I've been doing so much thinking about God. I guess when you attend a religious university, play a character in a production who questions who God is all the time, have a class that studies the world religions from a truly unbiased standpoint, and take a theatre history course where you analyze the Book of Job from a theatrical/mythological perspective... this will happen.
I was reading a book for yet another class, American Heritage, and my thoughts just started going. The ecclesiastical leader was challenging why we have to remove God from the political happenings of our country. He wasn't advocating a particular god over another, he was attibuting the moral values this country was founded on to a supreme being/force. He was also pointing out that our nation is ridding itself of the values that make it strong. Who do you offend when you leave God in or take him out of the Constitution? Does anytime God is mentioned in the important documents of our country refer to the Judeo-Christian deity? Does it have to? Do we have to remove God to be tolerant? Is it wrong to recognize a force of moral responsibility to found our country on? Is it blasphemous for an individual from a Judeo-Christian background to advocate this stance that appears to strip the traditional God of worship down to an idea? These are some of the questions tumbling around in my mind. Are people removing God to be tolerant or removing God to remove themselves from moral responsibility? I know that is assuming there is a universal moral right and wrong. But does believing that there are universal rights and wrongs automatically make an individual intolerant or unsusceptible to change?
I know I'm rambling and not making much sense. But as I was reading I wondered what the definition of an atheist is. What if you believe that there is only a force in the world? Or that there are only universal laws? There is no God in Taoism. Not that a Judeo-Christian tradition would consider. However, Tao, is a force that is revered. In tao there is no beginning or end. (Like alpha and the omega.) Taoists would never call themselves atheist however. But from a political perspective the word God would include Tao values, because Taoists believe in a universal force that promotes right-doing.
We had a discussion in my acting class about whether truth needed to be precisely adequate and raw in order to teach. Do we need to show the exact level of violence in a war movie as what was really experienced in order for people to understand? Do we need to use the profanity of a hardened criminal in order to come to terms with his/her courseness? The teacher was not advocating a particular answer but rather was calling our attention to how impressionable we are. How vulnerable we are in theatre to be shaped and molded by forces we allow to take control of us. (My thoughts again -->) Are we really free if we are bound to a society that spells out what tolerance is and what it is not? What reality is and what it is not? I don't know. I don't know.
I really hope that people will post their own ramblings. I'm not necessarily looking for answers but ideas, contrasting ideas about the world. If they are too private but you want to share email me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Regarding blasphemy- It has been said that blasphemy isn't really apostasy because it acknowledges the importance of religion (albeit indirectly). Someone who is questioning or criticizing God, religion, etc. is focused on those things and considers them important enough to occupy their time. Those people are usually looking for answers or a fight (maybe both?).
The majority of Americans don't care about abstact ideas of God or morality. The very vocal minorities on both sides of the tolerance issue, in particular, are so busy arguing back and forth that they don't notice nobody else is listening to them. A fanatic rarely sounds convincing to anyone but another fanatic, and to the indifferent anyone with an opinion at all seems like a fanatic.
I think freedom is a really tricky subject. To some people it's a state of mind, to others a state of being. Buzzwords like freedom and tolerance have as many definitions as there are people and ideologies, so the general sense of them is fuzzier than most words.
I think it's funny how much of religion and philosophy is really linguistics and semantics, red-faced fanatics yelling at each other in what are effectively different languages.
I sure did ramble for a while, but I'm bored at work and you asked for it. One last thing, I think there's no reason you shouldn't be looking for answers. Sure, they're tough to find and often contradictory, but I know I prefer multiple choice to an essay question.
well, i told you about my new religious outlook this summer, but let me tell you why religion and the government especially scare me (in some cases).
first of all, it concerns me that politicians, one of the professions most notorius for being crooked liars, are the ones bringing god into the government. look what george bush, christian extraordinare, has done with his "godly" presidency...attacked a country under false pretense that had never directly provoked us, among many other less-than-godly acts. i would say, like shane says about freedom and tolerance, that 'god' is a buzzword that has no leagal meaning. even among sects of christianity god means many different things. in documents that specifically spell out the exact (forgive me) freedoms we as americans are alloted i don't like to think that a word that has as much power and controversy surrounding it as the word god should go undefined. and in a court a defense of "god told me to do it" would never hold up, so why should it appear to hold in other parts the government? the problem with religious freedom is that it makes god undefinable.
it scares me that religion in government today is utilized to restrict our freedoms. exhibit: gay marraige. personally, i don't care if you're morally opposed to gay marraige, it shouldn't be illegal. no one should be able to tell a person they can't legally dedicate their life to another person and reap the benefits to which married couples are entitled. and if drunken teenagers can get hitched on a lark in vegas, why can't two men or two women be joined in a well considered union? personally, i think the institution of marriage is outmoded and slowly dying out, and let's not forget that it was founded on practices that basically gave women to men often in exchange for property.
a freedom that i'm terrified will be taken away from me is the right to have an abortion. now, i think abortion is morally wrong, but i don't think that old, rich white men should be able to tell me that i can't get one, beyond pregnancy complications and rape. and what about a woman who can't prove in court that she was raped? does that mean she's not legally entitled to an abortion?
women will seek out abortions no matter what; no laws will prevent it. personally, i rather know that my daughter (or good friend) was in the hands of a trained professional and not some butcher. and if we can't legally abort unwanted feti, where will the children go? certainly not to the happily married, deeply committed gay couples we won't allow to adopt them.
well those are all the thoughts i have about it at 1:00 am. trust me, i have many, many, maaaaaaaaaaaany more - for another time, though.
night! i love you!
Post a Comment