors suffer as much as the oppressed because their humanity is perverted or stunted, and in fighting against injustice, the oppressed work to restore the dignity of everyone. Turning the other cheek allows the oppressor to continue unopposed with his/her oppression, to the detriment of all.
6. I am staunchly against an evangelical agenda. I think it's fine to "preach the gospel" to believers, and to leave the door open, so to speak, for people to come in and hear the teachings of a certain religion if it appeals to them or they are "led" to it, but I DESPISE the idea of purposefully going into a country or region that has its own religious beliefs and cultural history and trying to "convert the natives." I find it pompous and disrespectful to an inhumane degree, and religions with a long evangelical history kind of piss me off by default. I also get desperately annoyed by religious people who barge into secular spaces to preach the gospel in hopes of converting people. Newsflash: very few people in a modern nation have never heard the narratives of the major religions. They choose not to believe them for a reason, and religious people need to respect that. It's interesting to think about in reference to my own support of the Vipassana meditation tradition, which is a completely non-sectarian, non-religious (though it is often mistakenly conflated with Buddhism because it was allegedly discovered by Go(u)tama Buddha) technique. I have attended two 10-day retreats and they have been really life-altering in different ways, and I left both with a profound desire for everyone to experience the kind of peace and happiness that I found there. In that vein, I have donated money to the non-profit teaching group that hosts 10-day retreats to continue to fund opportunities for others who are interested in attending can do so free of charge. I have also told people about my experience at the retreat and how enlightening it was, how it impacted my life for the better. In many ways, I think evangelism is motivated by this feeling, a wish for genuine goodwill (metta) for all beings. However, the big difference between Vipassana and most religious beliefs is that religious traditions promote the acceptance of certain "already revealed" truths, whereas Vipassana is merely a technique designed to help people find truth within themselves. One of the fundamental precepts of the Vipassana tradition is "if it has no tangible benefit for you, don't believe it." You aren't supposed to believe anything that you cannot internally verify as truth - no matter if your mentor, teacher, friend, lover, whoever - tells you it's true. If you don't feel it, if you don't experience it, don't believe it. Religious evangelism doesn't require internal validation. It just says, "This is the truth. If you don't believe it, [insert consequence generally having to do with eternal damnation here]." I'm sure that many people find truth in the religious narratives; they consider them personally relevant and transformative. But not everyone. I find it really insulting when people tell me, "Oh, you just don't understand Jesus yet," or "You haven't let Jesus into your heart." Pardon me, but F*CK THAT. I have never been close-minded to religion or religious narratives - they've just never resonated with me. I'm not built that way. And if it's remotely true that God created people, then God made me this way... and he/she/it "knows" that there are other ways to reach me. I am always reminded of the part in Kingdom of Heaven where the Muslim forces (led by two very devout but rational and noble people) are attacking Jerusalem on principle and Balian and his Christian defenders are faced with a pile of the fallen. Balian proposes burning the bodies, and the Christian priest objects loudly, claiming their souls will go to hell if they aren't given a Christian burial. Balian responds simply, "Your Grace, if we don't burn these bodies, half of the city will be dead of disease in two days. God will understand. And if he doesn't, then he is not God, and we need not worry." Personally, I choose to believe that many of the things people claim God rejects has more to do with their personal biases than anything else, and if God "does not understand" different perspectives reached in careful consideration and goodwill, then he is not God... and we need not worry.
These are my personal beliefs, things I've come to through lots of careful reflection, openness to experience, and discussion with others. I support other people's right to believe in different things, and try my best not to judge them... although I will take action to prevent them from using those beliefs to restrict the rights or impugn the dignity of people who don't share them. I do my best to carefully consider if any of my beliefs bias me against members of organized religion in ways that cause me to endorse legislation that would restrict their rights or impugn their dignity.
One thing that really annoys me about religious people is that they often behave as if they have only one tool in their belts -- and if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Suddenly everything is about God. I don't think that every discussion, development, debate, or action taken by other people is intended to either support or challenge my beliefs about God. I get agitated when anyone brings God into things that can be discussed without reference to God or what you believe about God. I have been more aware of my own tendency to do this lately, and have resolved not trumpet my beliefs just to get a rise out people. I have definitely done that in the past. I don't think posting this on a public website qualifies as trumpeting... it is there for people who happen across it, but my LJ doesn't have a huge readership; it is tucked away, not thrown in people's faces.
GRATITUDE:
1. Humility. Geez, sometimes I am really bad at working with high-need kids. I do not do everything right by any stretch of the imagination, despite the fact that I want to and I'm trying my best to. It is a great learning opportunity.
2. Family! Mom, Dad, Snarf, and the pups and I are all together for Easter. It is great fun.
3. Debate. I've been thinking a lot about my views on politics and religion lately... and especially the intersection of the two. While I've no doubt pissed people off with my ruminations, I think it has been a positive thing... and will be the subject of my "reflection" post today.
REFLECTION:
It is a positive experience to do some soul-searching. I wasn't raised with any religious affiliation, mostly due to a conscious decision by my mother to let me make up my own mind about what to believe without indoctrinating me into any tradition. (My father is an atheist, though he never once brought up the subject of God - or whether he/she/it exists - that I recall.) I went to church with my friends when I felt like it or they invited me. I can recite the Lord's Prayer from memory because we always used to say it before football games when I was on the drill team in Texas. I have a few devoutly religious friends who I love. I am a huge fan of C.S. Lewis's nonfiction theological writings, I think gospel music rules, and I play the Hallelujah chorus on repeat for hours. I have read papal encyclicals. I have researched Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism. I went to an audience given by Pope John Paul II in Vatican City. Beauty like the Creation of Adam fresco in the Sistine Chapel is holy in my eyes... despite the fact that I don't put any stock in the biblical creation narrative. At one point I seriously considered converting to Catholicism. I own a copy of the Bible that I treat as reverently as I do my other books. When one of my friends died in a car accident in high school and my mom left her rosary at the accident site, I bought her another one for Christmas from the somewhat creepy Catholic paraphernalia store. I celebrate Christmas, and have attended religious services on Christmas Eve. I have fervently prayed multiple times in my life. I still acknowledge my own helplessness and mortality every time I fly on a plane in the form of what can only be described as a prayer. (It is probably also part superstition.) My sisters are both atheists. I am not. But I am not religious, either. I occasionally succumb to my frustration with staunchly religious people who are impervious to logic and therefore impossible to reason with and proclaim traditional religious faith "stupid!" or "ignorant!" ... but I always try to remember my Catholic friend Teresa who is the polar opposite of stupid or ignorant. I think many good things have arisen from organized religion - community-building, the idea of religious tolerance which I can probably thank for the fact that I haven't been stoned yet for not being part of a church, ritual as a concrete reminder of philosophy-in-practice, humanitarian efforts when no other social institution had any motivation to undertake them, and beautiful edifices like churches (which I totally love... only the Gothic ones and the cute country chapels, though. Not a fan of the modern "malls of God"). I also think it has done - and continues to do - many terrible things. I am horrified by the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the burning of alleged witches. Nothing can convince me that "homosexuality is a sin" is a morally justifiable position or that denying people equal rights under the law based on their sexual orientation is anything less than barbaric. My relationship with faith is complex and deeply personal, but I am not a member of any organized religion for several reasons, both rational and irrational (purely emotional):
1. I find fault with the prospect of putting my absolute faith in any document written hundreds of years ago by human beings in a language I cannot fluently read and which has been mistranslated and heavily edited through the centuries. I will not accept it as the basis for my worldview, especially when it is internally contradictory, rife with cruelty, murder, judgment, and intolerance (in addition to some good things), and the veracity of the claims made therein about the nature/existence of God cannot be reliably verified. I'm referring mostly to the Bible because I know the most about it, but the same principle would hold true for any other "holy" book.
2. While I think many religions have interesting things to say about the prospect of God, I don't believe that any of them have claim to exclusive truth. I don't think any human being, attribute, or institution has claim to exclusive truth, including reason and science. I also think the idea of certainty about uncertain things and about things which we do not have a means to "prove" is dangerous and reductive. Being unwilling to admit to the possibility of error in any of your beliefs or judgments make it considerably easier to label different views as "wrong" and dehumanize the people who hold them. If God *is*, our interpretations of who/how/what God is have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of its existence. I think my interpretation of God has just as much potential to be true as "institutionalized" interpretation of God... but I don't share the confidence required by most faiths that one or the other is the way God ACTUALLY is. I have no idea what - or if - God actually is. That is why I'm not an atheist, either, because that would require me to believe that there is no God. I don't, and I think atheists often fall into the same trap that religious people do - claiming exclusive truth. Lack of proof is not proof that God doesn't exist... it just means we don't yet (or possibly ever) have the means to find proof.
3. I really dislike the idea of personifying God. I don't believe that people were made in the image of God (except in the most general sense), I don't believe people are "closer" to God, valued more by God than any other form of life or granted a divine mandate to exploit the natural world, I don't believe that God would have a "chosen people" or demand that people only use one path to get to heaven... if heaven exists. I don't think God intervenes in human affairs and I don't think God "listens" to our prayers or conspires to lure us to or bar us from a celestial ever-after based on conditional belief. I think we are really limited by attempting to make God in OUR image; we miss the opportunity to think of him/her/it outside of consciousness, gender, form, or life as we know it. I think the most powerful kind of love is respecting and seeing value in things that are completely apart from ourselves. Any God that is described as being vengeful, angry, demanding, intolerant, or even loving in the strictly human sense sounds to me like a human conceit, not like a divine being, and I am thoroughly uncomfortable with the idea of the worship of such a being becoming central to decisions about how I should live my life. I'm not against trying to "know" God in more personal terms, or try to describe God's "personality" if some people feel like they need that kind of connection, and I realize that that's what a lot of organized religion (especially the Jesus story) is about. I understand that a lot of people find comfort in imagining the bearded face of a Jesus who looks like they do, being enfolded in his arms, crying on his shoulder, looking into his eyes. They like tangible tokens of religious symbolism. I'm cool with that, if that's what gives them comfort. But it doesn't work for me. To be perfectly honest, it kind of creeps me out. I prefer to see God in the vivid colors of sunset, a canopy of spring-green leaves, the microscopic view of cells dividing, the pictures from the Hubble telescope, evidence of evolution, the fantastic diversity of the natural world... Those things remind me that God might be so.much.more than human beings. I also prefer to see God in every charitable, wholehearted, authentic, well-meaning, compassionate, and apologetic gesture made by individual human beings. I prefer to see God in the remarkable and beautiful things human beings can accomplish through teamwork and community. These things makes me feel connected to all life and all "creation" in a profoundly compassionate and humbling way. It makes me feel huge and tiny at the same time. And when I try to confine that feeling to the pages of the Bible or the image of a man hanging from a cross, I feel limited. I squirm. It feels WRONG. It feels like a lie, or at least a half-truth. That being said, I don't argue with other people's right to believe in what they feel, too. I don't think my way is the only way. If people need a human face to put on God and that belief makes them good, kind, charitable, tolerant, self-disciplined, forgiving, authentic, happy people - that's great. It's only when it makes them judgmental, hateful, angry, or defensive when confronted with contravening evidence that I take issue with it.
4. The crucifixion/resurrection narrative doesn't resonate with me at all. I don't find it inspirational or noble or beautiful; I think it is disturbing. I am repelled by the idea of anyone having to suffer to "redeem the sinners;" I think it is disgusting and unnecessary and - again - it sounds more like a human invention than a stroke of divine genius or charity. I realize that that statement will get people up in arms immediately, defending their interpretations and explaining to me with patronizing patience (or even pity of my unenlightened state which will cause them to condescendingly tell me that they are praying for my soul and hoping that something will happen to me to force me to finally see the "truth") how inevitable everything was, and how it justifies bad things happening and that persevering through them with Christlike patience, docility, and love is the model for a spiritual perfection we should all strive for. (And lots of other justifications that I didn't include in that very quick summary.) Well, I disagree. I disagree with the fundamental premise - that human beings are sinners who must be "saved" by a Christ figure to be worthy of a hypothetical heaven. YES, I think human beings are flawed... but I think our imperfection is part of our design, not a fallen state. I don't buy the Eden narrative at all, and I don't believe in the heaven that is described in the Bible or in the hell of the superstitious rantings of Revelations. I don't believe in Satan. I also don't buy the "Jesus as son of God sent to us because we can't have any connection with God otherwise, and if we don't believe that we're rejecting God and the selfless sacrifice of his son" argument that underlies that story. I realize the apologetics are infinitely less dismissive and more nuanced, but fundamentally that's what the Jesus narrative is about. Ultimately, I think it is kind of ridiculous that saying, "I believe Jesus is the son of God who suffered and died to redeem me" is somehow more important than how you behaved in your life. I absolutely do not accept the idea that - if heaven exists and there is a figure like God who passes ultimate judgement - being good, generous, kind, tolerant, charitable, gentle, helpful, empathetic, loving, and productive (granted, with failings and mistakes just like everyone else) would not qualify you for "eternal life in the kingdom of heaven" without a profession of faith in Jesus as son of God. Trying to be the best person you can be day-in and day-out with a loving heart seems to me infinitely more important than toeing some doctrinal line. I think the most important lessons from Jesus came from how he LIVED, not the circumstances surrounding his fantastical birth, death and supposed resurrection. To me, the crucifixion is more indicative of the inhuman things we can do to one another if we're divided over ideas of God and/or if Machiavellian power is threatened by a grassroots up-swelling of love and goodwill. I also struggle to find inspiration in the selfless death of a figure who came into the world knowing he would live briefly then suffer and die temporarily, only to be resurrected and live forever in the glory of God. I find much more inspiration in people who have no assurances, but who face the less pleasant vicissitudes of life with a mixture of courage, hope, and the backbone to fight for the right to live, provided their fight and continued way of life harms no one and helps as many people as possible. I have never liked the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, even though it profoundly affected my life and my decisions... the the point where I did just that, and discovered firsthand what little use it is. I don't advocate for "hit back" or "hit first" -- but I'm all about, "step away and say, 'I won't allow that to happen again.'" I tend to think that people who are eager for martyrdom or who are resigned to oppression or injustice because they believe passivity is the proper way to "love" one's "enemy" are mentally ill, not devout.
5. I reject the idea that religion is the source of all morality. I think "if an action harms someone in any way - including oneself - there is probably a better way" is a highly functional system of morality that has nothing to do with God. I also much prefer the idea of doing right for the sake of doing right - here and now, and for no other reason - to the threat of punishment in hell or reward in heaven. I think right behavior is an end in itself, not a means to an end. I also tend to believe that right action has immediate reward and wrong action has immediate consequence, even if they are not easily perceived; getting to a state of mind where hurting others becomes a real possibility means you already dwell in a place of punishment, simply because I think people who are truly happy and loving are not capable of hurting others or themselves. As Paulo Freire says, in an unjust system, the oppressors suffer as much as the oppressed because their humanity is perverted or stunted, and in fighting against injustice, the oppressed work to restore the dignity of everyone. Turning the other cheek allows the oppressor to continue unopposed with his/her oppression, to the detriment of all.
6. I am staunchly against an evangelical agenda. I think it's fine to "preach the gospel" to believers, and to leave the door open, so to speak, for people to come in and hear the teachings of a certain religion if it appeals to them or they are "led" to it, but I DESPISE the idea of purposefully going into a country or region that has its own religious beliefs and cultural history and trying to "convert the natives." I find it pompous and disrespectful to an inhumane degree, and religions with a long evangelical history kind of piss me off by default. I also get desperately annoyed by religious people who barge into secular spaces to preach the gospel in hopes of converting people. Newsflash: very few people in a modern nation have never heard the narratives of the major religions. They choose not to believe them for a reason, and religious people need to respect that. It's interesting to think about in reference to my own support of the Vipassana meditation tradition, which is a completely non-sectarian, non-religious (though it is often mistakenly conflated with Buddhism because it was allegedly discovered by Go(u)tama Buddha) technique. I have attended two 10-day retreats and they have been really life-altering in different ways, and I left both with a profound desire for everyone to experience the kind of peace and happiness that I found there. In that vein, I have donated money to the non-profit teaching group that hosts 10-day retreats to continue to fund opportunities for others who are interested in attending can do so free of charge. I have also told people about my experience at the retreat and how enlightening it was, how it impacted my life for the better. In many ways, I think evangelism is motivated by this feeling, a wish for genuine goodwill (metta) for all beings. However, the big difference between Vipassana and most religious beliefs is that religious traditions promote the acceptance of certain "already revealed" truths, whereas Vipassana is merely a technique designed to help people find truth within themselves. One of the fundamental precepts of the Vipassana tradition is "if it has no tangible benefit for you, don't believe it." You aren't supposed to believe anything that you cannot internally verify as truth - no matter if your mentor, teacher, friend, lover, whoever - tells you it's true. If you don't feel it, if you don't experience it, don't believe it. Religious evangelism doesn't require internal validation. It just says, "This is the truth. If you don't believe it, [insert consequence generally having to do with eternal damnation here]." I'm sure that many people find truth in the religious narratives; they consider them personally relevant and transformative. But not everyone. I find it really insulting when people tell me, "Oh, you just don't understand Jesus yet," or "You haven't let Jesus into your heart." Pardon me, but F*CK THAT. I have never been close-minded to religion or religious narratives - they've just never resonated with me. I'm not built that way. And if it's remotely true that God created people, then God made me this way... and he/she/it "knows" that there are other ways to reach me. I am always reminded of the part in Kingdom of Heaven where the Muslim forces (led by two very devout but rational and noble people) are attacking Jerusalem on principle and Balian and his Christian defenders are faced with a pile of the fallen. Balian proposes burning the bodies, and the Christian priest objects loudly, claiming their souls will go to hell if they aren't given a Christian burial. Balian responds simply, "Your Grace, if we don't burn these bodies, half of the city will be dead of disease in two days. God will understand. And if he doesn't, then he is not God, and we need not worry." Personally, I choose to believe that many of the things people claim God rejects has more to do with their personal biases than anything else, and if God "does not understand" different perspectives reached in careful consideration and goodwill, then he is not God... and we need not worry.
These are my personal beliefs, things I've come to through lots of careful reflection, openness to experience, and discussion with others. I support other people's right to believe in different things, and try my best not to judge them... although I will take action to prevent them from using those beliefs to restrict the rights or impugn the dignity of people who don't share them. I do my best to carefully consider if any of my beliefs bias me against members of organized religion in ways that cause me to endorse legislation that would restrict their rights or impugn their dignity.
One thing that really annoys me about religious people is that they often behave as if they have only one tool in their belts -- and if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Suddenly everything is about God. I don't think that every discussion, development, debate, or action taken by other people is intended to either support or challenge my beliefs about God. I get agitated when anyone brings God into things that can be discussed without reference to God or what you believe about God. I have been more aware of my own tendency to do this lately, and have resolved not trumpet my beliefs just to get a rise out people. I have definitely done that in the past. I don't think posting this on a public website qualifies as trumpeting... it is there for people who happen across it, but my LJ doesn't have a huge readership; it is tucked away, not thrown in people's faces.