Sorry for not posting in awhile.
After going through Reveille training, I am definately pumped about being an opinion columnist, and I couldn't be happier about my beat. Religion....
I know that this is going to get me a good sack of hate-mail...which only adds to the allure.
Here's the deal. No matter how you look at it, religion in any meaningful form is essentially ludicrous. Since virtually no fundamental aspect of religion can be verified scientifically, human experience, emotions, and, frankly, imaginations are free to run wild. The result? Probably the most staggeringly diverse, and, to be honest, wierd stuff in existence. The unadulterated potential of the human mind translates relatively freely into religious experiences, leading to a wealth of intellectual and emotional material...material that is fascinating to discuss.
This is, of course, only possible in an environment where open discussion is not only permitted, but encouraged. Religion is utterly empty and virtually meaningless if it is not discussed honestly and seriously. And any religion is intellectually inferior if it is never challenged, if presiding doctrine chokes out freedom of discussion.
That is the one basic rule that I will try my hardest to stick to in my writings...I will not attack anyone's beliefs about the existence of a higher power, no matter how ludicrous it may be. Even if Tom cruise believes that we are actually the imprisoned spirits of extra-terrestrials, I will not question his sanity, as tempting as that may be.
That does not, however, mean that I will not criticize any religious view. Especially in the more well-established faiths, certain views may be (as I perceive them), contrary to the teachings of the mainstream faith itself. Christianity is likely to bear the most discussion in this manner, as it is personally the faith I am most familar with (because I am personally a Christian).
In addition, as it is an opinion column, I may on occasion point out what it is that would prevent me from ascribing to a particular faith tradition. I might, for example, say that I take issue with the Catholic Church's religious totalitarianism as I percieve it, or perhaps take issue with the fundamentalist obsession with intervening in issues that I believe to be inherently secular.
If I do happen to disagree with a particular faith, I am in no way, shape, or form contending that a person who believes in that faith is a fool. I am likely not even contending that they are necessarily wrong. It is one of the fundamental truths as I see it that to claim you know, for a fact, that you are right, and that everyone who does not believe like you is not just wrong but stupid, is foolishness on a staggering level. Unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, using physical evidence (sorry folks, there ain't such proof about the Bible) that something is a fact, then calling someone a fool for not believing as you do is utterly conceited.
In the end, I firmly believe that we'll all show up in the afterlife, and all of our petty claims to understanding will be laid bare for the half-truths they are. Like a parent patiently explaining the ways of the world to his bickering children, God will reveal that all of the hatred and conflict caused by religious differences is pointless and infantile.
That is not to say that we shouldn't try. I believe firmly that, even though it may be futile, there is something inherently noble about trying to attune ourselves to something beyond ourselves.
So, anyway, I thought I'd lay out my broadest views on religious discussion, so that you know where I'm coming from when...if...you read my columns.
See you this semester.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Ahh, Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment