Post No.: 0815
Furrywisepuppy says:
In this post, we’re going to expand on Post No.: 0791 in order to start improving our religious literacy…
So the first thing to understand is that religions are internally diverse – for example, a ‘Christian’ could mean Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Christian or Protestant, amongst others. Protestantism could even be further subdivided into Anglican, Methodist or Presbyterian, for instance. Many independent Pentecostalist churches have developed too. They’re so internally diverse that different groups of Christians can even enter conflicts against each other, like Roman Catholic versus Protestant Christians.
For Muslims, we have Shia versus Sunni Muslims, for example. There are different interpretations of Sharia, which refers to the path or way that leads humanity towards salvation. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, there’s nothing in the Islamic tradition that’s equivalent to an international organisation with a leader and a body of doctrine and law that all Catholics worldwide should follow. This results in a vast diversity of opinion regarding the way Muslims ought to think and behave. Consequently, knowing someone is a ‘Muslim’ won’t tell us as much about them as we might think.
Well, as individuals, we’re each a complex mix of many cultural, political, social and economic influences and identities hence it’s folly to try to define someone by a single label. Therefore even if we encounter a bunch of people who follow the same strand of religion, we shouldn’t stereotype people, in either a wholly good or wholly bad way.
Concerning questions of ethics or humanity’s place in the universe – ‘religious’ people don’t always answer these questions by simply referring to the template provided by their religion. Whether religious or non-religious, our attitudes and beliefs are influenced by a variety of sources. Thus even knowing what religious denomination or division someone identifies with is insufficient to assume their positions on all issues. This means you might easily meet someone who identifies as both Muslim and homosexual, or Christian and pro-choice regarding abortion. This highlights the difference between someone’s religion on paper, as opposed to their religion as lived by them. Religions have a lot to say about sexual relations, for instance, yet there are different opinions within religious traditions regarding many, if not all, controversial issues.
Religion, as lived, isn’t about what people should or shouldn’t do but is about what they actually do and don’t do. And some people view their religion as all encompassing in their lives, while others view their religion as more like an add-on to their lives where they occasionally participate in ceremonies. People might even sometimes join in with ceremonies of religions to which they don’t belong. Some people regard themselves as spiritual rather than religious or non-religious. And what defines the difference between a religion, a philosophy or a cult?
With this much internal diversity amongst religious traditions, we won’t exactly know what the position of a particular pious individual or group is on an issue unless we strike a dialogue with and ask, instead of presume or pigeonhole, people.
Religions are also dynamic and evolving. Despite the impression we may get from religious leaders trying to protect their traditions and ‘the timeless truth’ – religions aren’t static entities. Change might, say, come as a reaction to systemic allegations of misconduct within a Church. Since religions can and do evolve, like the gradual acceptance of women’s religious ordination – constructive, open-ended dialogues are worthwhile, even if it might take decades for change to happen.
Religious traditions are even sometimes evoked to inspire social change, which can end up changing both society and sometimes those religious traditions themselves. Mahatma Gandhi, for instance, drew upon the principles of religious asceticism to create a widespread activist movement for an independent India.
The same change can be perceived as good or bad depending on one’s perspective though, hence change isn’t always welcome. And when an individual or group senses that their religious identity or traditions are being threatened, they can sometimes react in antisocial or violent ways. (We might also argue that if someone disagrees with a facet of a particular religion then instead of attempt to change that religion, they should try to create their own religion with the particular rules they want, or be irreligious!) But should religion act as the conservative voice that preserves traditions or should religion adapt as society changes?
Well religion and culture are typically so intermeshed that it’s inapt to try to disentangle them from each other. Religion is so intertwined within culture, which means that as culture changes, religious beliefs and behaviours can also change.
Sometimes change in religion is presented as an attempt to preserve unchanging principles – usually by advocating a return to the purest, most ‘fundamental’ interpretations of sacred texts. Yet even such advocates often engage with new technology (e.g. social media) to spread or reinforce their messages!
Individuals are dynamic and changing too, not just religions. This again means that dialogue is worthwhile and peaceful negotiation is possible, if we’re cordial.
Those who attempt to liberalise their religion from within will tend to find it difficult to do though – especially in authoritarian states, where they may be sentenced to death for being heretics. Those who attempt to bring greater freedoms and peace can therefore end up personally facing restrictions and violence. However, in practice, accusations of apostasy usually come from individuals and groups rather than governments. Regardless, it can be naïve for outsiders to expect those on the inside to find it easy to change the way they adhere to their traditions.
Religions encompass many aspects of human culture and behaviour too – people are often inspired by religion to engage in public activities, from volunteering in charity events to joining extremist groups. Most religions have a communal element, and although they don’t always require participants to eat the same foods, wear the same costumes or abstain from the same activities – they usually encourage communities to celebrate similar things and share similar thoughts and goals.
The ‘church’ (religion) and ‘state’ (public/political life) are separated by various degrees in different countries. Religious beliefs have historically influenced what became secular law, but if religion is thought of as primarily a set of beliefs (like a belief in God) rather than a way of behaving, then it can be seen as essentially a private matter and thus shouldn’t influence politics or the law directly. And because it is a private matter (as if it should not be talked about in polite society, like sex), it’s therefore argued that those who hold different religious beliefs should be able to live together harmoniously and, provided they do so, governments shouldn’t interfere with religion. The same laws should apply to all citizens regardless of their religion or non-religion. Thus the right to freedom of religion isn’t matched by a right to do whatever one likes in the name of religion – and certain public acts of religion will be seen as ‘extremism’ or even ‘separatism’. (The 1648 Peace of Westphalia peace accords historically established the right to private religious beliefs in the Holy Roman Empire.)
Yet if religion is too private a matter, it could be argued that it defeats the point of its existence. Some therefore view religion as a public matter and should act as a guide to public behaviour.
In some cases, governments do allow people to follow their own religious rules (e.g. regarding matters of divorce, annulment and child custody), as long as they also keep to the requirements of civilian law. In these cases, these religious rulings don’t affect the legal civil status of those who participate – because the law applies to everyone equally regardless of their religious affiliation. Different countries may have different relevant laws though, and sometimes the law permits religious minorities to carry out practices or traditions that are illegal in the wider community, like halal animal slaughter practices; and sometimes the rights of individuals to affiliate with another religion or to identify as non-religious are severely restricted, like regarding the public dress code.
The extent to which a person has the freedom to choose what they wear can depend on their secular place of work or study too i.e. work and school uniforms – so it’s not just religion compelling us to dress in a certain way. There are public indecency laws too. The law can limit religious expression, but social and cultural expectations also limit our choice and behaviour in many everyday contexts. How do you decide what to wear at a wedding or a funeral? We may claim that it’s our choice, yet it so often happens to be whatever is socially expected of us or whatever respects others.
Many non-Muslims believe that in countries where Muslims are a minority, wearing a veil should be banned for everyone. They believe that women who wear the veil are pressured into doing so by their families. But the reverse seems to be more the case, in a country like the UK at least. They may wear a veil because they wish to identify as Muslim or they may truly believe that this is what Islam requires. This is another example of why we mustn’t jump to assumptions about religious people.
As with missionary, evangelistic, or perhaps straightforward PR and marketing, activities – religious groups frequently spread their messages and want others to join them, or to at least sympathise with them. Keeping quiet about what they believe is good or is of vital importance to society might be to undermine their very worldview or way of life. But many governments ban religious groups who are believed to incite violence, sedition or have the potential to destabilise the government.
Even though they’re often accompanied with missionary objectives, religious groups run a lot of charitable activities. Charity is built into many religions – some religions even require their followers to give a regular donation of aid or alms to others as a quite ordinary thing to do without any fluffy fanfare, the encouragement of celebrities, raffle prizes, or only as a response to the latest disaster.
Religions may inspire people to protest, for better or worse depending on whether you agree with the stance being advocated. Religions are sometimes on both sides of controversial issues (e.g. in the run-up to the American Civil War, slavery was viewed as a social fact by the Old Testament according to many Southerners, whereas Northerners saw that the New Testament supported a cause for the abolition of slavery). Attempting to justify your stances with religion can perhaps make it appear like ‘an immutable, timeless or higher truth’, which can be more emotionally persuasive than plain facts.
Even those who don’t consider themselves as religious frequently have spiritual, superstitious or cultural beliefs or traditions that have historical roots in, or have been inspired by, religions (e.g. eating fish every Friday, praying to a higher force for good fortune, wearing religious symbols as jewellery, believing in ‘acts of God’ when it comes to insurance, celebrating Easter, Christmas or Saint Patrick’s Day (holidays i.e. holy days), believing in the spirits of the deceased, that good dogs go to heaven – woof woof!) What started out as a religious observance sometimes evolves into a habit or tradition within mainstream culture without us knowing its roots. So much historic art has religious connotations too.
Every choice – to conform, resist or rebel – is unconsciously, subconsciously or consciously influenced to some degree by the previous choices of our own or by other people. And that’s how culture gradually evolves. It’s also how religions evolve (religion is, after all, a subset of culture) and can consequently become diverse within, as well as between, them. However, when people attempt to mix cultures, they might sometimes be accused of cultural appropriation(!)
Woof! Please use the Twitter comment button below if you want to give any examples of how religions are internally diverse, are dynamic and evolving; and how they encompass many aspects of human culture and behaviour.
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
