It Takes a Village...or at Least It Helps
I attended a religious ceremony this weekend that got me thinking about a number of things. First and foremost, it struck me that it was not so much about God as it was community. To me, it was a vivid illustration of the power of a strong support system, and how that system can be used to mold youth and instill life-long values. After all, isn't religion really about community, or more clearly stated, living life in a way that leaves the world a better place. That seems to be the very best of what religion has to offer. So, what about all the other elements associated with religion? Are they necessary?
Voltaire, in a famous and often-analyzed poem, has a line that translates to, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." That is a cynical view of humanity in my estimation. It implies that man is inherently bad and that societies would ultimately break down if people were not constrained by the religiously-rooted threat of eternal damnation. The evidence, I believe, points in a different direction. People are innately good. Nowhere is that more manifest than in the idealism of youth. It's fair to say that many young people today would not identify themselves as religious, yet they seem to have an intrinsic desire to get involved and improve the world around them. Perhaps one could argue that even though they may not self-identify as religious, they have still been shaped by a society founded on, and influenced by, religious principles. Therefore, if religion fades away, so may the instincts that were derived from said principles. It's hard to say, but I prefer the more optimistic view.
Religion obviously carries with it a lot of baggage, but whether it's necessary or not, it is, or can be, a catalyst for the type of community support system I witnessed this weekend.
So, is there a linkage to politics? Yes. Republicans are most closely associated with the controversial elements of religion, while Democrats have very successfully tied themselves to the non-contentious notion of community service. As a result, a significant percentage of young and progressive voters—those who may not be religious, but who have values rooted in community altruism, have a strong affinity to the Democrats. Republicans must find a way to meld their religiously-oriented values message with one that is focused on a more widely palatable aspect of religion—the notion of community and serving the public by making the world a better place.
If the Republican Party is once again going to be the "Party of Big Ideas," one of those ideas should be a creative and appealing new approach to national service. That is a value of growing importance to a segment of the electorate that is increasingly absent from the Republican ranks.
I attended the same religious ceremony this weekend and while I also felt a strong sense and presence of community I felt an even stronger sense and presence of God. I believe the point that you are missing in your interpretation on young people and religion today is not their lack of belief in God or in a higher being but their lack of desire to be associated with a particular religious organization that is not willing to change their beliefs or rulings to keep up with a fast changing world. I think many young people would consider themselves religious but struggle in today's society with the many challenges that face us ie war, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, to name a few. One could always make the argument that the government should stay out of religious based decisions, but it is just not that simple.
A world without religion would be disastrous in my opinion. All young people need basic guidelines from which to form their moral values. You assume that these guidelines can always be provided by parents or teachers but unfortunately that is not always the case. Many times a young person needs to look to clergy to see a situation clearly. My hope would be that instead of living in a world with no religion, our current religious organizations would be more flexible and more compassionate in there beliefs and rulings. Until this happens, I say don't give up on your religion but take the positives and leave the negatives.
Democrat or Republican......I would much rather have a leader with strong religious values than one that does not believe in anything at all!
Reply to this
I cannot argue that religion motivates its adherents to do charitable works, but largely as a gateway to the ultimate path to the afterlife. If you believe that people are essentially good, then why do we need a god as a catalyst for community-building and turning the world into a better place? I hope that the answer is that we do not. Religion was invented as a mechanism for control while infiltrating the masses as a mechanism for consolation. Religion serves as much more than a means for good works. It provides justification for hate, violence, and othering and deludes its followers into relying on an immutable morality that does not adapt to the changing conditions of reality. It is important to note that I’m not saying that all religious people are hateful, but when you pare down the layers of most hateful people, religion sits at the center.
Atheistic Voltaire wasn’t the only one to recognize that society uses religion as a vehicle for implementing and enforcing policy. The Christian Edmond Burke also wrote that if the Christian religion “is destroyed, nothing can be saved, or is worth saving,” because “on that religion, according to our mode, all our laws and institutions stand as upon their base. That scheme is supposed in every transaction of life; and if that were done away, every thing else, as in France, must be changed along with it.” But both Voltaire and Burke got it wrong. Non-religious people do good too without the carrot of an afterlife dangling out in front. As a society we need to identify and harness that motivation to create a culture of national service.
Reply to this
We are largely in agreement that people do not need religion in order to be altruistic.
A few points of clarification, though. I did not say we need religion as a catalyst; I said it can be a catalyst. It can be dangerous to generalize, as I believe you've done. No doubt, religion has been at the center of much past and present world strife. There are, however, many non-fundamentalist religions that respect diversity of beliefs and are about community building and deference to their fellow humans. As I stated, that is the best of what religion has to offer. Religion is, or can be, largely positive. It is when it becomes imperialistic that the affirmative turns negative.
Voltaire, by the way, was not an athiest (at least that's the consensus view). He did believe in a supreme being, but he also saw organized religions as nothing more than interpretations made by fallable humans. Ultimately, he thought man's ability to reason was his greatest gift, and that reason, not faith, is the foundation for basic truths. In essence, this is the root of the point that you and I both make--people can/do make rational decisions to do good that need not be rooted in faith/religion.
I respect those who are religious--up and until the point that they attempt to force their beliefs on me.
Reply to this