What's Really Important Sick and Tired of “Hearing” about Religion
I hate to be so blunt, and am well aware of how some will interpret the title and opening comment, but nevertheless, there is no polite way to say it. I’m quite sick and tired of hearing about religion this, and religion that. Lately one hears a constant litany of religion, Jesus, and God etc., etc. on one side of the ocean, and religion, Mohammed and Allah etc., etc. from the other side, by people who under closer scrutiny sure don’t appear to represent what they say so much as talk about it constantly. It’s the old “do as I say, not as I do” syndrome, and it’s getting quite wearisome.
This is particularly prevalent during the current presidential campaign in the United States. It seemed more relevant almost 50 years ago when John F. Kennedy had to tell the nation he was an American who happened to also be Catholic, but having to hear something similar in the first decade of the 21st Century by Mitt Romney is… well…a bit odd, like a giant step backwards. It might feel more natural if any of the people doing all this religious posturing actually appeared to be spiritually motivated; but as we move down the list of candidates it appears more like talk than walk. Also, is it just me, but do some of the candidates appear to be running more on a religious platform than one that actually informs us of their qualifications to run the country? We do have after all, a secular government protected by the Constitution.
Why do I so strongly object? Basically, although our nation is composed of people of many faiths and religious sects, I know this present rhetoric is mainly adopted to pander to individuals and groups based solely on their religious beliefs, and being passed off as “values.” It is inherently implied in the use of such terms that the user will in some way be influenced by these values when in a position of government leadership. It’s shocking just how many don’t understand why religion doesn’t belong in politics, and why, in fact, it’s quite dangerous. Much of the present tension in the Middle East, for example, exists because of the presence of so many theocratic governments.
This type of thinking immediately brings two serious concerns to mind: 1) The constituency of just about any political leader in present day United States represents a multitude of religious diversity, reflecting many varied belief systems and values, and 2) Religious beliefs often carry with them the implicit judgment of absolute rightness, a concept that is quite dangerous in life, politics, leadership, and especially in foreign affairs, where diplomacy and compromise are the keys to success, harmony and peace. A government believing they are absolutely right, morally obligated to never compromise, and thinking anyone in disagreement must be wrong, is a disaster waiting to happen, both to its own citizens and the world in general. That should be obvious by now. I’m not going to list all the many examples of the results of such policies prevalent in today’s world; the purpose of this piece is merely to state some obvious root causes, however apparently not obvious to so many.
Though the words “separation of church and state” don’t appear in the Constitution there is a very good reason why Thomas Jefferson made reference to the need for “building a wall of separation between church and state” in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. In the First Amendment the Constitution does state, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The very need to clarify that no laws will be made respecting religion implies the need for freedom of religious diversity. It recognizes that such diversity already exists, and must be protected. The possibility that government might be subject to strong influence by any particular religious values is thus inherently acknowledged as being detrimental.
Consider this: How many belief systems aside from religions are so absolute in declaring what is right and wrong? In fact, many religions explicitly warn against any sort of compromise or variance from their “way.” Some go as far as stating you will go to a Hell if you vary in any aspect. Others say you endanger yourself simply by hanging out with people that believe differently. Though I feel this is quite extreme, and contrary to how I perceive my own beliefs about life, I can fully comprehend why some feel they must believe their interpretation is the only true way and all others are damned. It’s simply the nature of many religions to make themselves right and others wrong. It’s a type of insurance policy guaranteeing their truth is “the Truth,” while also justifying themselves and the lives they lead. Besides, one does not compromise when the laws and “Word” of God are concerned. The fact that they believe God is Absolute makes this understandable.
Thus I will concede that any individual or group has the inherent right, and often the necessity, to believe as they will, and practice their particular faith as they desire -- in the privacy of their own religious establishments, homes and lives. Jefferson concurred, believing, “that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship...” Of course he also adds, “that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions...”
There is a reason for those last few words. Our nation does not consist of a population only believing one way about nearly anything, nonetheless religion. It now has a population exceeding 300 million and consists of those practicing just about every religion imaginable. Many, in fact, don’t believe in God. Some believe in God, but not religion, feeling that religion and spirituality don’t necessarily equate. It probably doesn’t matter who believes what, but it is important that the government respects what those people, as well as everyone else believes, and is willing and capable of compromising in a way they cannot.
There is no place for absolute right and wrong in a nation of free people. Though the majority may rule, this does not condone ignoring the inherent rights of all.
The great religious teachers have given us principles to live by, and did not intend for them to morph into constructs and icons that would ultimately limit the soul, instead of liberating it. Buddha taught that suffering stands in the way of happiness, and that the principle cause of suffering is attachment to desire. He attempted to teach others not to attach to the material, but rather “be in the world but not of it.” We might be more familiar with the cliché about enjoying material things but not being owned or controlled by them. Jesus led by example, demonstrating how to “love one another,” and “judge not lest thee be judged.” Gandhi preached passive resistance, and said of himself, that he was Christian, Muslim and Hindu. He saw no real distinction between people, and certainly didn’t think beliefs should separate them.
This is all common sense, and the kind of truth the heart (reflecting true self) recognizes. The mind, on the other hand, excels in taking simplicity and creating complexity. It sees right and wrong, white and black, good and evil, and revels in separateness, confusing it with independence. The heart knows we are all one at some ultimate level, linked by life and circumstance, and maybe purpose.
Perhaps it’s time we learned to live by the real principles we’ve been taught, those that lead to the wisdom of self knowledge, and leave behind those remnants of our societal and archetypical childhood. Perchance we would benefit from moving forward and living our truths, rather than memorizing and proselytizing them until they lose all practical significance. The Golden Rule, basically the idea of treating others as you wish to be treated, is the wisdom that runs through most of the great world religions and spiritual teachings. Personally, I belief it says it all, and surmise this is the truth one finally discovers when they have reached the end of their long religious/spiritual search. It sure seems incomprehensible that the intended goal or expression of life is best demonstrated by fear, hatred, anger, violence, war and "my God is better than your God!"
I’d like to see the day when this becomes the message of our political leadership, and replaces the separation rhetoric necessitated by pandering to specific groups and individuals who have chosen to separate themselves from others. That will be the day when it is realized that if indeed there is a god, it is everyone’s god, and requires nothing more than respecting ourselves and others as we would respect Him/Her/It.” It will be the day when the human race, as a whole, graduates out of moral and ethical kindergarten, evolves into the levels of higher awareness, and perhaps enlightenment. Aren’t we all ultimately just different acts in the same play?