p03pr

Parliament of Religions, II

By John Taylor; 2008 Feb 17, 11 Mulk, 164 BE

Surfing the Net I came across some insightful comments made last September by Australian Catholic theologian Frank Brennan in defense of religion. Stranded in a hospital bed, a friend gave him a copy of "The God Delusion" and a few other volumes put out by anti-theists. In response, he writes,

"Dawkins claims that moderation in faith fosters fanaticism: even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes. Dawkins' take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism, as though that were some kind of perversion of real, decent religion.

"The same argument would not be put for scientific inquiry.

"Imagine a call to ban all scientific inquiry because those who engage in responsible scientific inquiry may be providing the opportunity for fanatics to harness science for their own purposes. Dawkins and his ilk think religious belief of any kind is meaningless, infantile and demeaning, so nothing is lost by agitating in the most illiberal way for the suppression of all religion and not just religious extremism which causes harm to others." <http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=2955>

This is an important response. I have seen others extend this to government. Anti-theists contend that religion is nothing but toxic waste because for thousands of years violence has been fomented by one sect against another. The defenders of faith reply: imagine a taxpayer refusing to pay taxes because hundreds of years ago governments sanctioned public cat burnings for the amusement of the rabble. The fact is that modern governments have not done such things for quite a while, so it is silly to hold them to account for the way things were. They contend that whatever the excesses in older religions and scriptures, that was then and this is now -- we have to judge any organization by what it stands for now, not by what it did centuries ago.

Brennan is on stable ground with this counterattack, but then he goes on to write that religion offers a way of making sense of the human dilemma that nothing else can.

"... Regardless of the knowledge provided us by the telescope and microscope, every person, every generation and every culture has to make existential sense of the abyss which will always lie beyond the reach of the telescope and the microscope."

 This is fair, but it surely does not go far enough. I am not completely satisfied. Surely we do not need religion to get an existential sense of well-being. That can be done alone, without organization. Surely we should expect more of religion than that.

I once heard a comment by a non-religious person that goes to the heart of this. A Christian had just gone on and on about how Jesus had gone to such trouble to see to it that even the smallest details in her life were blessed. The non-Christian responded: "My, what great concern your God has for trivialities, especially when so much is wrong with the big picture, what with millions of people starving and living hopeless lives and all..." This lukewarm objection I think religionists should take more seriously than a thousand calumnies by anti-theists. It goes to the heart of the matter. Baha'u'llah certainly seems to think so,

"O people of God. Do not busy yourselves in your own concerns; let your thoughts be fixed upon that which will rehabilitate the fortunes of mankind and sanctify the hearts and souls of men." (Gleanings, 93)

Such rehabilitation and sanctification is a far more worthy goal for religious expression than mere existential consolation. Faith is meant to be much more than a program of personal self-improvement, however worthwhile that may be. Compare religion, for instance, with the music industry.

From what I hear, the American public spends over a billion dollars yearly on musical entertainment. Presumably this expenditure is not wasted; the time and funds must be a kind of investment. If we see to it that there is music in our lives, that must be worth something or so many would not do it. When we buy a song or go to a concert we express our taste, we vote for a certain style. Each kind of musical production is dedicated to more than sounds, it stands for values. The good we get from our preoccupation with music must be fed back into the economy in reduced suicide rates, improved productivity in the workplace, fewer accidents, and so forth.

But even if music does not, it is completely supported by music lovers anyway, so this question is moot. My point is that the music industry pays its own way. It does not have the tax-free status that religion does. The anti-theists have a perfectly valid argument in this respect: government has an implicit contract with religion; it does not tax religious endowments because it gets far more in return than it gives. A religious population is more stable, coherent, obedient and tractable than an irreligious rabble. However as soon as you start getting religiously motivated people flying airliners into buildings, or openly fomenting hatred of one group for another, that contract is broken. Government has the right to ask, "Are we getting our money's worth by continuing to give tax-free status to these groups?"

That is as far as the debate has gone in the public forum, unfortunately.

In the Master's travels through Europe and America, He offered several counterbalancing principles which mediate and resolve this heated question.

The first step to religious harmony would be a standing parliament of religions where official representatives of all the world's faiths would come together to resolve their differences once and for all. They would not come together for more contention but to apply the following general principles.

Oneness of religion. This principle dictates that religious expression is a common heritage of the human race. Religious groups have a sacred duty to go beyond reluctantly acknowledging this common feature of all humans. They have a duty to actively uphold the fact that religion is basic to our humanity, no matter what culture we come from or what land we live in.

Religion is a Remedy. Like anything else except the Supreme Being Himself, faith is an appliance. Its worth is conditional upon the context, and if it ceases to do good the most religious act is to withdraw it, indeed to reject or, at best, reform it.

Religion is a Cause of Love. If a group spreads hatred or even a sense of false pride or superiority, it betrays the spirit of faith. It breaks the implicit contract between religion and government and should have its tax-free status revoked, at the very least.

The anti-theists are correct that religious leaders are mollycoddled.

If a minister or rabbi or mullah spouts hatred for others he or she should be subject to laws against libel, slander, spreading hate literature, and conspiracy to commit hate crimes, just the same as any private individual is. If there were a religious parliament, such laws would be supported by their faith's highest representatives on the international level.

Religion is a mighty bulwark, or do not go around flushing babies out with the bathwater. Once religions have ironed out their differences it will be possible for all children to benefit from the best of religious teaching. Teachers will be able to teach faith without advocating for one sect over another. The common, non-parochial aspects of religion will be agreed upon, indisputable and unchallengeable. A world curriculum would teach this to the next generation from an early age, thus ending the ignorance about the basics of faith that is pandemic among even the most educated in the West.

As long ago as Voltaire this question was being asked: why do religions fight with one another while members of the varied scientific "denominations," such as biologists, physicists, mathematicians, manage to get along so peacefully? There is only one thing that will ever offer a satisfactory answer to that question, and that is a standing parliament of religions. Passive recognition is not enough, all faiths have to get out of their hospital beds, as it were, and put this into reality.

As my favorite science teacher and environmental advocate put it, "With six million amazingly varied people, we may not share the same faith, but we do share the same planet." <http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjCcL1PN_Y> Myself, I believe that we share far more than physical background; we share a spiritual background too. It is increasingly clear that the only way religion will become part of the solution rather than the problem is to follow these principles assiduously.