My Thoughts On...: February 2005

Friday, February 25, 2005

Religion

When one thinks about religion he might ask himself why he believes what he does and how he came upon such beliefs. In most cases the question "how" can be answered by examining one's early childhood. No doubt each person was born into a family, community or nation with a shared religious belief. In my own case I was born into a Roman Catholic family in a largely Roman Catholic south Louisiana, in a largely Anglo-Protestant and Roman Catholic United States. I had few questions about my faith in those early years except for those I was taught to ask. There are two I remember to this day, "Who made me? --God made me," and "Why did he make me? --Because he loves me." The questions seemed simple, as well as the answers, and to a child they made perfect sense. I remember feeling a sense of pride that I could answer these questions so deftly.

In later years of childhood I began to ask my own questions. After sitting through countless hours of Sunday sermons I would ask myself, "Am I doing what I am supposed to be doing, that which is right by God?" This led me in my teen years to decide to enter the seminary. I had a clear awareness of the notion that God was a god of love. He loved all of his human creation. He was fatherly, to whom we could address in silent prayer as "Father." There was also Jesus his son, who was even more accessible than the Father, to whom we could speak to as a brother or our closest friend.

I believed that there was one great commandment, "to do unto others as you would do (or have them do) unto you." This was supposed to be the second of two commandments, but the first never made much sense to me. "Love God with all your heart, all your strength, all your soul, etc." Why all the hyperbole? What in fact was "all you heart, all your strength, etc?" In later years I came to have a problem with the superlatives as well. God is all this and all that, ever this and ever that. Why wasn't it enough just to love other people. This was tangible. If one succeeded at this, shouldn't God be happy enough with him?

Hosted by Photobucket.com St. Peter's Basilica (Feb. 2004)

I went on to join the seminary. I imagined myself at some point in the future being a priest in an overseas mission, looking after the needs of the downtrodden. But the ceremonial aspects of priesthood began to seem bogus. I couldn't see how such things had any relevance in the total scheme of things. The priest wore his garb, would say the "magical" words changing wine into blood, raise his arms in this or that fashion. As uninspiring as the ritual seemed, it was supposed to be more than mere symbolism. It was supposed to be in some fashion a manifestation of God's presence and power. What, I thought, did all this have to do with helping people in need? I could do that without wearing robes or raising my arms in some holy fashion.

In time it seemed clear to me that people did things within religion not because it was ever made plain that it was logical to do so, but simply because they were led to believe that they were supposed to do such things. As a university student in Hawaii I began to gain a more reasoned perspective on faith. This was through Christianity preached from the fundamentalist perspective. Tradition and ritual were scorned in favor of a reasoned analysis of what the words of the Bible proclaimed. I liked this "reasoned" approach. Religiosity came to seem more based on what one could understand and explain.

Time and circumstances, however, would lead me to begin asking questions again. A critical question became the authenticity of the Bible upon which one's total faith was to be based. Despite spurious arguments to validate the sanctity of the sacred text, it just seemed wanting in so many ways. It was incoherent, sometimes contradictory, vague in places, seemingly incomplete, certainly not modern and very culturally biased. Finally, at the center of Christian faith was the belief that Jesus was not only a historical figure but present eternally in the spirit. For the believer his kingdom was now and he was among us. Of course you couldn't see him, but you could feel his presence. It would manifest itself through other people, events and circumstances in our lives.

It all made sense and in deed I felt it, until I found myself separated from the fellow believers who had become my closest friends. If all of that was Jesus then how come it was no longer present when I was no longer in the presence of my Christian friends? "Wake up!" I thought. What's God got to do with any of that? All that I had felt was Jesus, was merely the friendship and warmth of other humans. Put this together with the absolute and final "word of God" being written and bound in such a mediocre fashion and I was finally ready to accept that religion and God were creations of man.

That didn't mean it was bad but it certainly wasn't what it claimed to be. It clearly served a useful purpose in many people's lives and perhaps for humanity at large. At the same time it was responsible for many great acts of hatred and cruelty throughout the past and present.

Now, and for some time, having been freed from the shackles of religion, I wonder what it is that I can do for myself and for others--now that I have become "enlightened." Perhaps one can say that all I have done, if for no one but myself, is discredit Christianity. What, then about other faiths? My answer is that they are all quite similar on a fundamental level. They seek to explain reality and dictate human behavior on the basis of an invisible and omniscient authority. They all require the believer to base his actions not on what can be shown to exist but that which through faith ought to be accepted. People are quite simply born into a religion just as they are born into the citizenship of a country. They are no more likely to abandon their religion as they are to abandon their nationality.

Hosted by Photobucket.com St. Peter's Cathedral (Feb. 2004)

In the final analysis, perhaps, a distinction should be made between religion and faith. Faith is a testament to what one believes to be real and true. Religion is perhaps simply an element of one's cultural identity. In that sense I am a Christian and always will be. I hold to the values of Judea-Christianity while I profess no creed. I stand in awe at the magnificent monuments and works of art created over the centuries in the name of Christianity. I will always see the cross as a beautiful and elegant symbol. I watched Mel Gibson's "The Passion," and was moved by the movie's artistry and the beauty of its central characters, Jesus and Mary. Nevermind that I believe Jesus to have been no more than a man, and any historical accounts of what he said or did to be open to question. In the final analysis perhaps I am no less Christian than I am an American. It's simply what I was born into.

Marriage

I'm for it! I say this in the climate of Western civilization where a couple might just as well live together rather than marry. I'm not old fashioned about marriage. Far from it. Same sex couples ought to have the right to marry. Polygamy ought to be allowed for those who believe in it. Marriage is an extremely social institution in that it is defined very arbitrarily by the societies under whose jurisdiction it falls. The religious right in America talk about such things as the slippery slope. If same sex marriages are allowed what next? The union of three--God (their god) forbid! Marriage between man and beast? Or perhaps as one comedian suggested the marriage of a man to his car. Pleease! There are one billion Muslims in this world who for centuries and to the present day have practiced a form of polygamy. Are they no less human or humane than Christians?

That marriage is a sacred institution which cannot be tampered with is such baloney. What does sacred mean anyway, and how can anything be deemed sacred under secular law? All social mores and practices change as peoples' attitudes and society at large changes. No one can deny that there have been sea changes in the attitude and behavior of people in Western societies over the past few decades. The fact is that there is the widespread realization that love and sex can be shared among members of the same sex no less than by members of the opposite sex. Like it or not the genie has been let out of the bottle--the apple has been bit. People are aware of this reality. Whether or not the majority would assent to allowing same sex couples to wed, it cannot deny the fact that such relationships are real. To be cognizant of this reality and yet refuse to sanction such unions is a clear form of discrimination and denial of rights.

I remember reading once about how the world of the 21st century would be different. I was either in college or in high school then, in the late 70's or early 80's. One prediction was that same sex marriages would be part of the norm. Already within the first decade of the new century that prediction is yet to come true except for in a few parts of the world. It is hard, however, to imagine that it will not be true by the end of the current century, throughout the whole of the world, even the Muslim world. Such is the nature of social change.

I'm for the idea of marriage because more than anything else it both symbolizes and promotes the idea of commitment. That two (or more) people should be able to make a choice to willingly commit to one another is essential when relationships otherwise stand or fall on the fickleness of feelings and emotions. Whether child or adult human beings require a sense of permanence in relationships. Though the rite of marriage will not guarantee such permanence--in fact nothing can--it certainly contributes to it. Even with the apparent ease at which many seem able to divorce, the act of marriage still conveys a sense of commitment between individuals like nothing else.

So, I believe marriage is an important bond through which individuals are able to commit themselves to one another. I am of the Western mindset that this is the foremost purpose and significance of marriage. I am not of the traditional mindset that marriage is for the rearing of families. This is certainly one of its functions, but not an essential nor primary one. Such an idea would be considered radical in traditional societies which exists perhaps in the majority throughout the world, still yet. Certainly all children should be raised within a familial unit by parents who are in a committed relationship with each other. But the act of marriage seems both logically and chronologically to be first of all an expression of love and commitment between individuals who want to share their lives together. That they may go on to raise a family is a secondary function of that realtionship.

I am not a traditionalist, for whom it seems sex and reproduction are the raison d'être of marriage. Sure, that is how it works in the animal kingdom, but aren't we created in God's image? I believe that human relationships are a bit more complicated and involve much more than the need to repopulate the species.

I am for marriage and believe that any two (or three) mature individuals ought to have the right to join in such a commitment. It is a sad state of affairs that still in the world, especially in the "enlightened" West, millions are denied their right to marry. Of course, this pales in comparison to the tyranny that traditional societies exert on individuals through the practice of arranged marriages.