Saturday, February 7, 2015

Religious Extremists

Spielberg at Auschwitz Memorial
There was a statement by Steven Spielberg that made me think. He was talking about some of the recent violence against Jews. He said said one of the main sources of hatred was religious extremism. My thought was what the phrase means. It has to do with the quantity of your religion rather than the quality. That is the problem is not bad religion but rather too much religion. It suggests the solution is not to find a better religion but rather to simply believe whatever religion you have less intensely. 

I know he was not trying to make a controversial religious statement. I rather suspect he was going for the opposite. That is the point. This is the kind of thing people say without thinking about it. I should not pick on Spielberg. Any number of folks are making similar points.

It really does not make any sense. Religion is something extreme. It is the answer to life's biggest questions. What is the meaning and purpose of my life? What happens after I die? How can I know what is highest good or highest truth?  If we have answers to these questions they have to have an extreme impact on us. If a religion does not give you something to live for and something to die for then why bother with it? 

The truth is that it is the content of the religion that is the problem rather than the intensity of it. That is one of the ways to evaluate a religion. Ask yourself about the people who believe it most intensely. Are they good people or are they scary? Catholicism has its saints. There is no better way to evaluate the faith than looking at the saints. Do you want to be more like they are? 

When it comes to violence the key question to ask is if a religion respects the dignity of the human person even if that person does not believe that religion? Do Christians respect non-Christians? Do Jews respect gentiles? Do Muslims respect non-Muslims?  How well developed and consistent is this teaching? Does that religious group have a strong consensus around the idea that non-adherents do have the right to live and to put forward ideas that are offensive to their faith?

The reason Spielberg does not go there is obvious. To ask the question is to answer it. They one major religion that lacks that strong consensus is Islam. All other religions seem to have a few people who have gone nuts but very few. The vast majority of even very strong adherents do not believe in violence even against their most offensive opponents. 

Islam is a different story. From Al Qaueda or Boko Haram to ISIS to Hamas we have Muslims concluding over and over that violence is the way to go. Even extreme violence against defenseless people. It is not that they are too religious. It is that they have embraced the wrong religion. 

Spielberg can't say that. Modern society has as a dogma that all religious are the same. They give you some comfort. They give you some guilt. They give you some holidays. The trouble is it isn't true. They are not all the same. 

2 comments:

  1. The dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus has changed for the Catholic Church and there is no resistance to it.

    February 10, 2015

    What about the dogma on salvation which has 'evolved' for Fr.Zuhlsdorf ?

    What about the dogma on salvation which has 'evolved' for Fr.Zuhlsdorf ? If you can get rid of an infallible teaching you can get rid of anything. Hilary White on LifeSites quotes Cardinal Raymond Burke saying "I will resist".

    Yes - but Hilary White(LifeSites.com) and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf do not resist when extra ecclesiam nulla salus is discarded due to their being known exceptions to the defined dogma ( even when these exceptions refer to deceased persons).

    Of course the Eucharist should not be given to Catholics living in adultery and yes it should not also be given to Catholics who reject an infallible teaching in public.

    -Lionel Andrades

    February 10, 2015
    Fr.John Zuhlsdorf made an objective mistake : irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/frjohn-zuhlsdorf-made-objective-mistake.html

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-i-will-resist-the-pope-should-he-contravene-doctrine?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b036b89321-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-b036b89321-398478861

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/what-about-dogma-on-salvation-which-has.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. The question I always ask is, "How can God prove you wrong?" If God disagreed with you and wanted to show you His word was something other than you opinion then how could he do it? If the magisterium teaches one thing and you go looking for another magisterium then it seems to make you unteachable. That can be true for those more liberal than the church and true for those more conservative than the church. You need to leave the door open to the chance you might be wrong.

    ReplyDelete