The bumper sticker was first introduced by a website called Peacemonger.com, which I recently visited. It's pretty much your standard ultra-liberal stuff. "End the war", "Go Gay marriage", etc. And a whole bunch about different religions living together peacefully. My favorite is one with a drawing of Jesus, which says "Practice What He Preached." and has symbols of all sorts of religions. Sadly, these people don't seem to realize that it was Jesus who said, "I come bringing not peace but a sword."
But I digress.
This post was really going to be about how different religions can never coexist in a society. Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "What are you talking about? Of course they can!" But sadly, you're wrong.
Here's the thing: all religions, no matter what, claim to have some sort of corner on the Truth market. Estimates ... er... estimate that there are somewhere around 10000 religions on this here planet. And all of them claim to be "the truth".
In order to establish a functioning society, we have to have laws. And these laws have to be based on a worldview. This worldview determines how the laws are going to play out. Are you going to base your society on, "Love your neighbor" or on "Kill the infidels"? These are two radically different views, which will produce diametrically opposed societies.
You have to pick a worldview in order to establish a society. And that worldview is going to claim to have some corner on the Truth, or else it's worthless and powerless.
So, whose worldview do we choose?
No matter which one we do end up choosing in order to form our laws, someone's going to get stepped over. Someone's religion is going to be affronted by our laws. It's just the way it works.
Now, we do have the option of having a reasonably tolerant society. But this works only if everyone agrees live by a Judeo-Christian ethic. Things like "Love your neighbor", "Do unto others...", "Care for the widows and the orphans", "Respect the government", "Treat everyone with deference." Those are all from the Bible, and they are the basis for American culture today. But when people choose to start living by a different ethic, we have clashes.
This wouldn't work if we used a Muslim or Taoist ethic. A Free society couldn't function based on those ideals.
So, when someone following another set of values enlists in the military of a country whose laws are based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, we know that it's not going to work out. That relationship is doomed from the start.
While a religiously tolerant society is a nice dream to have, it's just that: a pipe dream. An opium-induced fantasy.
Which is why when John Lennon wrote his song about his ideal society, he said, "Imagine no religion."
I wonder if you can.
6 comments:
Hi how are you?
I was looking through your blog, and I found it interesting, and inspiring to me, so I thought why not leave you a comment.
I too have a blog that I use out of Southern California here in San Diego.
Mostly it is a collection of artistic expression, and I have many friends with the same interests, maybe you can become my friend, and follow, and I can also follow you, if that is okay.
Well I hope to hear from you soon, and or read about you….LOL
Sincerely,
Jess
I disagree. Most religions condemn the same basic things: murder, lying, stealing, etc. A society established with these basic guidelines protects the interests of a diverse population while not restricting their right to practice religion. Basically, it comes down to a question of absolute truth. If you believe in an absolute truth, then it stands to reason that you would see elements of that truth in human morality, regardless of the particular religion. In other words, the law of a particular religion is not arbitrarily created and defined, it is based on absolute truth. Laws and religions generally follow a code of right and wrong that most people would agree with. This is a great argument for absolute truth and a fatal flaw for your argument.
Ah, you have followed someone's link to my blog, Ben! It's good to see you here.
I admit that I did not mention absolute truth. C.S. Lewis calls it "Natural Law". The reason I did not mention it is that we live in a post-modern age in which "absolute truth" is almost a dirty word.
Not that I don't believe it's true. But I believe that the Judeo-Christian ethic is the absolutely true one.
I think what I was trying to say is that there can never be a society which is TOTALLY tolerant of all religions, simply because some religions command their followers to kill the others. Even proselytizing is somewhat "intolerant", since the individual is convinced that his truth is more accurate than his opponent's.
However, we can't have a free society that doesn't allow religions to proselytize if they command their followers to do so.
But you're right. I should have mentioned Natural Law.
Tolerance has changed meaning in the recent past. It used to refer to a tolerance of people. We call this respect. And actually, people of non-Islamic faiths are generally very good at it and can live in close quarters easily. This is because most major faiths do agree on enough to establish basic laws against fraud, violence, and theft, and non-Islamic faiths usually seek to make converts through genuine persuasion, not force. The tolerance touted today is a tolerance of ideas. This is bogus tolerance that leads to relativism, which is nonsensical and unsustainable. This tolerance of ideas cannot exist and should not be expected. It would mean that no one could take any religion seriously, and it is, really, a slap in the face to practitioners of all religions. It is one of the least tolerant demands you could imagine making. But as far as real tolerance goes, it is a Christian virtue. John Piper says it this way, "We [Christians] believe this tolerance is rooted in the very nature of the gospel of Christ [....] For Christians, tolerance is not purely pragmatic. The spiritual nature of God's kingdom is the ground of our endorsement of pluralism."
Indeed I did, and it's good to be here.
I was, in fact, thinking of C.S. Lewis when I wrote my comment, and your point about some religions is well taken. Some, ok, I'll just say Islam, don't tolerate the practicing of other religions. Being tolerant of radical Islam is like a mouse being tolerant of a cat.
Well written Kate. I always feel a sort of disgust every time I see those bumper stickers but I didn't have words to back up that feeling. We can certainly be at peace and even have respect for people with different religions. But a society cannot function if it is governed by opposing and contradictory worldviews, one must win out. All religions certainly aren't the same nor does following any one produce the same results as any other.
Post a Comment