Wednesday, December 23, 2009

I Don't Respect the Religious

The religious are those who think that they have the TRUTH and that EVERYONE should submit their lives to how they see reality. These are not tolerant, unless it will serve their agenda of "saving the lost". Those who seek to "spread the Gospel" do so because they fear the punishment of God, for others and sometimes for themselves. The religious therefore, are confined by their understanding of God's will, versus coming to terms with their own personal views and convictions. This is why I don't respect the religious.

Our culture allows differences of opinion in every area of our lives, but the religious think that this liberty will somehow circumvent society at is very foundations. The foundation of society is the family. And the family is what constitutes the environment for children, our next generation of citizens. I can appreciate and applaud this value, because I know how important family values are. But, the religious sometimes do not seem to appreciate the diversity of the family. "Family" is known by the form alone, apart from the quality of the family's "life" inside. Divorce is forbidden is such understandings because "God hates divorce". Many suffer under these religious rules, so I don't respect these values.

Other values that the religious hold are the values of cultural monism. The right "culture" is understood according to some outside standard "text", therefore, democracy is not valued, because government becomes God, incarnate. I don't respect those that have such confined understanding of diversity.

Now, that I have stated why I don't respect the religious and some of their values, would they respect me? Probably not, but in our society, we are free to identify with some other group. We do not have to be a part of a religious one. It is important to have enough self-respect to not"submit" to religious rulers , who speak for God. This is a necessary for personal growth and development. I need to own my own life and learn to relate to others where they are open to relate to me, without imposing their own standards upon me "for my own good". Those who think they hear God and can speak for everyone, are dangerous, because they will think they are justified by God to do whatever they want to another human life. And I do not respect that.


Allan R. Bevere said...

Good grief!

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Yes, good grief! A good way to describe it.

No wonder Christianity was connected at the hip to a purity tradition.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Angie, your post is so full of over-simplifcation, demogoguery, and lack of knowledge of the complexity of religious experience, it is no wonder that it is so difficult to have a reasoned and intelligible conversation with you.

Have a merry Christmas! I hope I am not imposing my religious values on you in wishing you such.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Religious experience is the problem!

Sorry you don't think that I am worth your time to discuss intelligently what you think about religious experience.

And, no, I don't suggest that you cannot have your experience, that is fine, just don't suggest that it is for everyone.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Angie, I did not say you were not worth my time; I said because of the way you so misconstrue things, it is impossible to have discussion with you that makes any sense.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

ANY type of religious fundamentalism is dangerous. I have written about scinetific materialism before on this blog. So, don't say that you cannot talk to me about these issues.

I abhor what happens when people impose their absolutists views on others, because I want to see liberty of conscience and a humility of mind that is understanding of the limitations to our understanding of the world in all of its complexity.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I think the best way to move forward concerning policy is based on views in the disciplines, but policy making should always be done with the "other view" in mind, because our government values diverse and dissenting viewpoints.

Leaders do have to be committed to their view, but they also know how to persuade, and not co-cerce their view on another unwillingly. I don't see this happening in our public square so much as hysteria. All sides are staunchly resistant to listening and hearing. But, those that speak must speak intelligently, and not "authoritatively" ("thus sayeth the Lord").

Ethics is promoted by example, where morality ceases to unify.

Allan R. Bevere said...

"Any type of religious fundamentalism is dangerous." Including your "non-absolutist Fundamentalism" which would force your fundamentalist moral relativism on everyone else.

That is the last comment I intend to make.

By the way, the fact that somehow you think the religious want to impose their views on others without nuancing your argument shows just how ignorant you are of religion in all its complexity. Moreover, your understanding of experience is quite simplistic.