Well, I know I will get in trouble
over this essay. People aren't very tolerant of other ideas when they
don't include their own.
All religions share some basic tenents.
They all have a basic moral code. They are all concerned with an afterlife
(perhaps the main distinction between philosophy and religion). And
each one has a vested interest in believing they are the "right"
one (although Buddhism is very tolerant of other religions, and even
incorporate them, as in Taoism).
My big complaint about Christianity
is the "missionary" directive. The underlying premise is that
Christianity is the "one right way", and everyone else is
misguided and doomed to hell. Millions of people have died directly
as a result of this self-righteous ideology, either in religious wars,
inquisitions, or conquering the "New World." Once you believe
that you are right and someone else is wrong, you can exercise power
and control over them because you have God's blessing. And, indeed,
this blessing has been given again and again in the Old Testament (justifying
the conquest of Canaan, for example). This is why the Spanish Conquistadores
had no trouble enslaving and massacring Amerindians.
Personally, I have problems with Christianity.
I have great trouble believing in the type of God that is being promoted.
But I still believe in God, just something on a different scale (for
me, God=Life, all life). I also have much difficulty with the more mystical
components, like a "virgin birth", or being "raised from
the dead", or anticipating a future (judgement day). I don't buy
any of it. It seems too much like superstion. To me, the greatest miracle
is that LIFE even exists at all!!
There are some things I like about
Christianity. I like the Golden Rule, although most pay only "lip
service" to it. My personal code of ethics is based on this and
other codes of morality based on the New Testament. After all, I was
raised a Lutheran.
However, NO-ONE has the right to tell
another how to live or what to believe in. If I want nothing to do with
church, that should be my option. If I choose not to buy into Christianity's
justification for being the "one true religion", I should
not have that philosophy imposed on me by Christians.
There is a case being looked at now
where lawmakers are trying to get the 10 commandments posted in a school.
This is a prime case of self-justification.
Abortion is an example of Christian
morality being forced on the general population. This should be a matter
of choice for the people involved, and no-one else.
The teaching of "Evolution"
is questioned, and in the case of Wichita, thrown out in favor of teaching
"Creationism" instead. This example is too obvious to even
talk about. Who's version of Creation? One guess. Actually, I think
Evolution should be questioned, but I'm much more secure with that than
Creation. Science is constant questioning. That's the idea.
I must say, though, that most of the political and social
difficulties have been created by "fundamentalists". Let's
not restrict our use of this term to Islam. Christianity has great difficulty
with this. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson stick out in my mind.
I have been reading a lot of Eastern
philosophy lately, particularly the "Tao Te Ching" by Lao
Tszu. Mostly, it's a code of conduct and a way of looking at the world
around us. It says that the change has to come inside us. You can't
go around changing people around you. Only they can do that. You can
teach by example. Eastern thought is "inward" directed, not
"outward" as most other religions tend to be. This seems right
to me. I can change no-one except myself. If my neighbor thinks I live
in a "good and right way", perhaps they will adopt this way
as their own. Perhaps not. All I can do is continue living in a way
that seems right to me.
So, if you don't preach to me and tell
me how you think I should live, I will do the same for you!