Religion Isn't the Enemy - Part II What's In a Religion?

Our egos will use anything and everything at our disposal to justify and tell ourselves the stories that rationalize our desired beliefs that we are superior and our resulting behaviors. …. Some may say that while our egos do in fact allow that rationalization and justification for abusive beliefs and behaviors, the religions themselves still dictate separation, bias and self-righteousness towards others. I will focus this discussion on the monotheistic faiths of the Abrahamic religions, as they get the brunt of the criticism. The Abrahamic religions are regularly used as the target to launch attacks and claims that they are the root of much evil in the world. Those who are part of various “spiritual” communities often tout being “spiritual but not religious” as if being religious by definition means you aren’t spiritual. 

On the flip side, many subscribing to one of these Abrahamic religions often do, in fact, use the

religions as a justification for their own behaviors of discrimination, judgment, superiority, violence and hatefulness towards others. So, it might seem at first blush that both sides agree that these religions are in fact the source of the beliefs that there should be separation and bias between those who believe in the religious teachings and those who do not. This of course presumes that these beliefs that the religions prescribe this separation and bias are in fact true and dictated by the “religions”.

Before we get to what the religions proscribe, it is important to point out that this polarized “us/them” mindset underlies both sides of this discussion. Those believing that their religion bolsters their morality and “righteousness” in levying judgment and discrimination have a deep-rooted “us/them” view of the world, with a persecuted victim mentality. Those not subscribing to these religions who see religion as one of the major sources of hate in the world view all religious adherents to be part of the evil perpetrators of

judgment and hate in a similarly deep-rooted “us/them” perspective. They are 2 sides of the same polarized coin and both see themselves as victimized by the other. Neither side of this discussion believe there is any middle ground.

What these perspectives occlude is that there are members of the religious communities who are not filled with hate and judgment and there are those not part of these communities who are not trying to take down religion as a whole, but just want to call out and stop the hatefulness and discriminatory treatment of others. Are there people on both sides of this position who do, in fact, want to see the other side taken down? Absolutely. However, as polarizations tend to do, both sides create stories and stereotypes that paint sweeping swathes of aggressors that leave little room for anything but the extremes. As consistent with another feature of polarizations, both sides also are oblivious to their own hatefulness in how they view others in the “them” category. Both sides of this extreme polarized perspective violate their own principles and believe in their own “righteousness” in their hostility towards the “them’s”.  This is classic ego.

So, do these religions really prescribe such separation and hierarchy of morals and worthiness? In order to look at what the “religions” say, we must define what is the “religion”.  Defining what is a “religion” has been debated for decades, and even centuries. To me there are several facets here to consider: (1) the teachings and sayings of the “master” that is the base of the belief systems; (2) the interpretation of those teachings by those around the master and those who came afterwards who created further instruction around those masters’ messages; (3) the dogma that developed from #1 and #2 that was put in place by subsequent leaders of the community of believers (who often came a

hundred or more years later), including establishing what instructions or books are appropriate for the community; and (4) the institutions, structure and hierarchy that developed around the community of believers that perpetuate and further develop the dogma, doctrines, leadership circles, practices, rituals and other structure around what it means to be a believer in that master’s teachings.

Some incorporate all of these facets into what constitutes the “religion” with little to no delineation or differentiation, despite the fact that every “religion” has different expressions and interpretations within that religion that become different denominations and sects. Others separate the dogma and institutions from the masters’ teachings, which often include the further interpretations and teachings of the masters’ students, contemporaries, and followers in spreading the masters’ messages after the life of the master.  The dogma and institutions being a construct built long after the masters’ lives by others and the teachings by both the master and the master’s “disciples” being the substance and real nature of the religion’s faith foundation. I will go one step further. To me, the true “religion” is just the teachings and sayings of the masters themselves without including the additional commentary and interpretations by students, contemporaries and other leaders or “disciples” who followed the master. To me, if it didn’t come from the acts or mouths of the masters, I put it in a “take with a grain of salt” perspective. For me, I can’t discount the influence of the human ego mixed with potential divine

inspiration of those other than the masters themselves who had a higher consciousness and ability to act from their hearts and to subjugate their egos. To me, only the words and deeds of the respective masters are what the masters themselves intended to communicate, and it is there that I think we should begin and end when we assess what a religion is actually proscribing. So what do these Abrahamic faith masters actually teach? We need to focus on the masters’ actual words and actions and not the constructs built long afterwards before we condemn the religions as having nothing constructive to offer.

Stay tuned for Part III.....