If Christianity and Catholism bother you so much, just don't come to the dance. We won't miss you at all.
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:30:33 PM UTC-4, MJ wrote: > > Posted on March 19, 2012 > *How Religion's Demand for Obedience Keeps Us in the Dark Ages > *By Adam Lee > > For the vast majority of human history, the only form of government was > the few ruling over the many. As human societies became settled and > stratified, tribal chiefs and conquering warlords rose to become kings, > pharaohs and emperors, all ruling with absolute power and passing on their > thrones to their children. To justify this obvious inequality and explain > why they should reign over everyone else, most of these ancient rulers > claimed that the gods had chosen them, and priesthoods and holy books > obligingly came on the scene to promote and defend the theory of divine > right. > > It's true that religion has often served to unite people against tyranny, > as well as to justify it. But in many cases, when a religious rebellion > overcame a tyrant, it was only to install a different tyrant whose beliefs > matched those of the revolutionaries. Christians were at first ruthlessly > persecuted by the Roman Empire, but when they ascended to power, they in > turn banned all the pagan religions that had previously persecuted them. > Protestant reformers like John Calvin broke away from the decrees of the > Pope, but Calvinists created their own theocratic city-states where their > will would reign supreme. > > Similarly, when King Henry VIII split England away from the Catholic > church, it wasn't so he could create a utopia of religious liberty; it was > so he could create a theocracy where his preferred beliefs, rather than the > Vatican's, would be the law of the land. And in just the same way, when the > Puritans fled England and migrated to the New World, it wasn't to uphold > religious tolerance; it was to impose their beliefs, rather than the Church > of England's. > > It's only within the last few centuries, in the era of the Enlightenment, > that a few fearless thinkers argued that the people should govern > themselves, that society should be steered by the democratic will rather > than the whims of an absolute ruler. The kings and emperors battled > ferociously to stamp this idea out, but it took root and spread in spite of > them. In historical terms, democracy is a young idea, and human > civilization is still reverberating from it -- as we see in autocratic Arab > societies convulsed with revolution, or Chinese citizens rising up against > the state, or even in America, with protesters marching in the streets > against a resurgence of oligarchy. > > But while the secular arguments for dictatorship have been greatly > weakened, the religious arguments for it have scarcely changed at all. > Religion is very much a holdover from the dark ages of the past, and the > world's holy books still enshrine the ancient demands for us to bow down > and obey the (conveniently unseen and absent) gods, and more importantly, > the human beings who claim the right to act as their representatives. It's > no surprise, then, that the most fervent advocates of religion in the > modern world are also the most deeply inculcated with this mindset of > command and obedience. > > We saw this vividly in recent weeks with the controversy over birth > control. As polls and surveys make clear, the overwhelming majority of > American Catholics use contraception and in all other ways live normal, > modern lives. They mostly just ignore the archaic bluster of the bishops. > But the Pope and the Vatican hierarchy conduct themselves publicly as if > nothing had changed since the Middle Ages; as if there were billions of > Catholics who'd leap to obey the slightest crook of their finger. > > The attitude the Vatican displays toward Catholic laypeople is perfectly > summed up in a papal encyclical from 1906, titled "Vehementer Nos": > > The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms > the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the > Pastors and Doctors -- a society of men containing within its own fold > chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging. > It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a > society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, > those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the > multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the > pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting > the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the > one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a > docile flock, to follow the Pastors. > > An even more breathtakingly arrogant expression of this idea comes from > New Advent, the official Catholic theological encyclopedia. Watch how it > addresses that whole embarrassing Galileo episode: > > [I]n the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under > pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be > infallible.... [but] the assent to be given in such cases is recognized as > being not irrevocable and irreversible, like the assent required in the > case of definitive and infallible teaching, but merely provisional... > > To take a particular example, if Galileo who happened to be right > while the ecclesiastical tribunal which condemned him was wrong, had really > possessed convincing scientific evidence in favour of the heliocentric > theory, he would have been justified in refusing his internal assent to the > opposite theory, provided that in doing so he observed with thorough > loyalty all the conditions involved in the duty of external obedience. > > To translate the church's legalisms into plain language, what this is > saying is that it's OK to doubt something the church teaches, but only if > you keep quiet about that doubt and outwardly obey everything the church > authorities tell you, acting as if your doubt didn't exist. And if the > church teaches that something is an infallible article of faith, even that > ineffective option is taken away: you're required to believe it without > question or else face eternal damnation. > > Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order, wrote that believers > should "always be ready to obey [the church] with mind and heart, setting > aside all judgment of one's own." To explain just how absolute he thought > this obedience should be, he used a vivid analogy: > > That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the > Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our > eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be > black. > > Nor is it just from the Catholic side of the aisle where we hear these > pronouncements. Even though Protestants don't have one pope to rule them > all, they still believe that following your betters is essential. Here's a > statement to that effect from the esteemed apologist C.S. Lewis, from his > book The Problem of Pain: > > But in addition to the content, the mere obeying is also intrinsically > good, for, in obeying, a rational creature consciously enacts its > creaturely role, reverses the act by which we fell, treads Adam's dance > backward, and returns. > > According to Lewis, obedience is "intrinsically good." In other words, > it's always a good thing to do as you're told, no matter what you're being > told to do or who's telling you to do it! It doesn't take much imagination > to picture the moral atrocities that could result from putting this idea > into practice. > > Another influential Christian writer and one of the intellectual fathers > of the modern religious right, Francis Schaeffer, put the same thought -- > the same demand for mental slavery -- in even blunter terms: > > I am false or confused if I sing about Christ's Lordship and contrive > to retain areas of my own life that are autonomous. This is true if it is > my sexual life that is autonomous, but it is at least equally true if it is > my intellectual life that is autonomous -- or even my intellectual life in > a highly selective area. Any autonomy is wrong. > > Just to prove that none of these are flukes, here's one more quote, this > time from Christian evangelical pastor Ray Stedman, excerpted from his > sermon titled "Bringing Thoughts Into Captivity": > > I have noticed through the years that the intellectual life is often > the last part of a Christian to be yielded to the right of Jesus Christ to > rule. Somehow we love to retain some area of our intellect, of our > thought-life, reserved from the control of Jesus Christ. For instance, we > reserve the right to judge Scripture, as to what we will or will not agree > with, what we will or will not accept... [Disagreeing with any part of the > Bible] represents a struggle with the Lordship of Christ; his right to rule > over every area of life, his right to control the thought-life, every > thought taken captive to obey him. > > Nor is the demand for mindless obedience confined to Christianity. Here's > how one Jewish rabbi explained the rationale for the kosher dietary laws, > recounted in Richard Dawkins' essay "Viruses of the Mind": > > That most of the Kashrut laws are divine ordinances without reason > given is 100 percent the point. It is very easy not to murder people. Very > easy. It is a little bit harder not to steal because one is tempted > occasionally. So that is no great proof that I believe in God or am > fulfilling His will. But, if He tells me not to have a cup of coffee with > milk in it with my mincemeat and peas at lunchtime, that is a test. The > only reason I am doing that is because I have been told to so do. It is > something difficult. > > In other words, the kosher laws have no reason or justification, and > that's a good thing, because they teach people the habit of unquestioning > obedience, which should be encouraged. This uncannily resembles a piece of > parenting advice from Stephen Colbert, who satirically wrote that > "Arbitrary rules teach kids discipline: If every rule made sense, they > wouldn't be learning respect for authority, they'd be learning logic." > Religious authorities like this rabbi are making the exact same argument in > all seriousness! And then, of course, there's Islam, whose very name is > Arabic for "submission." > > The social scientist Jonathan Haidt has identified what he calls the five > foundations of morality: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, > authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Surveys from all over the world > find that self-identified conservatives put far more emphasis on the last > three, two of which are fundamental to a worldview based on obedience and > submission. The implied similarity between conservatism and fundamentalist > religion is too obvious to ignore, particularly in America, where the > conservative political party is dominated by an especially regressive and > belligerent strain of evangelical Christianity. > > And like political conservatism in general, many religious rules are > actively destructive to human liberty and happiness. Christian church > leaders claim we should prohibit same-sex marriage and abortion and > restrict access to birth control; ultra-Orthodox Jewish zealots want to > erase women from public life; Islamic theocracies want to make it illegal > to criticize or dissent from their beliefs. If moral commands could only be > backed up by appeals to reason or human good, these unfounded and harmful > laws would vanish overnight. Instead, the people who make these rules and > want us to obey them claim that they're messengers of the will of God, and > thus no further justification is needed. It bears emphasizing that this is > the exact same argument made by ancient monarchs and tyrants, all of whom > used this idea to justify atrocious cruelty. > > Those ancient monarchs were toppled because they proved, despite their > lofty claims of divine right, that they were no better or wiser or more > suited to rule than any other human being. This is a lesson from history > that deserves wider attention in the modern world. Like them, religious > conservatives claim that they're passing along God's ideas, and thus that > we should obey them without critical challenge and questioning. This idea > has always had disastrous consequences in the past -- why should we expect > anything different this time? > > In sharp contrast to the religious and conservative worldview of obedience > and submission, the worldview of freethinkers and progressives at its best > is one that exalts freedom and liberty -- freedom to make our own choices, > freedom of the mind to travel and explore wherever it will. These are our > commandments: Think for yourself and don't blindly bow down to the claims > of another. Exercise your own best judgment. Ask questions and investigate > whether what you've been taught is true. There have been countless wars and > devastations because people were too eager to subordinate their will and > conscience to the ruling authorities, but as Sam Harris says, no atrocity > was ever committed because people were being too reasonable, too skeptical, > or too independently minded. If anything, human beings have always been too > eager to obey and to subordinate their will to others. The more we throw > off that ancient and limiting mindset, the more freedom we have to think, > act and speak as we choose, the more humanity as a whole will prosper. > > http://www.alternet.org/story/154604/ > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
