the one true way... to something scary

[mellowtigger]

Monotheism is once again scaring me.

I'd heard about "The Family" recently, but kauko reminds me about it today.  They're a Christian group that teaches things like "Morality is for the little people" (rules of decency do not apply to those in power), "Jesus plus nothing" (meaning essentially the totalitarianism of Jesus-ites), and "Be more like Hitler" (demanding complete devotion to party and goals over personal life or standards).  Scary, scary stuff.

Then today the headline comes in from Israel about a GLBT youth meeting ambushed by a masked killer, leaving at least 3 of these kids dead.

I repeat a previous statement of mine that monotheism is a great threat to world peace.  I'll try to pay more attention to polytheist news to see if this kind of savagery is apparent there too.  I don't really expect human nature to differ immensely from one group to another.  I do expect, however, that the reinforcements of "one true way" thinking are responsible for removing important barriers to some of the darker motivations in human nature.  After all, nothing is too shocking if (your belief of) God wants it that way.

Coincidentally, today I splurged and spent some money on a pirate fish pastafarian t-shirt.  I'll consider sending some money to the buddhists and the hindus, since I've done my bit to support the atheists for today.

Comments

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

You might also consider a donation to your local Sikhs; it's my understanding that Sikhism is alone in the monotheistic faiths in affirming religious freedom - that everyone has the right to believe as they choose without coercion. Of course, their take on monotheism is rather different than the Abrahamic faiths, but still.

Not to mention that many Sikh gentlemen have really great beards. :-{)###>

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

nope, polytheism is no better

viz Hindus and Sikhs in India, the Hindus and Buddhist in Sri Lanka, Tibetan Buddhists having spent centuries trying to wipe each other out, and the numerous historical examples like the Romans, Greeks, Persians, the African Kingdoms, the Mayans, Aztecs, Toltecs etc. etc etc etc.

all of the major religions have been used at one time or another to justify intolerance, war, oppression, theft, racial pogroms, etc.

[mellowtigger]

I'm really late getting back to this question, but...

I don't think that enlisting the help of a war god (and yes, there are many) in a conflict of man's choosing is the same thing as beginning a war at the behest of the god.

I wonder if any historians have teased apart this distinction yet? How many wars of human history have been fought because a deity ordered the destruction of another group of people? (Excluding, for this purpose, the kingdoms in which the human ruler is also the local personified deity.)

I can see lots of opportunity for that sort of thing to happen. Are neighbors hunting the animals that you need for food? Well, conveniently enough, the god of the forest is angry at these intruders and wants you to destroy them! That sort of thing. I'm just wondering if history actually played out that way.

[kauko.livejournal.com]

I'll try to pay more attention to polytheist news to see if this kind of savagery is apparent there too.

Sadly, Hinduism has its own forms of fundamentalism that can be just as backward thinking as monotheistic fundamentalists. Seems like in the final examination, no religion is above criticism. Buddhism does seem to be the 'world religion' with the least blood on its hands.

Its funny, I just picked up Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon off my bookshelf the other day and started reading it and she has a long section on the nature of polytheism vs. monotheism (of course she sides more with polytheism as she herself and the book take a favorable look at Neo-paganism over montheistic religions). She makes the, perhaps not new argument, that polytheism, by its very nature, lends itself to religous tolerance, while monotheism tends towards authoritarianism, absolutism and exclusivity. Historically, this does seem to be the case. But does that mean that polytheism has no insidence of intolerance or bloodshed, or that people of great religious tolerance, understanding and compassion are never found in monotheism? Of course not. As you say, the negative aspects of religion can manifest themselves in any relious tradition especially when it turns into a theology of 'my faith is The Truth and all others are false'.

Anyway, didn't mean to ramble on in lecture mode (I did after all spend 8 years in college working on a degree in Religious Studies :), time for bed now.

[mellowtigger]

If you'll check back on this thread, do you happen to know any material that would answer my question to bitterlawngnome?

And years ago I read a Tricycle edition which talked about records of Buddhist monks taking up arms in some national conflict or other (maybe Japan in WW II?), and how they had to face the fact that they also were not a strictly pacifist religion in world history. They could succumb to emotional rhetoric too. At least they have the good sense to admit it.

[bearbarry.livejournal.com]

Using religion to justify harming others is like putting ketchup on a turd. "I've been washed in the blood so I can do no wrong." It is an attempt to shift the responsibility for your actions onto a "higher power." You might want to check into the works of Joseph Campbell. He did a wonderful job explaining the roots of all the major religions.

[mellowtigger]

Yes, I've seen some of his work before, and he weaves a very nice narrative.

I like your phrase though. *laugh*

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Interesting to read this, especially after a small scale of "My Way Is The TRUTH" from last night.

Some friends of mine invited me over for a barbecue with two of their neighbors, the pastor from the church just down the block and his wife. After eating the conversation turned to religious beliefs and about 15 minutes later I realized, "Oh! They're witnessing!"

I have a hard time with that sort of stuff. I mean I have my beliefs, but just because I belive 'em doesn't mean I'm wrong.

[mellowtigger]

There are still some baptist sects in America that don't proselytize. (I grew up in one of them.) But the missionaries definitely took most of the congregations in our country.

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

hmm I prefer polytheism, even though none of it is 'home' - but yes I think the fact that you can have multiple gods (and new ones can be added) means there is more tolerance - no not tolerance that's not the right word - more leeway and more flexibility to new thought in the religion. Whereas the 'my way or the highway' absolutism may be attractive to the 'lost' and those who want to create power, it does cause more hurt and damage.

But really stuff like The Family and Opus Dei are worrying; mix religion with politics (as you cannot avoid doing) but at a secret and high-up level will lead to nothing but heartache especially for LGBT groups and others who have 'different' lifestyles. Fascism indeed...

And my idea about religion is this: I'll respect their lifestyle if they respect mine; as very few of them actually do respect or even tolerate (fed up of being tolerated, tbh - tolerate is what you do to your noisy neighbours, it still means you hate the person with all your heart) my lifestyle I see no reason why they should demand respect or tolerance. And they do demand special treatment, and vocally so...but then they also loudly shout down those externally and internally who call for respect and tolerance of those who don't share their beliefs.

So until that moment I will call them all nutty as fruitcakes and pour scorn on their religions...whatever they believe.