Take everything below as an argument, not a personal attack. That isn’t my goal. I simply want to make one possible argument in an attempt to get you thinking.
Let us begin:
Recently, a lot of my friends have become… very dedicated to their religious views. Most importantly, many of my friends have become increasing dedicated to the absolutism of their religion. I hope to convince you that religious absolutism is not only dangerous, but fundamentally against much of what the Bible teaches us.
Before I state my case, I think I should define “religious absolutism.” I don’t mean absolutism in the political sense of a single ruler (think King Louis) having absolute control over a population (although surprisingly religious absolutism as I define leads to exactly that) : I mean raw, unquestionable devotion to a set of principles. Not just faith — but a dedicated and closed mind towards all other possibilities. When I say absolutism, I mean complete and total dedication and mental commitment to the absolute correctness of your ideas — and thus the in-correctness, or incomplete correctness, of others.
I’d like to begin from the Biblical standpoint.
For those of you unfamiliar with the book of Galatains (Epistle to the Galatains, really) let me give you a little background: In the early days of Christianity, Paul of Tarsus (yes, that Paul) was a little bit concerned with the practices of Masonic law (Moses) in some Christian communities. Paul was tired of discrimination between slightly different interpretations of Christianity. He writes:
Consider this:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28 (New International Version)
We can assume from the structure of the sentence (male/female, slave/free), that Jew/Greek is not refering to race, but to faith. Paul argues that we’re all the same under Christ Jesus — so stop toting your tiny little modification to a past interpretation of Christianity and be a good person. Right?
Colossians, another testament written by Paul in response to the prosecution and unholy mistreatment of Pagans in Laodicea, makes a similar argument:
“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” – Collosians 3:11.
Why does your denomination of Christianity make you better then others? Paul — yes, THAT Paul — clearly tells you that we’re ALL united under Jesus! Why should Martin Luther or Joseph Smith make a tiny bit of difference?
In another one of Paul’s letters, Romans, Paul declares:
“Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.” – Romans 15:7 (New International Version)
I am not a biblical scholar, but I would assume that acceptance extends past simply knowing that they are there. Paul argues that acceptance is not conditional — Just as Jesus accepted and forgave everyone — Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus — YOU SHOULD TOO. That doesn’t mean praying for them after they die to save them — that isn’t acceptance, that’s just masking your ego of superiority in mocking benevolence.
Peter writes:
“Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it.” Peter 3:8-11 (New International Version)
Humble guys, humble. Your acts of faith — all of them — should display HUMBLENESS. Not smugness. You should be open minded that what you believe might not actually be the best thing since sliced bread. You should not be so convinced — by self or by other — that you hold the ultimate answer, the absolute truth. That wouldn’t be very humble.
In James:
“if you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.” – James 2:8-9, NIV
Love your neighbor as yourself. Got it? Everybody? AS YOURSELF. Not as someone who may be a good person but not quite have the correct view, not someone who is “lost” or “needing to be shown the truth” — as YOURSELF. This isn’t my book — it’s yours. Don’t show favoritism — towards people or beliefs. You should be above that. You call yourself moral men: are you really?
Now, as fun as citing scripture is, I’d like to talk about the political and philosophical implications of religious absolutism. Foucault, a French philosopher, contends as follows:
It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them. This critique and this fight seem essential to me for different reasons: firstly, because political power goes much deeper than one suspects; there are centres and invisible, little-known points of support; its true resistance, its true solidity is perhaps where one doesn’t expect it. Probably it’s insufficient to say that behind the governments, behind the apparatus of the State, there is the dominant class; one must locate the point of activity, the places and forms in which its domination is exercised. And because this domination is not simply the expression in political terms of economic exploitation, it is its instrument and, to a large extent, the condition which makes it possible; the suppression of the one is achieved through the exhaustive discernment of the other. Well, if one fails to recognise these points of support of class power, one risks allowing them to continue to exist; and to see this class power reconstitute itself even after an apparent revolutionary process.” – Foucault, Professor, College de France, “Human Nature: Justice Versus Power,” Noam Chomsky Debates with Michel Foucault, International Philosophers Project, 1971. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm, accessed 4/30/05. “
Criticism of philosophical absolutes is our ultimate responsibility – if you want to take about the TRUTH of purpose, then once you’ve stopped asking questions, you haven’t found the answer, you’ve simply shut up and accepted the view of the world we have now. Once you are confident in your correctness, you stop asking “why” — you stop wondering what the implications of your beliefs are, and most importantly, you stop questioning why those beliefs are there in the first place.
Foucault also states:
The nature of these rules allows violence to be inflicted on violence and the resurgence of new forces that sufficiently strong to dominate those in power. Rules are empty in themselves, violent and unfinalized; they are impersonal and can be bent to any purpose. The successes of history belong to those who are capable of seizing these rules, to replace those who had used them, to disguise themselves so as to prevent them, invert their meaning, and redirect them against those who had initially imposed them; controlling this complex mechanism, they will make it function so as to overcome the rulers through their own rules. The isolation of different points of emergence does not conform them to the successive configurations of an identical meaning; rather, they result from substitutions, displacements, disguised conquests, and systematic reversals. If interpretation were only the slow exposure of the meaning hidden in an origin, then only metaphysics could interpret the development of humanity. But if interpretation is the violent or surreptitious appropriation of a system of rules, which in itself has no essential meaning, in order to impose a direction, to bend it a new will, to force its participation in a different game, and to subject it to secondary rules, then the development of humanity is a series of interpretations. The role of genealogy is to record its history: the history of morals, ideals, and metaphysical concepts, the history of the concept of liberty, or of the ascetic life; as they stand for the emergence of different interpretations, they must be made to appear as events on the stage of historical process. – Foucault, renowned philosopher, Winter 1995, Critical Inquity, p151-152
Your thoughts, your beliefs, your “faith”, YOUR absolute truth, is simply one “violent or surreptitious appropriation of a system of rules.” You can not claim absolute correctness because absolute correctness (in terms of religion and philosophy) does not exist.
Don’t get all upset over my argument. Don’t consider it a personal attack, either. If you’re really comfortable with your faith, this won’t even phase you — right? Maybe you should think about your “absolute” views and their implications… that’s all I’m saying.
Fin.
Perhaps so much should not occur this late at night. Or, I suppose, early in the morning. As a scholar, I merely advise that anyone reading this consider it… scholarly.
I think Romans 2:11 says it best: For God does not show favoritism.
