Stupid is as stupid does

So, I wasn’t even sure that I was going to share the following little convo and my thoughts, but then as I was perusing the news articles on Yahoo’s homepage yesterday this one prompted me to go ahead and write about it. Upon finishing, I think it’s only fair to hop back up here and offer a little fair warning of wandering and turning a tad tangential…nothing out of the ordinary there ;)

As I’m sitting with someone she says to me, “You know what I’m sick of?”

I presume this is rhetorical, but the pause is actually a tad too long so I say, “Stupid people?” This is usually what I am ‘sick of’ so I assume it’s a decent guess. It’s not that I think I’m a genius per se, quite to the contrary really; however I am confident that a fair number of the people I come into contact with on any given day are intellectually lacking, and that I actually fair well-enough. I recently read somewhere that with regard to national average IQ the U.S. ranks 18th. I suppose that isn’t too terrible, but really given our purported measures toward educational success and higher learning it seems a less-than-impressive ranking.

Anyway, I digress…it turns out that was exactly what she was sick of; however, she was using a rather biased means to identify said “stupid people”. She said (and maybe I shouldn’t be using quotes because this may not be verbatim – close though), “YuhhYES! I am sooo sick of stupid people. These idiots that live near me have a ton of election signs in their yard, but the only reason they have them is because they are the most “Christian” candidates. Ask them about their platforms, and they know nothing. I don’t understand why it is that religious people vote for someone just because they share the same religion? It’s stupid.”

Me, “Ouch, wow! You realize that’s a rather judgmental remark that not only implies that people with a belief system are stupid, but it also implies that it is somehow wrong or stupid for their beliefs to impact the way that they vote?” Her response was something like, “Well, you know I don’t get the belief thing, and honestly it is a bit stupid to let it decide your vote…separation of church and state...”

Me? Well, I just rolled my eyes. “Church and state” – I’ll get back to that. For now let me offer the following reminder: I think that everyone that knows me also knows that I’m not really sure what I believe with regard to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal creator. I can tell you that what I do believe in is the practice of respect for other people’s faith and practices, and that is what I said to her. To discredit someone based on their faith is just as bad as discounting them because of their race or gender. Now people that present as pseudo-religious? The ones that are lacking compassion, good works…the ones that purport a commitment to their faith but really never live it? Those are the people that I find difficulty in acknowledging or respecting their belief system, but I wouldn’t really expect them to vote for anything or anyone simply out of religious allegiance; however the people in possession of a full-on commitment to their faith? Well, that I can respect, and those are the people that I presume will allot for their religious beliefs to have some influence when making their political decisions. To do so isn’t “stupid”.

Faith is about the spiritual, the way we live our lives, treat each other, etc. Politics are about the temporal, taxes, legalities, etc. It is altogether asinine to think that, for a devout religious practitioner, there is no intersection between faith and politics. If religious faith functions as a means to delineate what is right or wrong, to clarify what goodness is how could someone in possession of a truly meaningful communion with God completely divorce Him from his/her voting decisions? The person could not.

Where is that line though? The one she mentioned as separating church and state? Well, don’t you think that when developing our government, the U.S. looked at the troubled history of Europe and her religious wars as a warning? I think that while it was expected that politicians would be religious and religious philosophy would inform their decisions, the Founders’ view was also such that we would be a nation that had faith but one that kept doctrinal disputes out of the political sphere. I don’t know…My knowledge is limited, but it seems people that are almost anti-religion fall back on that “Church and State” thing without really knowing anything about the Founders’ intent for our nation.

So (“so” the fall-back segue of a tired and lazy writer – forgiveness asked), ultimately I think it's far from “stupid” for a person to consider their faith when deciding what policies to favor, provided that when considering policies that are going to apply to everyone, to figure out how to justify those policies to people with different faiths or none. My partner in conversation was fairly adamant that there was not a way to interweave the two and still be within appropriate political “rights” or limits. She was insistent that in allowing one’s faith to impact one’s politics that the person of faith was forcing a personal religious agenda onto others. I had to disagree, and I think that it disappointed her. You see, people both atheists as well as those that have a strong belief system, are often quick to make assumptions about a person such as myself. They assume that because I do not attend a church or profess my commitment to a specific religion that I am simply an atheist; the soul, the heart, the mind, the spiritual, et. Al. is not so simple, and you should never assume unless you are prepared to listen to me drone on and on. I certainly don’t think she was prepared, but I addressed the following anyway (what can I say I get a little indignant when anyone is being attacked?):

If we’re talking about Christianity, the truest message there is one of love, forgiveness, compassion, intended to be spread through witnessing, not force. I like to think of witnessing as different than proselytizing, even more so since reading a book my friend recently loaned me. The authors, in addition, to presenting a thorough, fact-based and quite convincing argument for the resurrection of Christ also address the appropriate means to share His message. Again I can respect the person of faith that attempts to share his/her beliefs in a way that is also respectful of others, one that is free of coercion, force, trickery or disrespect. When shared and acted upon correctly the person of faith is also then still recognizing our free will. And isn’t free will, a preservation of our liberty what we’re really making our political decisions for? Even the believer of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal God should vote contrary to anything that would demolish the freedom of individuals to live under the umbrella of liberty so if they are in keeping with this mindset I don’t see how a little intersection of faith and politics is “stupid” or a problem.

Enjoy the weekend peeps! I intend to :-)

Implicitly explicit....think about things with me ;-)

So if you know me at all, then you know that I sincerely relish that which I went to school to learn more about: religions, philosophies, cultures, people, etc. If you ever stop by here then you also know that I've been thinking a lot about that first topic lately, specifically with reference to my own beliefs. Because of my musings here as well as some back and forth emails with a few friends and the occasional comments that tell me too often people assume that Religious Studies are simply the study of Christianity or some other major religion, I find it necessary to point out that often the study is specific to gaining a better understanding of what religion itself is and what it is and/or means in contemporary society. To me this is just as interesting and worthy of a pursuit as that of studying a specific religion.

So, religion is defined in many different ways, but this is my blog so we're going to look at it in a way that works for me and that will hopefully, at the very least, give you something to think about. If nothing else, I pose some questions at the end that will perhaps get the metaphoric wheels turning. I am apologizing in advance as I'm aware (after a quick skim status post writing) that what you're about to read is often lacking segue or may contain parts that seem rather incongruent. I suppose I implore you to read each part as if it were its own and to proffer me some empathy for trying to express such vast ideals in a simple blog on a Sunday afternoon. Perhaps, if my haphazard head will permit it, I will return for better assembly of the puzzle that is my thoughts in the future. To me, religion is neither confined to churches, or similar places, nor restricted to the activities that go on in these places of worship: praying, meditating, singing, reading sacred texts, rituals, etc. These places and activities are without argument a big part of religion for many people but are not definitive of it.

What defines religion for me is our fundamental human need for order / structure and direction. While a significant amount of order and direction are provided by our instinctual repertoire, it is not sufficient for our surviving or thriving as individuals or as a species. Human beings depend upon visions of real life (of what reality in its various manifestations is like and of what is the best life for which we can strive and hope), of the power or powers upon which real life depends and of the practices required in order to be in creative relationship with life-giving power. With these basic human needs in mind I define religion as a vision of real life, the power or powers upon which real life depends and the practices required in order to be in creative relationship with life-giving power. Because everyone has such a vision and participates in such practices (even if not everyone has self-awareness of this) and because human life is unimaginable apart from them I claim that religion can be viewed as a human universal. (This is why you will note that while I do not align myself with an organized religion, I do not claim to be completely void of "religion", nor do I claim to be completely void of belief.) Everyone is religious and has at least one religion, and I believe that there is a religious dimension to every individual or social issue.

For me religious pluralism doesn't refer simply to the different major religions of the world such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Religious pluralism entails recognizing both the explicit religions such as the major world traditions just listed as well as the implicit religions that are found everywhere and include but are not limited to business and entertainment (let's face it those Trekkies, definitely have a religion going on.) Implicit religions seek to satisfy the same fundamental human needs for order and direction that explicit religions seek to satisfy. Recognizing that both explicit and implicit religions are present in our lives is just a piece of what I've been pondering lately. I can't believe that I ever veered away from these topics that truly entertain me.

Alas, I have reverted back to thinking about religion the way that I did when I first became interested in studying it. I have to think about it almost in response to the theory of secularization. According to this theory, religion is an optional human activity that should be differentiated from other human activities, confined to the private sphere and regarded as trivial or harmful. In contrast to this perspective, I propose we think of religion as something that can be differentiated for purposes of understanding but can not be differentiated as something optional. Religion is an integral part of our being; it is significantly involved in everything we do, especially everything we do that involves evaluation, decision or choice. Religion pertains just as much to our public lives as it does to our private lives; it can not be consigned or confined to the private sphere. It informs and directs what people do in the public realm as well as the private.

While various religious perspectives can be regarded as trivial or harmful, they can only be so judged from another religious perspective (another vision of real life, power and requisite practices) that is regarded as profound and helpful. For some people the moral integrity of Christianity is highly suspect. Considering all of the evil that has been done in Christ's name, how can anyone with moral integrity be a Christian? While it is true that much has been done in Christ's name, it is also true that much good has been done as well. You would be hard-pressed to actually find Scripture to support these unjust actions, and even if you were not it bears mentioning that while evil has been done in the name of Christ, it has been done in other "names" as well. Let's look at some examples: dropping nuclear bombs (monuments to the name of Reason) on Japanese cities was done in the name of Making Peace, and rendering the earth's capacity to sustain life problematic continues to be done in the name of Prosperity. Among the things that make Christianity (the dominant explicit religion in the United States) interesting is that, in its better moments, it has a remarkable capacity for self-criticism and encourages not the elimination but the love of enemies. Also, this tradition offers an interesting perspective on the meaning of power, according to which power does not refer to the ability to make others do what one wants but to the capacity to retain one's integrity regardless of what others are doing and to suffer with and for others no matter how great their suffering is.

Speaking of power, when we are looking at life in a pluralistic context, one that contains many explicit and implicit religions competing for human devotion, there is one form of power that is especially important; that is of course, the power of discernment. Given the multiplicity of religious options how is one to know which one(s) to believe, follow or trust? Who or what does one turn to or accept as authoritative, as the author of one's story?

Within the U.S., the traditional source of authority for answering religious questions has been the Bible; however, in contemporary America there are several different views of what the Bible means and what it is: is it the word of God, word of humans, a combined divine and human effort? So if these questions are already posed then by default we ask: what does it mean to say the Bible is authoritative in a context where there are plural understandings of what it means and what it is? It is possible to state that in our contemporary, pluralistic society, the Bible might actually function to create or accentuate differences rather than act as an authority to resolve or heal them.

A pluralistic context makes a lot of things rather tricky. The many perspectives other than one's own make it commonplace to view others as either: ignorant, inferior, evil or just other. We then relate to them in terms of education, destruction, competition or cooperation. For me, within contemporary higher education the emphasis was on cooperating, but what if the other does not want to cooperate with you? Does that mean they are ignorant, evil or inferior and need to be educated, destroyed or defeated? These ways of looking at people that do not share the same belief system as oneself result in a social issue of objectification, in which we treat subjects as if they were objects. Subjects need to be heard, not herded. I'd like to see us all work toward more thoughtful conversations that resist objectifications. Wanting to share what you believe and practice can be a respectable thing when it is done in a propositional vs. dogmatic manner, and on that note, lest I begin to sound too dogmatic myself, I can see from my window that the sun is sufficiently shining so I am off to don my bikini and to read Mudslingers: The Twenty-Five Dirtiest Political Campaigns of All Time on my deck.

Also, heads up on Yves Klein Blue as being one of my favorite new groups to listen to. Enjoy days 2 and 3 of this holiday weekend. :-)