Religious Tolerance

As we are nearing the end of this course, the questions of religion have just began flowing. If religion is supposed to be something that works as a guideline of how people to live good and decent lives, why is there so much hostility and hatred in the world? With all of these different religions, it is almost impossible for people to agree on their beliefs. I grew up in private catholic schools and have frequently felt like religion was being forced upon me. In no way should this ever happen, your beliefs should be brought about by your own experiences and interpretations of events that have happened. Going back to what Kant said, people should not rely on others for their beliefs and virtues.
I feel if people relied less on religion to tell them what to do, there would not be as much religious intolerance from their beliefs telling them others' are wrong. Religious tolerance is something that should be worked upon much harder globally. Why spend so much time looking at the differences when you should be focusing on the similarities?

have a nice summer

"The Great Unthinking Mass" aka USA

Just recently we completed a worksheet on our reading. One of these readings was Immanuel Kant's "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" This was a response to the question posed by Prussian official Reverend Johann Friedrich Zollner a year before this essay.
This essay by Kant explains that people do not achieve enlightenment not because they lack intellegence but because they lack the courage to work off their own intellect without the guidance of another. Kant says, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude!" (Dare to know) (Kant)

Dare to know is Kant's motto for enlightenment. He continues on this subject and explains that many don't attain enlightenment because of laziness and because they have become too fond of their state of not thinking for themselves. Not thinking for yourself in todays society is very easy with all the rules, regulations, and people to tell you what to do. He uses the example of the guardians explaining how straying away from these regulations alone is dangerous, Kant feels differently. He felt that the people struggling for enlightenment would fall a few times, but learn how to walk after a couple tries. The idea of falling usually keeps the timid and immature from trying again, never learning how to walk.

Kant felt a huge part of this enlightenment was the separation of church and state. If the church is kept out of stately affairs it may be easier for people to stop relying on their guardians to make their decisions for them. If there was no church impeding on people's lives and thinking, there is no telling what new ideas could have come about.

If people in our society today actually thought for themselves instead of listening to everything the media, the government, and churches had to say, we may have a more mature nation. In the past there has been many horrible catastrophes just because the people following orders didn't think with their own intellect. The Holocaust is an example for this, had the Nazi soldiers listened to their own knowledge and not take orders from above, things could have been drastically different.

As I look back into my own past, I remember events that would have played out for the better had I not followed others and relied on my own knowledge. Has there been a time where you feel you should have used the courage to follow your own intellect?
Is our society really at the maturity level we want? How far has our society set itself back from being enlightened?

Returning to the Past

The past class we started to watch the film Dogma. This movie has countless underlying themes and connections to the controversial issues paired with religious belief. In the past, many religions groups sold indulgences. An indulgence is defined as a pardon of sins already confessed and absolved. Being baptized Protestant and then re-baptized Catholic, indulgences have always been a touchy issue.

Why would someone want to pay for an indulgence if they have already been absolved for their sins? An article in The New York Times that pertains to this topic said, "According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven." Although paying for indulgences was made illegal as of 1957, the church can still accept contributions. I don’t believe the church should be able to make money by helping people repent and be saved from their sins.

This is where Dogma falls into comparison. Mooby the golden calf was a false idol that was turned into a marketable character. One particular scene showed the company’s executive board with evidence scattered around that they had made quite a profit through their sins. One of the biggest commandments as discussed in class is “Thou Shall have no other gods besides me.” They created wealth for themselves by exploiting the belief of something portrayed as more important than God himself. This is one of the greater sins that according to religion holds more weight than other sins. For worse sins, you will spend more time in purgatory.

The article from the NY Times emphasized that the church is simply trying to boost the numbers of Catholics attending confession. They want to focus less on the Purgatory aspect, and more about living as Jesus did. Some churches advertise the choice to receive indulgences, and some don’t. The Catholic Church wanted to bring personal sin back into the lives of millions. They are doing so however, by holding punishment above our heads. God is metaphorically holding us above the fiery pit of hell in his fingertips. Simply sinning could send you through the cracks of God’s metaphorical fingers and send you spiraling to hell. I don’t believe in using hell as leverage to gain followers and support.

This same idea is touched upon in Dogma. The sole mission of Bartleby and Loki is to walk through the arches to be absolved of their sins to die with no sins on their slate. Bethany even speaks about going to church for fear of the wrath of God. The church is trying to scare us back into the pews. With mass attendees low, how better to get people to fill those seats than scaring people with the idea of sin, punishment, and hell?

Increasing knowledge of sin is a positive motive for bringing indulgences back into play, however I am still uneasy. How can an act or contribution be measured in the amount of years taken off of your punishment sentence? This isn’t how my personal beliefs line up. My belief is God doesn’t calculate how he’s going to punish every single one of his children every time they sin. I believe in a just God who forgives and loves. I don’t feel he is taking attendance at church or checking your name off when you pray. I believe in a God I was raised learning about, one who possesses unconditional love for everyone and anyone.

link to NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2

Vitello, Paul. "For Catholics, a Door to Absolution Is Reopened." The New York Times [New York City] 09 Feb. 2009.

Hey everyone Dan Chrobak,
I grew up in private schools, some of which were Catholic. This has allowed me to study many different religions over the course of my High School career, although not into much depth. I am very interested to jump into this course and learn more about religion and how it's affected our Western traditions.

Take it easy,

Dan