The Status of Religion:
After almost 70 years of living I have seen a lot of changes in the world and the way Americans live. For a distinct minority on the planet, things are really great---we have a zillion conveniences, great big houses, immediate access to information or entertainment of any sort, the best of almost any kind of food a hop, skip, and jump away, and sometimes---for those of us in this category---it almost seems lavishly obscene. At the other end are people whose lives are as bad as at any time in world history, especially if one goes by the huge number living in these sordid conditions. We really do live in the best and worst of worlds.
But what about religion? What is the status of religion in the world? Are people in general more or less religious? Maybe the question is oxymoronish in that by human nature humans tend to be religious. Evolution is most often associated with, and studied based on, evolved physical changes to differing species over millions of years. Yet there are other aspects of evolution a lot less tangible but no less significant, and morality is one of them. Somewhere along evolutionary pathway morality appeared on the scene. Perhaps morality is nothing more than a product of increased intelligence. With increased intelligence comes a realization of how limited our understanding of many things really is, and what the consequences of actions towards others can be. There is a reason why the basic tenant of almost all modern religions is the Golden Rule---to demand fairness for yourself it follows that you owe fairness to others. To be different yourself you have to tolerate differences in others. Overlaying all of this is the concept of an afterlife. No one wants their own life to really, really, truly end. Life is a bitch and then you die-----no, no, no---it has to be more than that----some version of the 'Audacity of Hope'------and a suspicion that maybe how we live our lives on earth determines who gets an afterlife. From this mixture comes religion.
But what exactly is meant by religion---Ethics? Sectarianism? Belief in God? If we look at religion today based on any of the three aforementioned we arrive at different conclusions. My own perspective is that basic morality is embedded in human nature. Almost everyone everywhere knows basic right and wrong---not to kill, steal, etc.-----and the only question is whether one will do right rather than wrong. Thus, to me, ethics is part of human evolutionary history. What kind of priority anyone gives to ethics will vary depending on genetic aspects of their personality and their environment.
Clearly in this country church attendance is down. Sectarianism is on the wane. It is not often even part of social conversation outside of sectarian gatherings. I seldom know what religion anyone is in any general social gathering or with casual acquaintances. With this kind of indifferent environment there naturally develops a strong backlash from sectarians deep in some faith based mode. From their perspective all the many problems of our society stem from this decreased church attendance and involvement. Based on my few years teaching high school and many years teaching college I don't detect much correlation between church attendance and a person's ethics. The exception here was tolerance to diversity. Serious church goers seldom have the tolerance to diversity compared to non church goers. With sectarianism comes a lot of religious dogma---faith based dogma---and each sectarian member is faced with the dilemma of whether they can ever, in good conscience, deny the validity of any of their inherited dogma. If some of their faith based dogma is not true, then it sort of undercuts all of the dogma. The more top heavy and strict the religious sect, the greater the dilemma. Religious sectarianism, by definition, does not not leave a lot of room for freedom of thought about ethical matters, or any growth either. How can something ordained by church elders to be wrong for decades or centuries now suddenly be right?
With the passage of historical time a cumulative understanding of ethics evolves and matures, becomes more logically based as opposed to faith based, and with increased communication among people via modern methods of communication, it becomes increasingly difficult to 'protect' church members from modern ethical notions. This whole dilemma is compounded by the likelihood that the sectarian dogma was an inherited package rather than any elected, self thought through process. There often become select dogmas which fly in the face of what a particular person is exposed to in their life. When one sees a good person being unnecessarily discriminated against based on some particular religious dogma, it leads to mental stress about the dogma in question. Once dogmas become selectively discredited, church attendance becomes more unsettling than assuring, a sort of 'what else in these dogmas is not valid?'
What has changed over the years is ethics as a product of personal logic rather than packaged ethics by ordained church elders. It is a lot more difficult today for church elders to isolate church members from media generated ethical matters. People of differing faiths and lifestyles are much more 'in our face'----personally and via the media. So many matters once kept under wrap and out of sight are now open and permeate our lives at work, in public events, on TV, in the movies, etc. 'Political correctness' is both an annoyance and forced enlightenment. Social adjustments, in terms of equal opportunity, by definition create a more competitive job market, create reverse discrimination stresses, and starts in motion a pendulum which swings to extremes before it ever settles in the middle. Ethical justice always comes with a price and emotional tensions galore.
Ethical progress among differing religious, ethnic, or political groups generates both fairness and strong emotional resentments all in one ball of wax. No group has any monopoly on qualities which everyone finds admirable. Bad apples of various ilk in all these groups cloud any perfect conception of justice and fairness for all concerned. There is always less conflict if one cannot identify a member of a group on sight by color or dress. Little personal contact with members of any differing group fosters presumptions which otherwise would be dispelled. Of course personal contact with a 'bad apple' from the differing group cements already suspected negative notions, and thus theoretical ethics is trumped by experienced reality.
According to polls almost all Americans believe in God. I suppose in that sense religion is as strong as ever, maybe even stronger. At the same time sectarian allegiance is at an all time low. Polls on various behaviors (like abortion, birth control, homosexuality, war, guns, etc) now show little correlation with religious preference. More and more people tend to arrive at their own conclusions based on experience or media input. Back when I taught it always startled my preconceptions when I would advise a student with a personal problem involving ethics that they might talk to their minister or priest. It was almost always discarded as an absurdity, an option automatically off the table, and even by those who attended church regularly. The full meaning of this is probably complicated but it seemed to indicate the disappearing relevance of church authorities to ethical decisions. The 'just say NO' approach to ethical behaviors is routinely dismissed by young people as mindless dictatorial authoritarian archaic babble by irrelevant aged figures and based on past but now inoperative realities. And sometimes, of course it is true. And sometimes, of course, it might not be true. The logic of 'just say NO' is no more valid than 'just say YES'. Reminds one of the "Because I say so" mentality of child rearing.
In my own life, which of course has little relevance to the life of anyone else, I feel totally more religious today than when I was active in sectarian religious attendance. But I also am quite aware than many people find the strength to do right because they are active in a church. Unfortunately some other people find the strength to do wrong by being an active member of a church. Much of the needless slaughter, intolerance, and conflict across the globe is by dogmatic emotionally charged religious extremists of about every ilk with the exception of Buddhists and Quakers---sects like these have managed, for the most part, to keep violence out of their religion.
I guess religion, as it always has been in human history, is quite alive and well, but just comes packaged differently today than when I was younger. The major problems today are not so much one of ethics as the will to do the right thing. We know we should protect the environment, we know we should not be launching killing fields across the globe, we know that we should respect the sovereignty of other nations, we know that we should not permit the wealth of our nation to become concentrated in the hands of a few, we know that greed satisfied at the expense of others is unethical, we know that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We really do know all this. Unfortunately, logic and emotions do not mix well. Sometimes logic wins out, other times emotions win out. Most human actions and plans gravitate toward personal economic growth and defense of our own biases. If we know anything we know what we like and don't like. What we don't like is to have other people's misery too much in our face. How much personal contentment can really be achieved with the orphans of Dafar, or people without health care, or the kids of our ghettoes too much on our mind? I mean, what IS, IS---and none of us can individually change any of it---and people like Obama who dwell on shit like this are naive or insincere, and at the very least not to be trusted lest they open Pandora's box and let loose pent up fury that could disrupt our own lives in unpredictable ways. And besides, domestic and world problems are too many, too ingrained, too unsolvable so just let things be, things will work out somehow if we just be patient. Let's not lose the gains many of us personally have achieved by having some genetic mutt stirring up people best left undisturbed. If this guy gets in what is the price the haves might have to pay to improve the lot of the have-nots? Just how far will sharing go? How much tolerance might be demanded? And besides, there is absolutely no way governments can control overpopulation, or stop climate change, and we don't want to think about this stuff anymore. Enough is enough and George Bush tells us that everything is basically in good shape, that America is strong, the 'bad' guys---with enough surges---will all be defeated or dead, and peace and prosperity for all is just around the corner---not to worry.
At any rate religion of a different sort abounds across the globe, people understand right from wrong, but whether humans can generate the strength to do the right and not the wrong is the crux of the matter. Most everyone believes in God, knows right from wrong, but is overwhelmed by the size and number of modern day problems affecting human existence.
Me, I think I will take a nap now till I wake up hungry, then gorge myself and go feed Reba the Horse. Life, as far as I can see, in my own world, is just fine.
