Being my contribution to the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm
As Mata H at BlogHer points out, this weekend marks a convergence of a number of religious festivals across a variety of faiths. For Jews, Purim has just been celebrated; contrary to what Joe Lieberman badly explained to John McCain, that's not "the Jews' Hallowe'en" but probably the most feminist day on the Jewish calendar, celebrating two courageous women, one Persian (that's my story and I'm sticking to it; now if I can only manage to get it on paper) and one Hebrew, the latter credited with saving her people from genocide. (The reason Passover is next month is because Jews stick in a "leap month" every few years, and Passover occurs this year on Adar II rather than Adar I. Oy, don't ask.) For Christians it's been Holy Week, culminating in Good Friday, Easter Sunday and, for Brits, the Easter Monday travel day. Hindus are commemorating Holi, Buddhists have Magha Puja Day, Muslims have Mawlid al-Nabi, and the descendents of the aforementioned Persians have the Festival of Noruz. Mata points out that this happens approximately once in a millennium, but most current religions only go back a few millennia anyway so I'm not sure that's really significant.
Here's the thing, though. This is a big deal for many people because we humans don't live for millennia. Most of us stretch out slightly under a century if we're lucky. But being human, we take comfort in what's come before us and what might come after us. We crave species immortality. Religious traditions are one of the ways we mark that. Even those of us with little use for religious dogma enjoy reading these myths and legends. We like to feel connected to a universal continuum of heroes vanquishing evil, of magical assistance and allies, of wicked deeds meeting just ends. And we want to believe the good things we accomplish today will be remembered by those who come after us.
This yearning for immortality is one of the main reasons I think religion is so strong, and so enduring. It's also one of the reasons I think that governments, which change fairly quickly compared to religious beliefs and customs, should ignore religion and just let it be. As humans, we may love the myths, but not everyone takes to the same myths. And legislating conformity of belief will never, ever come out well. Belief is a personal thing, even within adherents of the same religion. It's like legislating sexual habits. If enough commonly agreed upon societal taboos are violated, yeah, the practitioner will wind up on the wrong side of the law. But generally, between consenting adults -- none of Big Brother's biz, yes?
Which is why it's been so frustrating to hear all this talk lately about the 2008 presidential candidates' dealings with religious figures, particularly considering the pretty clear wording of Article 6 of the US Constitution. You know, the one that says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." In the document that every one of these senators has sworn to uphold. Of course, we know it's an uphill battle when they swear to uphold the Constitution and its separation of church and state whilst their hand is on a Bible.
But as many point out, that separation is there for a reason, and that reason isn't to abolish all these different beliefs but to sustain them, to make people's religious rituals and practices beside the point of running a government. So people can whine about unsavory religious and political bedfellows all they want, and if Article 6 were actually adhered to it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Personally, I'd sooner trust someone who wasn't a member of any particular sect to leave others be; everyone else must be assumed to have something of a bias toward their own religion, particularly if they can't shut up about it.
And by "shut up" I mean "stop dragging it into politics," not "stop practicing it." If consenting adults want to flagellate themselves and stage re-enactments of actual cross nailings, as long as it isn't in our backyard (so to speak) it shouldn't be for nonbelievers to call them idiots, any more than it is for nonbelievers to cast aspersions on snake handlers in Appalachia. Their Scriptural misreadings carry their own punishment, just as the practices of Christians who choose to follow Jesus' message of love and peace see that as their own reward.
I don't care what they do, as long as it doesn't affect me. I have wacky beliefs too. I just tend not to bother other people with them. I do think there are ways for us to all live together with our individual beliefs (including the beliefs that other people's beliefs are wacky). All it takes is respect for fellow human beings, which a secular society encourages (at least theoretically) a lot more than a society built around one religious belief.
Here's the thing, though. This is a big deal for many people because we humans don't live for millennia. Most of us stretch out slightly under a century if we're lucky. But being human, we take comfort in what's come before us and what might come after us. We crave species immortality. Religious traditions are one of the ways we mark that. Even those of us with little use for religious dogma enjoy reading these myths and legends. We like to feel connected to a universal continuum of heroes vanquishing evil, of magical assistance and allies, of wicked deeds meeting just ends. And we want to believe the good things we accomplish today will be remembered by those who come after us.
This yearning for immortality is one of the main reasons I think religion is so strong, and so enduring. It's also one of the reasons I think that governments, which change fairly quickly compared to religious beliefs and customs, should ignore religion and just let it be. As humans, we may love the myths, but not everyone takes to the same myths. And legislating conformity of belief will never, ever come out well. Belief is a personal thing, even within adherents of the same religion. It's like legislating sexual habits. If enough commonly agreed upon societal taboos are violated, yeah, the practitioner will wind up on the wrong side of the law. But generally, between consenting adults -- none of Big Brother's biz, yes?
Which is why it's been so frustrating to hear all this talk lately about the 2008 presidential candidates' dealings with religious figures, particularly considering the pretty clear wording of Article 6 of the US Constitution. You know, the one that says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." In the document that every one of these senators has sworn to uphold. Of course, we know it's an uphill battle when they swear to uphold the Constitution and its separation of church and state whilst their hand is on a Bible.
But as many point out, that separation is there for a reason, and that reason isn't to abolish all these different beliefs but to sustain them, to make people's religious rituals and practices beside the point of running a government. So people can whine about unsavory religious and political bedfellows all they want, and if Article 6 were actually adhered to it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Personally, I'd sooner trust someone who wasn't a member of any particular sect to leave others be; everyone else must be assumed to have something of a bias toward their own religion, particularly if they can't shut up about it.
And by "shut up" I mean "stop dragging it into politics," not "stop practicing it." If consenting adults want to flagellate themselves and stage re-enactments of actual cross nailings, as long as it isn't in our backyard (so to speak) it shouldn't be for nonbelievers to call them idiots, any more than it is for nonbelievers to cast aspersions on snake handlers in Appalachia. Their Scriptural misreadings carry their own punishment, just as the practices of Christians who choose to follow Jesus' message of love and peace see that as their own reward.
I don't care what they do, as long as it doesn't affect me. I have wacky beliefs too. I just tend not to bother other people with them. I do think there are ways for us to all live together with our individual beliefs (including the beliefs that other people's beliefs are wacky). All it takes is respect for fellow human beings, which a secular society encourages (at least theoretically) a lot more than a society built around one religious belief.
0 comments:
Post a Comment