Religious Identity

Religious identity is a coping mechanism. The reason I say this is because "God" is to over-intend, or cause "what is". This comforts those whose lives are in social, or poltical contexts that don't give them voice, or right to "self identify", as to "self identity". There is comfort in these cases in numbers, or, at least not being alone. ("God is with you..."). "God" is viewed as the "end all" solution to every problem or concern.


Besides being a coping mechanism, or giving a "reason to hope" beyond this world, there is the need to defend one's "Self", to make oneself "win" or appear "better than" another, whch is is the attempt to buttress an undeveloped "Ego", or "Self". This is done through various "works of service". These are seen or viewed by others in the religious community, as well as the "religious self", as "performances" that validate ones' existence. And such performances justify one's claims to "truth". Virtue is not about one's essential being, but one's "kind of being". It is as if, one has to "earn" or justify one's existance.

There is a difference between "essence of being" and "kind of being" And the differnece is in one's value judgements. When a community defines what is expected, or "ought to be", then one's performance is based on the "kind of individual" and whether that individual meets expectations. Standardizations are ways that groups define and stamp a person with "Recommended", or "Unrecommended". All groups must evaluate people based on their particular values, otherwise, the group dissolves its cohesiveness.

On the other hand, the "essence of being" is one's very innate nature, in gifting , interests and value. There is no "defined outside source, at least in a free society. One can become whatever one will. This virtue is not a value judgment about performance, but,  Being itself. This view of innatedness, is an "essential foundation", as to the value of the human being, apart from definitions, and performance.

Religious identity is "caught up" with how to define oneself 'correctly', because such efforts are "life and death", heaven and hell, or truth or falsehood, as it pertains to "eternal things" And eternal things are more important and valuable than the real world. The religious don't enter into"what is of life", but seek to define life, before they enter it. And sometimes cease to live or enter life at all!! And many times the religious obstruct those that are trying to "enter life" and Be, as to their essestial natures, thinking that they protect and defend "the true faith". All the while, they are invading spaces that are not their to invade!

Re-Defining The Good,The Bad and The Ugly

In light of a recent comment from an atheist, I wanted to re-define my recent blog post by this title (The Good The Bad and The Ugly. This entry will be a personal analysis of myself based on Freud's theory of "the Id, the Ego and the Super-Ego".

The Bad is my Id. The Id's desire, hopes and dreams were not to be realized, as my undeveloped Ego had been whipped into place by the "Super-Ego" (parental authority, which was the Ugly). It was reasonable under the circumstances. My step-father was not ready to get married, with a child whose only security was her grandfather's love and was hyperactive to boot. He was a Marine and had also had a difficult up-bringing.

My childish "Id" was harshly disicplined by a step-father who didn't understand his step-daughter and was too stressed from work and making ends meet to learn what my childish heart wanted. He was seeking to be responsible for my mother, me and my soon to be born half-brother. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to develop any relationship, as I moved back in with my grandparents only after living with him 4 years.

The move to another state was an abrupt one for me, who was beginning school that year. I had lost my sense of bearing and my childish heart was stripped of the security of my grandfather's love, the house I knew and my friends from church.

I remember going to school that first day with my mother and there was a little girl crying. I tried to comfort her, as I, myself, was feeling most insecure. I found some friends down the road that I played with regularly and my brother also became of instant intrigue and interest. But, I was not happy. I wanted to be with my grandparents, but also didn't want to make my mother unhappy. I was torn all my life by these conflicting desires. So, my "real world" never was my "ideal one". This is the Bad.

The Good was my developing Ego. I didn't know all my life that I was of value or worth anyone's special attention. I thought that I was a mistake, as my parent divorced and so the existential message was a nihlistic one.

My teen years were a struggle to prove I was loveable. That struggle has gone on until recently. I was always seeking a "special relationship" that would value me, where I would be "the One" and could come to know "family". Then, I became a "Christian".

A Chrisitan meant that I was valued. I had a "isntant family", who was to love and accept me "just as I am". That had never happened before. During that early Christian commitment, I met a young man that I fell deeply in love with. He had a stable family life in a small town as a doctor's son. He encouraged me in my ability to learn. I had such a low self-concept that I used to cry after "our group" would talk about "intellectual things". But, he kept encouraging me and so, I went back to school, making good grades, I became more confident. My helpless Ego was beginning to grow. This is the Good.

He eventually proposed and I thought that we would "live happily ever after", until he went home to tell his family. His mother was adamantly opposed to our engagment. He tried numerous times to talk with her, but to no avail. She was convinced that I was not "good enough" for her son. I broke up thinking it was making him miserable, though his brother had offered support. His little sister was not going to be allowed to be in our wedding. I couldn't stand to see him suffer and I certainly didn't think this was a beginning of a happily ever after! I was crushed and devastated. This was Ugly. Social status had a undermining effect upon my Ego;s developing confidence.

I continued in school and just aroung the corner a man I'd met and be-friended 5 years prior, who was aware of my relational difficulties became more than a friend. He eventually proposed and promised that I would finish school when we moved to our first place after we married. But, unfortunately, I could not continue my education because we couldn't afford it with "out of state" costs and his post-doctoral salary! So, we decided to wait for a year and I'd go back when I'd gained residency status. Then, I became pregnant with our first child and decied to wait to go back to school. This is the Good.

We moved after the following year when our daughter was only a few weeks old. And my husband went off to training, while I moved back "home". During that time at home, I wanted so much to have my daughter to have what I didn't a stable, loving and extended family! So, I sought to perform (my Super-Ego superintending my Ego), hoping to win my family's love and approval for my daughter. I did not realize that I was settting myself back to earning my way to another's heart. This is not healthy Ego development. This is the Bad and the Ugly..

To make a long story shorter, I was still seeking that "happily ever after" where I would have a loving and supportive extended family for my children, when we moved to another location. The Ugly is that religious culture can be damning to those that aren't tuned to those cultural norms and values.This was another "Super-Ego" time where performance bantered my Ego's desire for normalcy and not radicalization of life.

Then, my husband and I moved to D.C. for a year's fellowship with the State Department. During that time, i was to be working on a Master's degree on "moral development". What I learned and experienced shook everything my Ego was based on, that is an evangelical faith. I found myself re-thinking my commitments of value and this was a turning point away from a fundamentalist understanding of faith. I was learning so many things that it thrilled me and changed my life forever. This was the Good.

I think that I split during this time where I didn't want to define my life on narrowed values because of the over-bearing nature of them. My Ego was much too important for me to give in to the demands of the Super Ego. Moralization of life is not a life of liberty and what I realized that our government was for liberty of human value. I had found a secular correlation of human value to my intial understanding of human value in my religious frame. I then, started to question of what value is religion if it oppresses the Ego? And one lives their life separated from 'reality'?. This was the conflict of the Good and the Ugly.

Today, I think that my Ego, while not fully developed is strong to resist over-bearing demands of religious claims and parental images. In a free society, one can choose and determine one's life ultimate values, goals and purposes. So, I fight to know what interests me and there are many things of value to pursue. It will all be a matter of decision and commitment.

 I know I will always pursue a life of learning because I value human knowledge. And I will always pursue family and friends, because without these supports life's commitments aren't celebrated!

Apologies, But, No Apologies

Apologies are offered to anyone that has "happened" upon this blog and been offended. I speak my personal opinion for two reasons.

The first is something I hold dear and cannot compromise. It is the value of the freedom of speech and the press!!! Without the right to speak one's mind, there is no freedom, but oppressive conformity to what is "politically correct". Political correctness subverts the ability for individuals and the populace to have information and come to conclusions themselves. I think this is a value we cannot undermine without undermining free society, itself.

The question comes as to what is appropriate. In a personal blog, I think it is appropriate and even mandantory to express what is on one's mind. And what one thinks. No one is bound to read anything that is written here, or anywhere else, as it is a way of me processing and coming to terms with values.

The other reason is just as important for me personally. I need to write my opinion, irregardless of what anyone else thinks. This is an attempt to assert myself, build courage to speak my mind, in spite of what has imposed itself upon me by environmental conditioning. Perhaps, it is an adolescent stage of "coming into my own". Or it may be a "mid-life" stage of finding my true voice. I don't know, yet. But, I hope to learn and grow in the process of exploring and come to terms with what I cannot give up. Thus, my stripping away of what seems to be extraneous. Critical thinking is necessary in this process. I may not have developed my thinking altogether, but I am trying and this is a good thing.

I believe that those that are secure in their convictions, and values, will not be offended by my "voice".

The Problem With "Holiness"

"Holiness" has been useful for the religious, because of their need for identification "apart from the rest of the world". Therefore, the sects continue to separate from what is "unholy" to define and refine "who they are".

The problem with "holiness" is that it distinguishes one thing from another based on some "standardization". These standards are what religion is about. Standards of behavior in how to approach God, do one's duty, dress, perform, experience, and even think, etc. Religion is a false or pretentious "form" of judgement. These judgments are "justified" by texts, traditions, and "community norms".

What is really at stake is the individual's freedom to become apart from such religious "forms". Religion imposes itself on the natural world without allowing the individual freedom to question, and come to terms with their own "way of being in the world". Democracies allow such freedom. Apart from a free society there is no individuality.

Today's world is wrought with religious zeal that finds its identity in such "faith" apart from reason. And many find themselves under domination because of false convictions that are not really theirs. This imposition is really about co-dependence and "belonging", not healthy human flourishing and development. And co-dependence is about an under-developed ego.

At least that is my "unprofessional" assessment.

Identities, Faith and Such...

Identities are known to be "attached" to something. A fully developed and functioning "self" has come to understand itself within a framework of values that are of utmost importance. These values hold the "key" to understand what motivates the person to action and is what the personal identity is "attached to".

Children "attach" their identities to their "important other". Their "self" is understood only in relationship to another whose opinion and desires they seek to please. Parents are of utmost importance in the early stage of the developing ego. But, parental "images" continue in Christian understandings of faith. Reason does not define faith, but trust does. This is an infantile stage of ego development.

Young adults must be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves for what their "attachments" will be. Will their attachments be to their social group of origin, whether that be defined by religious/cultural/familial or will they find a separation of their identity because of "reasonable" reasons? The difference is based on whether one thinks that man is a "thinking self" or a "relational self". I don't think the answer is going to be an "either/or". Man is a thinking, as well as a social animal. And each individual will have variances of these tendencies.

Some have suggested that without content, faith has no value. This may be the case for some. The political has a lot to do with how the social is understood. The political is about power. Power was not the position of the early Christians, for the most part. Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that faith was a "crutch" to defend the identity of those whose identities had be stolen by those in power?

Democracy allows the "self" to develop beyond the infantile dependent stage of childhood. Freedom of information, and the individual's self determination of choice are important values to uphold in "helping" the individual to develop fully. Tribalisitc mentality leads nothing to critical thinking, but a dependent attitude of helplessness that mimics another's values, instead of coming to terms with their own unique identity. This is why American values of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness" is of ultimate value for anyone who believes in the individual and the individual's "right to exist".