Ethical Religiosity

It seems I suffered a moment of blog comment rage. Inspired by some observations regarding same-sex marriage made by a friend, I responded with what follows.

There are few things in life I would leave to the clergy… Perhaps if you explained this situation to the zealots of the world, that in fact it [marriage] is an opportunity to screw people who love each other out of money rather than (merely) a case of taunting their deity… perhaps they would understand. Infact, I daresay, they may welcome the stance with some kind of special “sinner’s surcharge” for those dirty civil unionists.

Having heterosexual people telling homosexual people how to live is a bit like a woman foregoing her appointment with her gynecologist to instead solicit advice from a plumber.

If anyone thinks same-sex marriage is wrong, I wholeheartedly encourage them to not marry someone of their own gender. And in the meanwhile they can enjoy this cup of “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” with my compliments.

I confess same-sex marriage has never been something I’ve felt very passionately about. I just find myself growing increasingly frustrated with religious people inflicting their will upon others. But even more than that I find myself frustrated with how permissive society at large has been towards these people. It makes no sense. And yet, in another way, it makes perfect sense when you consider religion in a broader historical context. To know, to understand that armies conquered with brute force, monarchies conquered with sense of social class and tradition, while religion conquered the psyche. I mean it was one thing to be banished or killed, but imagine the afterlife if you had dared piss off the creator!

Now imagine a more secular world. Imagine moves to separate church and state. Imagine networks of information offering religious educations beyond that which was traditionally courted by your geography. Suddenly people are opting out of religion. It makes perfect sense that they should up the ante! This is surely why we’re seeing such rhetoric.

Louise Hay remarked during a speech on Change and Transition (available on iTunes):

You know, religions have a tendency to separate us. And religions often tell us who to love and how to love them and who’s lovable and who isn’t.

I don’t mean to bag religion. Well actually I do – but I wish to do so with some disclaimers. My own experience of religion has not been a pleasant one. I want to emphasise the word experience in the previous sentence. The experience was mine. I can totally appreciate that your experience might be different. Infact I am increasingly witness to the experiences of many of my friends whose religious practices and fellowships bring great meaning, purpose and camaraderie to their lives. Far be it from me to come between someone and their relationship with their creator. I wouldn’t presume to tell someone how to live their lives… in the same I wouldn’t expect others to tell me how I should live mine.

And yet, somehow, so many of the parameters of life are being dictated to me and many people I care about. Oddly still so much of it appears to be originating from within religious traditions we do not subscribe to and belief systems that we opted out of. Does that not strike anyone else as being odd? There are serious legal ramifications for purveyors of SPAM E-mail. Why should we humour this religious intrusion any more than we humour this electronic intrusion? There is all manner of anti-discrimination legislature. Nobody would put up with anti-semitic proclaimations – and nor should they! Why are we so permissive of the kind of abuse leveled at homosexuals?

What I would really like to see is a kind of ethical practice of religiosity, where certain fundamental human values take precedent over the nuances of traditions and passages. (Both of which are fraught with translation and interpretation dangers.)

Wish as I might in this Utopian moment, I doubt it will really take off. There are a number of reasons for this.

Ethical Religiosity infers a degree of introspection. Instead of looking outside to see how the world does or does not reflect your religious traditions, you instead turn your attention to yourself and how you reflect the ideals and expectations of your tradition. You should be more concerned with your own actions than the actions of your neighbours. Introspection of any kind is very difficult for many people. For many people it is easier to judge than to take stock. You are not responsible for all of humanity, however you are responsible for yourself. (This means shelving your aspirations of martyrdom, too. Sorry.)

The other major problem, at least as I see it, is that traditions require certain things to continue to exist. They need believers, they need subscribers, they need practitioners. Self-preservation (as much as the true believer’s concern for your immortal soul) is a major motivation for proselytising traditions within religion. Ethical Religiosity would contain an implicit understanding of the sanctity of each individual’s right to choose for themselves what they choose to believe and practice.

Religion has always been very mutually exclusive. Most traditions wouldn’t permit you to believe in, say, Jesus and Zeus. While some religions may single out specific groups of people for specific kinds of discrimination (homosexuality being the case in point in the context of this entry), many more tend to discriminate by proxy. That is to say since one particular tradition is the “right” one and their God concept is the “true” one, everyone else is “wrong” and “less than.”

Take for example this YouTube video:

Tagged as: Ethical Religiosity, homosexuality, Religion