"a particular philosophy, belief, religious tenant, religion, whatever, does not work for me, in the experience of my own life, and so I choose to follow what does work for me"
and
"I condemn the beliefs of others."
The former is something that I believe based on my experience of life that we are all supposed to do, to find what belief system or sets of beliefs - and everyone has those be they religious, a-religious, political, social, what have you - are true to one's one experience of life. And with that goes the respect for other beliefs and people who hold those beliefs, as I experience life.
The latter is something that history has taught me to fear, to fear anyone who condemns the beliefs of others, who condemns the beliefs systems of others. So much evil - Inquisition, Holocaust, by whatever name it is called - has been done because one person or a group of people have condemned the beliefs of others, as I experience history.
Sarah wrote:
I do condemn any institution that promotes the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that perfectly natural behaviour is "wicked". For me, that is most religions (I would say that Judaism might be the exception here) and some forms of government.This is to me so incredibly judgmental and frightening. It begs the question of whether "most religions" or a particular religion actually do promote the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It begs the question of whether of the idea of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is in itself a concept worthy of condemnation. And it total discounts the fact that for different people, there will be diversity of experience here. What one person experiences one way, another person will experience another. And the experiences of all people are valid, as all people are valid.
And no one should be condemned, no religious set of beliefs or political theory should be condemned in such terms. This completely overlooks the diversity of people, and the freedom of all people to find what works for them, what expresses their lives.
And it is frighteningly dogmatic in the most fearsome way, again recalling the mind set that produced Inquisition and Holocaust. Is it always true that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole? Might there be some places in life where this is so, and other places in life where it is not so? Is any one formulation, or ideology, or belief system, universally right in all times and in all places for all people in all situations? And if so, who decides? Me? Debra? Sarah?
But Sarah, you condemn - your own words - whatever goes against the belief system that you have chosen to be universal in your world view. Do you not understand how at best that is insulting and at worst the very definition of all intolerance, hate, and evil done in this world by people to people?
Where is the tolerance in condemning others? Where is the respect - which you crave - when you condemn others, and what others believe? Do others have a right to condemn you if they disagree? If everyone is going around condemning, where is the ability to have a future free from hostility, hate, and disrespect?
Diversity and respect rests in saying "there are a set of views which personally I find untrue to my life experience and so I will not hold them, but I respect others who do hold those views because it may be true to their life experience and each of us is free to hold those beliefs because each of us has the right to hold beliefs without being condemned."
Intolerance is in saying "I condemn (not disagree with, not respectfully differ from, not critique according to these academic standards, but *condemn*) any religious or political science teaching that disagrees with what I have chosen to be the universal standard.
And what is being condemned - is it genocide, or ethnic cleansing, or hate is being condemned? No, what is condemned - what word, condemned - is "the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." For that phrase one condemns? For that, one condemns?
Yes, there is another part to what Sarah, you posted, and that is beliefs "that perfectly natural behaviour is "wicked." Again that begs the question of whether your interpretation of who does that is correct, or are their other equally valid views and interpretations that differ from you. If we talk in terms of the Roman Church, you had best be prepared to distinguish from *your own experience* from what you condemn as a whole without being able to cite to me the exact places where you locate that, in dogmatic teaching, in confessions, in the belief system of the church you condemn. Without such citations, you are making an accusation that my be your own life experience and may work for you, but condemning others whose life experiences are different than yours and whose belief systems are different.
I am, in a word you like, an "expert" on religion. Yes, to be sure, all of us have our experiences of the RC Church, and mine is such that I do not and will not belong to it.
But I recognize what is my experience of it and distinguish that from other people's same experience, and even more, what is there beyond my own experience or ability to conceive.
I suggest that it is the root of all disrespect and dare I say cheap thinking (in an academic sense) to make one's own experiences into the whole, to universalize one's own experiences. One's own anecdotes are never a substitute for actuality.
And beyond - what are we defining as "perfectly natural behavior?" As far as I can see from all studies of history and psychology and sociology and myriad other places, violence is perfectly natural behavior. Murder is perfectly natural behavior. Hate is perfectly natural behavior. Theft is perfectly natural behavior. Slavery is perfectly natural behavior. In some societies, incest is perfectly natural behavior. Fratricide, matricide, patricide is perfectly natural behavior. So by what definition does one condemn those who teach that these perfectly natural behaviors are ones not to be acted upon? By what definition to you condemn those belief systems that call us to rise above perfectly natural behavior?
If you wish to say, Oh I didn't mean that and you know that" I say to you, wrong, I have simply quoted exactly what you wrote, and yours was that broad of an attack, that broad of a condemnation.
I happen to personally believe that the Roman Catholic dogmatic view of sexuality is flawed, at places deeply flawed, as it rests in methodological presuppositions that are not true to human experience. Were we to have a discussion I that, I will explain that, based on my own insights and perspectives. I cannot fathom jumping from my opinion on one topic of hundreds of topics, even this one that basic, to a blanket condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor can I accept your doing that either for that is judgmental as if your own experience is universal, your own beliefs are universal, and by your standards must all else be judged. That I do not accept. The Roman Church is far, far more than its dogma on one subject. As there are many points of departure from Roman theology for me where I diverge from them, I could never be Roman Catholic. But that is still the height of presumptuousness to then, for me, to condemn a faith system which has deepest meanings and answers life's deepest questions for others.
Are there wacky nuns and priests out there who have done wacky things that we know of in our own experience? Yes of course. Are there adherents of that faith group that have sexually abused children? Yes there are. Does that apply to the whole? Let me be blunt: no fucking way. If you believe that, then the logical extension is that all atheists have never been wacky, or that atheists have never sexually abused children. And reality rejects that logical extension.
Has evil been done by religious people? Yes. And can one condemn religious beliefs because of that? No. I will name noted atheists Hitler and Himmler and Stalin and the Cambodian Khmer Rogue (spelling...) as recent examples that people with no faith beliefs can be genocidal, evil, and murderers. Should I then condemn all atheists or atheism as a belief system because of Hitler and Himmler and Stalin and the Cambodian Khmer Rogue? Can I then condemn everyone who holds to an atheist belief system because of that? No, I cannot.
To evaluate the effect of what a writer condemns wholesale, condemning what someone else believes, it helps to put the writer's own name into what was written to see if the statement stands.
I think the main reason we appear to be disagreeing is that, when talking about Sarah, I'm not talking about any individual friend of Sarah, but about Sarah. Similarly, when talking about Sarah, I'm talking about Sarah's ideology (note: Sarahist, not Sarah in general), which I find frightening and primitive. To what extent individual friends of Sarah buy into it is not the point.
It should go without saying that there are ALWAYS friends of Sarah, or whatever, who go against the grain, and who may eventually be able to change things for the better.
What you wrote, Sarah, is that Catholicism is evil but you do not condemn individual catholics who do not believe much of what their faith teaches. What you say is that Islam is evil but you do not condemn individual Moslems who do not believe much of what their faith teaches. And I can only say, in light of my own human experience, what incredible arrogance to set yourself up as judge of others religions. The sins of history are rooted in that type of thinking, as I have experienced history.
In a debate about Sarah, it shouldn't be necessary to go on repeating that the experience of individuals can be different.
You allow no recognition that your own experience may not be the whole; in fact, you exalt your own experience into the whole to condemn others.
I am certainly not Islamic. I have many experiences with islam. I cannot pretend to say that I know everything about Islam. I know that there are areas in which i disagree with Islam. I can articulate reasons why I cannot belief certain things that islam teaches and practices. But to condemn - that I cannot do for I am aware of the limitations of my own experience, my own thinking, and the sample beliefs and behavior that I seek to judge.
Pick out horror stories and I will match you. Inequality of women a religious problem? Where was the equality of women in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR other than the equality to be condemned - and once condemnation happened, then killed, because they were condemned?
You wish to demur and say that Stalin and Hitler do not speak for all non religious people? Then give the same respect and stop judging - condemning - people of faith, and the institutions of faith, because you differ with their beliefs.
I close - finally! - be speaking frankly. Sarah, if you had said,
"in my own experience, I find there are certain thinks that I strenuously object to in this or that or the other and thus I cannot be this or that or the other, but I know that I do not have access to the whole reality or the whole understanding of every other person so I will respect those whose insights, experiences, and realities are different than mine"
then none of this conversation would be happening.
Instead you said: you condemn.
And you have said it repeatedly.
And you have said it every time that clarification would have helped; instead you repeat the language of condemnation, as if you have all truth and the right to judge the whole world by what you exalt as truth.
Sarah, my truth is different than yours. I thank my God that my God has taught me never to exalt my truth over others to condemn what others believe. And like it or not, when you condemn the belief systems of others, you are condemning the people who hold those beliefs - as you yourself say, you only have use for those who go "against the grain" of their own belief systems. That is language - in my experience - that I will oppose and speak out against, because I have seen where that condemnation leads. (And I also deeply challenge your understandings of the creedal confessional teachings of any Christian church body - I suspect you are unfamiliar with what I mean by creedal and confessional teachings and their place in the theologies of the various Christian faith communities.)
I accept you at your word. You condemn my faith and the faith of billions of people in the world. I could ask who made you judge of all human beliefs - but I note:
You ask for respect for your opinions while you condemn mine.
John, Paul,. George, and Ringo said it best when they said, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
Yours is a very lonely ideology. I pity you, actually.
Vince
