On the dichotomy of religions, politics and social pressures

Williebee · Oct 19, 2013

This is going to ramble, my apologies. I was pondering this elsewhere and Richard suggested I start this conversation here. He didn't say I had to make sense.

---

We get told in the news and elseweb that some Muslims are taught that non-Muslims are "abominations" -- offenses against Allah. That those "others" deserve to die.

We get told in the news and elseweb that some Christians are teaching the exact same thing about Muslims.

I used to sing in a lot of churches. A quartet I was in would make the rounds every spring. At one of them, every year, there would be some comment from the pulpit about that other church across the street (literally across the street.) How wrong their teachings were and how it was this flock's duty to help keep those poor souls from going to hell.

Some folks out there are teaching distrust, teaching hate, promoting violence.

We aren't all like that. An this isn't meant to be some generic accusation. I'm just pondering the experience, the mindset (fear?) that prompts it.

And how far is whatever motivates it from the motivations we see in other areas of life?

This isn't just a religion vs. religion or even a secular vs. nonsecular experience. Just look at the last several political national conventions. Or, for that matter, pick the local county political party meeting of your choice. Or local scout troops.

How far is it from one of my local school district basketball programs that ingrains a "pray or don't play" - "go along to get along" mindset into their kids? (They do this "Huddle up" for the hands in the middle, Go Team! -- but while we're here, we're gonna pray that God will help us destroy those other guys. It starts in elementary. By high school it's as traditional as the team colors.)

Is it a weird "othering" that is rooted in some kind of national or species level insecurity?

Like I said. I'm just pondering it all. Thanks for reading, and any thoughts on the matter(s).

Siri Kirpal · Oct 19, 2013

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

The problem is not religion, but power. Religion always starts when some bright individual has a divine experience and tries to share that experience with others, maybe give them a way to get there themselves. The first few people are around this bright individual and get the message...maybe, but soon, the people that follow are just going along with what everyone else does, have no investment in the deeper spiritual meaning underlying religion, and voila! we've got power politics, because that's what people understand without doing the work to get the spiritual high.

The problem is that with religion, which is supposed to be about getting goodness (Godness), when it turns to power politics, the stupidity of the power becomes more obvious. Unfortunately, people then think the problem is the religion, not it's politics.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Williebee · Oct 19, 2013

Perhaps more accurately the "desire for power?"

But what is at the root of that? Insecurity? Fear? Greed?

AVS · Oct 19, 2013

If you believe absolutely in religion A then everybody else is wrong on the most important single aspect of the universe as you understand it.

This can understandably lead to dispute.

Everybody else needs to be converted or condemned or pitied. If you do not try to convert them then perhaps you are abandoning fellow humans to hell or some other ill fate depending on your religion. If others refuse to accept your arguments then perhaps their purpose will be seen as inimical to your (and your god/gods) purpose.

How aggressively debate scales from live and let live (but you're wrong) to convert or die, or indeed just die, is then subject to some subtle interplay of the listener/preacher/religion/nation/socio-economic situation.

Captcha · Oct 19, 2013

I think it's based in insecurity.

Religion is, pretty much by its nature, unprovable. People believe that they've "got it right", but the stakes are huge and there's no way to be sure. One kind of person, facing this reality, is brave enough to accept it and acknowledge that other people are making good-faith efforts to find their own truths and are coming to different conclusions. All seekers for the same goal, but taking different paths to get there.

And there's another type of person that wants to deny the reality. They want to put their hands over their ears and shout "Nyah Nyah Nyah, I can't hear you!" when someone else mentions the different paths. They try to make themselves feel better about their own choices by denigrating the choices of others. Insecurity.

That's my take on it.

Siri Kirpal · Oct 19, 2013

Williebee said:
Perhaps more accurately the "desire for power?"

But what is at the root of that? Insecurity? Fear? Greed?

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Yes, desire for power is more accurate.

Insecurity, fear, greed...are they really all that different at their root core? In other words, the root problem is all of them...and no doubt a few others, some of which we may not have usable words for.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Siri Kirpal · Oct 19, 2013

AVS said:
If you believe absolutely in religion A then everybody else is wrong on the most important single aspect of the universe as you understand it.

This can understandably lead to dispute.

Everybody else needs to be converted or condemned or pitied. If you do not try to convert them then perhaps you are abandoning fellow humans to hell or some other ill fate depending on your religion. If others refuse to accept your arguments then perhaps their purpose will be seen as inimical to your (and your god/gods) purpose.

How aggressively debate scales from live and let live (but you're wrong) to convert or die, or indeed just die, is then subject to some subtle interplay of the listener/preacher/religion/nation/socio-economic situation.

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Or...whether the religion has that point of view. They don't all.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal, who is very aggressive in attempting to correct the perception that all religions behave like the Abrahamic ones

Captcha · Oct 19, 2013

Siri Kirpal said:
Siri Kirpal, who is very aggressive in attempting to correct the perception that all religions behave like the Abrahamic ones

Siri, you DO seem fairly intense about wanting to share your faith, though. Not aggressive, but more obvious than most people on these boards, with the "Sat Nam" in every post. Can you share your motivation in wanting to do that?

AVS · Oct 19, 2013

Siri Kirpal said:
Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Or...whether the religion has that point of view. They don't all.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal, who is very aggressive in attempting to correct the perception that all religions behave like the Abrahamic ones

We'll we're debating now at the live and let live level. You're telling me I'm wrong. If you are a strong adherent of your religion and I am not then presumably you think me wrong on the most important thing in the universe?

I'd be happy to discover that no conflict has ever taken place within or between non-Abrahamic religions, but I suspect that would be an unlikely outcome.

I feel that lumping all the Abrahamic religions together is probably a little too broad brush.

Ari Meermans · Oct 19, 2013

Williebee said:
Perhaps more accurately the "desire for power?"

But what is at the root of that? Insecurity? Fear? Greed?

I think the root is fear, and that we're a xenophobic species in general. Anything (or anyone) that is different or unknown incites fear until reason and knowledge take over. If they do. The "othering" that occurs in religion, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and a whole host of -isms and phobias is a manifestation of that fear.

The perceived need to dominate (conquer) that which causes the fear in order to be free of the fear overcomes reason and prevents seeking knowledge. Again, that's my opinion.

Siri Kirpal · Oct 19, 2013

AVS said:
If you believe absolutely in religion A then everybody else is wrong on the most important single aspect of the universe as you understand it.

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

My problem was with this statement. Not all religions are based on belief, which means that not all religions are based on the wrongness of every other belief. Which means, no, I don't think you were wrong, I think your view wasn't inclusive.

Lumping all the Abrahamic religions together is certainly too broad a brush. My apologies if my post sounded that way.

Conflicts certainly do take place within and/or between non-Abrahamic religions, but it's not an article of faith, which is what your post seemed to indicate.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Siri Kirpal · Oct 19, 2013

Captcha said:
Siri, you DO seem fairly intense about wanting to share your faith, though. Not aggressive, but more obvious than most people on these boards, with the "Sat Nam" in every post. Can you share your motivation in wanting to do that?

Sat Nam (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

It's the way I answer the phone. Sat Nam! It's the way I start letters. I thought I'd do it here...but then, wouldn't that look weird if I didn't explain what I was saying. Hmmm...okay. But then, posts get hidden, new people come on board. Okay, I'll do it with each post.

And I share my faith wherever possible here (hopefully without being too obnoxious) for the simple reason that my faith is little known, highly misunderstood, and you guys have the power of the written word. Make sense, I hope?

Oh, and I say Blessings at the end of each post because Love & Blessings, which is what I use with friends and family can get misconstrued.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 20, 2013

Siri,
I've never had a problem with your greeting. It does however bring up an interesting problem related to WillieBee's OP.

I think we're all agreed that the situation he outlined is obnoxious, offensive, and unhelpful. And we've all seen too many people taking the attitude he elucidated.

I think the concept of offering to share a view is a good one. And there's a lot more sharing of religion and philosophy than most people think. A great deal of the writing done from various religions and philosophies amount to offers to share.

In book form, there's a safety on the side of the reader, one can pick up or put down the back as one sees fit. On the side of the writer, we all know, it's our job to bring the ideas across in a manner congenial to the reader. This, to my mind, is a proper sense of sharing.

In person, or in other direct interaction such as internet discussion, there is more of a sense of immediacy and presence. For a lot of people, there's a great deal of self worth and pride tied up in religious identity.

It takes a great deal of serenity to offer something that matters a great deal in ones life and have others dismiss it as unimportant. This is even more the case if, from ones perspective those others are clearly in need of that thing.

For a lot of people that kind of refusal leads to frustration, anger, and contempt.

So my point is that we see the same attitudes WillieBee outlined in SYW, but we know they're wrong for sharing stories, whereas too many cultures teach that they're right for SYR and SYP.

sunandshadow · Oct 20, 2013

Attacking others who seem "foreign" can in fact be observed among several kinds of mammals, not just humans. So I'd say it's a biology thing at root, though certainly different philosophies either discourage or promote xenophobia.

Siri Kirpal · Oct 20, 2013

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Richard, I agree with your post, but I don't know what SYR and SYP mean.

One of the things about AVS's post that bothered me, I just figured out. It's that my experience and observation is that the beliefs rarely have much to do with the obnoxious stuff the OP was talking about.

Some examples:

The OP's own example of footballs prayers for victory has little to do with belief (other than the power of prayer) because unless we're talking about two parochial schools of different faiths pitted against each other, the kids on the teams are going to be of a mix of faiths. The prayers were just a way to get a group of kids fired up to clobber another group of similar kids. Power and peer pressure.

The current situation in Israel is less about beliefs and more about who owns the land. Greed, power, and no doubt fear.

The Crusades may have been fueled by beliefs, but I've read that the real reason Pope Urban ordered it was to get a bunch of knights to fight something other than each other and the general populace of Europe. Go leave us alone. Fear.

A current dispute in Sikhism is about whether it's okay for Sikhs to practice yoga. You can make a case that this is a matter of belief, but it's more about practice. Control and identity (let's make ourselves separate from Hindus).

If we all couldn't stand each other because of our different beliefs, how do you explain my happy interfaith marriage? Or those of us who have organized, attended and presented at interfaith events?

And what about the belief that we all come from the same Source, that Source permeated all of us, so all of us are equal? It may lead to some conflict in this here part of the forum, but it doesn't in real life.

And sunandshadow, yeah, we've got this chemical that releases that causes us to protect our mates and our young. Oxytocxin? Unfortunately, an excess of it can cause us to go overboard in the protection business.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 20, 2013

Siri,
SYR and SYP are just attempts at cleverness on my part. I'm riffing on your post and SYW to produce:
Share Your Religion and Share Your Philosophy. It was pretty weak, but in fairness... Nope, it was just pretty weak.

Your examples are interesting, but two of them strike me as having a missing element which is religious.

The current situation in Israel is less about beliefs and more about who owns the land. Greed, power, and no doubt fear.

The Crusades may have been fueled by beliefs, but I've read that the real reason Pope Urban ordered it was to get a bunch of knights to fight something other than each other and the general populace of Europe. Go leave us alone. Fear.

In both of these cases there is a lot of Realpolitik and land grabbing involved, but there's another element that goes beyond it. Let's face it, Israel is not a large piece of turf and it lacks much in the way of resources.

I submit that some of the fight is not (and during the crusades was not) over the physical territory, but over the spiritual or mythic territory that Biblical and Koranic stories had created that coexisted in people's minds with the physical territory.

So, Jerusalem is a city, but it has three different mythic cities on top of it, one each for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. To some extent the fighting is over whose mythic territory takes precedence.

On a different note: WillieBee can speak for himself, of course, but the peer pressure prayers he mentioned are a big deal precisely because the teams are not made up of people of the same faith. There's enormous pressure in some schools to go along with prevalent religion, which is really troubling to kids of less regarded religions (or of no religion at all).

Williebee · Oct 20, 2013

RichardGarfinkle said:
On a different note: WillieBee can speak for himself, of course, but the peer pressure prayers he mentioned are a big deal precisely because the teams are not made up of people of the same faith. There's enormous pressure in some schools to go along with prevalent religion, which is really troubling to kids of less regarded religions (or of no religion at all).

yup

Siri Kirpal · Oct 20, 2013

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Ah, made up acronyms! Unfortunately, there's no Eastern Religions section of the forums, so any SYR on my part goes here. (Or Story Research if someone asks.)

Whole hearted agreement that forcing shared prayers on people of mixed faiths/no faiths is not cool.

I did begin the bit about the Crusades with "The Crusades may have been fueled by beliefs." You can read, they WERE fueled by beliefs, but the reason they started was something else entirely.

The Holy Land? Oh, I wish we could call it something else! Maybe it wouldn't be so full of holes. Yeah, there's a religious and as you say mythic component, but really, the same religions could condone coexistence equally well if politics and land ownership weren't at stake.

My point is that beliefs need not create the kind of mayhem Williebee was talking about. It takes those other factors to push the situation over.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 20, 2013

Coexistence is certainly doable, but there are some problems owing to having to compromise about holy places.

One of the trickiest is the Al Aqsa mosque (aka The Dome of The Rock) which sits atop part of the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. To coexist requires one group giving up claim on this to the other. It's arguably a land grab, but the land is only wanted for a holy place.

Maxx · Oct 21, 2013

Williebee said:
This is going to ramble, my apologies. I was pondering this elsewhere and Richard suggested I start this conversation here. He didn't say I had to make sense.

---

We get told in the news and elseweb that some Muslims are taught that non-Muslims are "abominations" -- offenses against Allah. That those "others" deserve to die.

There's a dynamic that doesn't show up in this thread: the need to define things in sacred terms and the need to discredit other people's sacred things. For example, I don't know what Muslims in general say about non-Muslims in general, but (showing my pro-Shia streak as usual) I do know that Salafist Sunnis (like Al Qeda and its associates) put the Shia and all other religions on earth in the same category: "Polytheists". Which means in practice that all the sacred Shia or even Sunni or even Buddhist sacred spots made more religiously powerful by the presence of relics or images have to be obliterated for moral reasons.

In a way this goes back to prehistoric images of gods as just rocks which could happen everywhere from Egypt (the Benben) to Mesopotamia. This image was supposed to be also a non-image. No doubt the non-image imagery of the rock -as-image was part of the power of that version of the sacred. This need for sacred iconoclasm is present across many religions -- the non-image of God is important in Jewish images of God and Christian neoPlatonism (Christianity got a double dose of the non-imagery of God) and of course Iconoclastic events swept the world in the Muslim and Byzantine worlds as well as in Protestant Europe.

I've ended up saying the opposite of what I started out to say which was that real hatred for the other is reserved for others that are very close to you. This dynamic seems to break down in the case of iconoclasm, which is a kind of validation by an explicit kind of destruction.

Arcana · Oct 21, 2013

Williebee said:
Perhaps more accurately the "desire for power?"

But what is at the root of that? Insecurity? Fear? Greed?

power for it's own sake. Just like a lot of "social animals" people strive for dominance. My own theory is that people who seek to control others often are poor at controlling themselves. Hence politicians who seem to have more vices than the average person.

Rufus Coppertop · Jan 22, 2014

Williebee said:
How far is it from one of my local school district basketball programs that ingrains a "pray or don't play" - "go along to get along" mindset into their kids? (They do this "Huddle up" for the hands in the middle, Go Team! -- but while we're here, we're gonna pray that God will help us destroy those other guys. It starts in elementary. By high school it's as traditional as the team colors.)

I think it's a kind of narcissism. People assume that their self-esteem as sports participants might actually be as important to an omnipotent being as it is to them.

On the dichotomy of religions, politics and social pressures

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

AVS

Captcha

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

Captcha

AVS

Ari Meermans

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

sunandshadow

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here

Arcana

Rufus Coppertop