By Beauty Damned

Faith v. Responsibility

I just finished reading that book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer. It got me thinking a lot about religion. The positives and negatives of deep religious faith. But most of all, how a zealous religious belief can cause people to feel justified to do "crazy" things. Things like committing mass genocide, flying planes into the World Trade Center or attacking an entire country in an attempt to eradicate a culture or ideology and replace it with your own...

Krakauer's book focuses on fundamentalist mormonism. Of course, the myriad negative byproducts of mormonism (or any religion) aren't condensed only in the fundamentalist sect, having originated in the mainline church, but, having been sufficiently suppressed there (at least outwardly), fanaticism has been carried on mostly within what is considered the fundamentalist church. I have to admit that a lot of what I read in the book scared me. Mormons have an intensely fanatical and violent history. I also found many of the common practices and beliefs of mormonism to be reprehensible. (This is all despite the fact that my mother's side of the family is mormon, though she abandoned the religion immediately upon reaching adulthood).

As I'm sure you could have guessed, I can't talk about religious zealotry without mentioning our current presidential administration. While I was reading the book, I noticed a lot of parallells, not within the specific beliefs of mormonism as compared to other religions, so much as within the mindset of those who adopt religious beliefs to an extreme. Mormon fundamentalists are no different from fanatics of other religions. Their specific beliefs may be different, but the fervor with which they carry the torch is the same. I am not condemning unshakeable religious faith as an ideal. Only that which often results. To each their own, until those who hold such faith cannot tolerate the diversity of others or attempt to rule society as a whole. Some believe there is no way to practice a religion other than to allow it to consume you. And perhaps they are right. To follow a religious text half-heartedly, or a "watered down" version, would be to betray your faith, right? Well I don't really know the answer. But I like to believe there is a feasible middle ground. I was raised Tibetan Buddhist. We were wrapped in a blanket of faith. It intertwined with almost everything. Religious beliefs extend into many other areas of our lives beyond those times when we are actively observing our religious practices. (Hence the separation of church and state to protect from political leaders running the country based on their religious beliefs).

Morality for us was determined through the lense of Buddhism. Killing is the ultimate sin. Ego and pride are dangerous. Compassion for others is important above all else. Gossip and jealousy are sinful. Many of these principles lie in quite a few religions. But in an attempt to adhere to relgious texts too strictly and without exception, people often miss the point of living. In my opinion, to LIVE is not to anticipate, contemplate and prepare for death, rebirth, enlightenment or redemption every day. It is not to dwell in how you will secure yourself after death, for that is a morbid way to live and defeats the mystery of sentience. To me, religion is a guideline to determine right and wrong in one's personal life and a spiritual tool in times of questioning your purpose. If you take it to the level of fundamentalism, it becomes an unhealthy obsession, and the pursuit of total adherence to the teachings of the religion becomes an exercise in egoism itself. I think my mother realized that just before she ultimately became disillusioned and was slapped with the label of Heretic by her fellow Buddhists.

As for politics, without the separation of church and state, our political climate would change so drastically with each new leader and politicians would find it impossible to reach level ground, as religious beliefs would become a dictating factor in every discussion. Actually, that's not a lot different than it is now. Our current president believes himself to be a soldier of god. ("God wants me to be president" - George W. Bush). This worries me, because I believe the man's motivations lie more in his loyalty and service to what he interprets as god's will (as filtered through his feeble mind) than to the will of the people of the United States, or to the peace and prosperity of all people, not just Christians or those who could possibly be converted to such. His opposition to stem-cell research on the grounds that it goes against his religious beliefs is one of those particular issues where a shudder goes up my spine. To think that the President of the United States would block the development of scientific research that could conceivably cure many of the serious diseases facing humans now -- based on the conviction that it destroys a day old embryo -- should be a serious concern. (Don't forget, this is the same man that supports in-vitro fertilization despite the fact that it destroys human embryos). Bush better watch out for the Reagans on this one. It looks like they're after him. As for the rest of this bible thumping administration, I consider them a real danger as well.

Posted by Maria at June 15, 2004 12:01 PM | TrackBack