Does religion prevent us from seeing the real sides of issues?
@collegeoptimist (86)
United States
November 26, 2007 12:19pm CST
I was listening to a discussion about euthanasia today, and it came to my attention that many people are completely swayed by their religious beliefs. Many people who were completely against the thought of assisted suicide admitted that their aversion to the subject was because of their religious beliefs, and that if they were not religious then they would find reason to agree with voluntary euthanasia. I believe that the situation is similar for many other issues, such as abortion, gender non-specific marriage, etc. To what extent do we allow our religious beliefs to prevent us from making informed decisions?
5 people like this
6 responses
@Postrock (270)
• Italy
27 Nov 07
I believe the answer is yes. Whether you are a believing person or not if you look at religion in general it really seems as the perfect way to keep people wandering about "else"..
"hey believer..just think at the afterlife and you will get over this life's prevarications and wrongs"
No wonder that the church has always held so much political and economical power..no wonder that those powers are lessening the more science is uncovering reality.
2 people like this
@Postrock (270)
• Italy
27 Nov 07
I know..unfortunately politics go after the people. Wich is not saying that politics do what people want. But until there are so many religious extremists there will always be some politician who uses those ideas to conduct its own thing.
Unfortunately (and i know i'm dropping into banal small talk here) logic isnt very popular as of this day. Rationality is pretty high, since all our scientific advances make man more conscious, but its hard to understand the humanist side of things, even for many highly tought people. Modern society is so competitive that there is no place for common logics, only for interest. And interest is, by definition, conflicting.
oh gosh..what an innecessary trail of words i wrote..but i think you see what i mean.
1 person likes this
@collegeoptimist (86)
• United States
27 Nov 07
Part of the reason I asked this question is because it bothers me how much political power the church really has. It is all over our government and our political debates and our hot issues. This really, really worries me.. My only wish is that the parties who decide to bring religion into debates and discussions and decisions would desist and think about the logical (and non-religious) side of every issue. They have to realize that there are A LOT of non-christian and non-religious citizens of our country, and to allow religion into political decisions is absolutely wrong and unfair. Not to say that religion doesn't allow for good morals.. but allowing religion to govern decisions is wrong when normal moral values would do just fine.
1 person likes this
@klaudyou (501)
•
27 Nov 07
It all goes down to a simple question: Which is stronger? The power of thought, or the power of love?
And, of course, it depends on the person. But generally, nowadays, people tend to listen the heart less and less. That's why the idea of euthanasia came out in the first place.
Personally, i think that we should do things as we think if the thought is logically valid and is found to be true. I'm saying this because i want to emphasize the fact that we shouldn't do things opposite to our religious beliefs just for the fun of it, but think well before doing them and try to find the middle point. Well, in this case, there aren't many middle points, are there?
If we judge that the life is one's property, then euthanasia is a question of one's decision; but if life is God's "property", then one should do His will!
@Postrock (270)
• Italy
27 Nov 07
I think its very smart to say the right way is to find the middleground.
However i dont agree that there's no middleground here. As i see it the extremes are not letting or not letting it happen.
The issue is wether or not euthanasia is killing or letting someone kill himself for a reason. So the extremes here are:
-killing an unwilling person
-forcing life on one who doesnt want it
The middle ground here is letting the person decide for himself. And that is the way to go.
If the person is incapable of deciding for himself you should watch case by case, i wont pronounce on that.
2 people like this
@collegeoptimist (86)
• United States
27 Nov 07
I absolutely agree with trying to find the logically valid side of every issue. Of course, if you are religious, it wouldn't be right to do things opposite of your church's teachings just because you can or because it would be fun/deviant. That is absolutely not what I am advocating. Rather, I am trying to encourage people to, while accepting their church's teachings, weight them against logical thought and then, indeed, find the middle ground.
I also agree with the person who commented back to you, that there is middle ground when it comes to the issue of euthanasia. To me, it's about allowing the person in question to decide for themselves how their life is going to end. Allowing it is not murder, but refusing it can be torture. That's why I agree with absolutely voluntary euthanasia.. not involuntary killing, and not involuntarily keeping them alive, either.
1 person likes this
@bishu_sinha (1457)
• India
27 Nov 07
Agreed with you, everyone of our socity should benefited from religion. It should be always possitive and constructive. Only love should be a bridge among all different Religion.
@collegeoptimist (86)
• United States
27 Nov 07
That is very hopeful and optimistic of you. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be very realistic in the religious world I see today. I sincerely wish that everyone could benefit from religion, but that does not seem to be the case. I hope we will one day see the day where love is the bridge between the religions.
1 person likes this
@lecanis (16647)
• Murfreesboro, Tennessee
27 Nov 07
I think it depends on how organized the religion is to come extent. Organized religions with specific scriptures are harder to make up your own mind within than less organized ones.
I can easily have a different opinion on something than some other pagan, and there's no authority to chastise me about it other than the Gods, should they choose to. Since most pagans would agree that we see only the Gods themselves as our authorities, unless they come right out and voice an opinion, we're pretty safe to make up our own minds.
Organized religions, however, have to deal with whatever their religion's hierarchy is, and are expected to voice the same opinion as the people above them in that hierarchy. If they don't, they risk being ridiculed, outcast, called heretics, etc. Some would even claim they risk their salvation. So it becomes a scary thing for them to voice any opinion that is different, which is of course why I respect the ones who do even more (you people know who you are!). ;P
Of course that can go the other way as well. Since my partner and I are of different religions, we are members of a Unitarian Universalist fellowship (which is for people of many beliefs). The Unitarian Universalist Association has come out in support of gay marriage... so a UU that didn't believe in gay marriage might feel very uncomfortable voicing their opinion, even though officially it's part of the purposes and principles of the UUA to listen to everyone's opinions.
My religious beliefs don't really hinder me in making informed decisions, but they do force me to look at things from many angles before making a decision. Since I'm a Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan, I have to think about the possible consequences of any decision I make or issue I support, since we believe in actual consequences rather than sin and forgiveness. So I have to look at things very carefully before making a decision.
2 people like this
@blueunicorn (2401)
• United States
26 Nov 07
I think a person's religion, to an extent, does become who that person is. In other words, to be a "good" fill in the religion they "have" to believe what the church teaches. That is part of the reason I stopped going to church. Our beliefs come from somewhere, though, so it is not all bad that people follow their religions. For me it was not the right thing to do, but for some they need that guidance. I was raised more on the side of making my own choices and decisions.
1 person likes this
@collegeoptimist (86)
• United States
26 Nov 07
That is the same reason I stopped going to church. I think it is wonderful when someone's religious beliefs can give them a solid moral background to aid them in making their own choices, but I don't think that religion should govern their decisions. For example, my (previous) church handed out a pamphlet entitled "How To Vote Like A Roman Catholic," which detailed exactly how the members of the church should vote on certain issues. This strikes me as completely and utterly wrong - I think that it is not the church's place to dictate how people should act and make decisions. The church, however, is a fantastic moral basis for formulating your own choices, decisions, and opinions.
1 person likes this
@blueunicorn (2401)
• United States
28 Nov 07
Churches should never tell people how to vote. That just plain annoys me. In my opinion that is abuse of power. Church is definitely great for a moral base, but I think that can be found in strong families without the church, too.
@wagesofsin (31)
• United States
27 Nov 07
To me, religion is very different than faith. While I don't consider myself to be affiliated with any religion, my faith is very important to me. Religion is a set of rules and guidelines established by somebody interperpreting the doctrine for the masses. Faith on the other hand is our own interpretation of said doctrine. As far as your question, the key words are "prevent us from making informed decisions." By deciding yourself as to the interpretations, you allow yourself to make your own informed decisions rather than allowing one person (ex. the pope) to tell you how you should decide based upon his faith.
@blueunicorn (2401)
• United States
28 Nov 07
By voting the way that the church tells us it actually means that a small minority of people are making decisions that we should be making together as voters.
@collegeoptimist (86)
• United States
27 Nov 07
I wish that everyone would look at religion this way. Unfortunately, a large majority of religious people (for example, the people I have observed in my own church) allow the pope or the priest or whatever other religious leader to dictate how they should think, act, vote, etc. I think I mentioned earlier the pamphlet that my Catholic church handed out to churchmembers about "How To Vote Like A Catholic." And I'm sad to say that my father followed the guidelines of the packet instead of forming his own opinions on the issues at hand. It would be nice if people of faith could, indeed, interpret their religious teachings for themselves instead of allowing themselves to be dictated to. It strikes me as rather lazy that some individuals allow their churches/church officials to think for them.
1 person likes this