The basis and boundaries of religion/institutionalised-thinking
I was recently discussing the basis of religious beliefs with a group of christian friends. Many seem to think there’s a huge amount of human influence into exactly what we believe, or in whom we choose to believe (ie. pastors). Non-pastors in the group seem to believe pastors a lot more than the pastors in the group believe pastors (themselves or other pastors) .
Having also been involved other groups – humanist (people who don’t believe you need religion to be/do good) groups, inter-faith dialogue groups, scientific (science researchers who come together to discuss religion/ethics) groups, — I’ve come to notice that many (inclusive of our group) hold a common view : that what we believe in has enough human influence to make us doubt the knowledge we have of the divine.
And yet, despite agreeing on this common view, people make such radically different choices — some to be atheistic, some agnostic, some Hindu, Christians , suicidal, insane etc etc .
Which makes me wonder why.
One of the reasons why I didn’t agree too well with institutionalized religions is that it puts one under ridiculous pressures to conform.
How often have we heard remarks like “How can you do that can call yourself a Christian?” or “A good Buddhist doesn’t do…….” Etc
Which was why I found inclusive, non-judgemental, non-religious groups that worked for the good of humanity, and at the same time encouraged decisions to be fact-based (rather than subjective value-based) very attractive.
However, after joining several of these groups, I find myself back to square one.
Because I’ve added many of these people to my Facebook etc, I find myself in a position where before I want to put anything on my status bar, I’ve to consider what a feminist, humanist, vegetarian, atheist, agnostic, homosexual, environmentalist etc etc etc might think. And I find myself in a position where I can no longer make a joke or even announce my craving for KFC anymore.
I feel so restricted, l feel like I’ve to be politically correct all the time, and after a while I notice people around me doing the same. Pretty soon we’ll sound as homogenous as a fundamentalists.
Is this desirable? Can we work against this? How? Should we even try?
Like this:
12 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
When we are politically correct, we are really not being truthful to ourselves and to other people. But of course we should not make fun of other people. We can make fun of ourselves. We don’t like other people to make fun of us. Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.
The day that we cannot laugh freely, speak freely is really very sad.
“I’ve to consider what a feminist, humanist, vegetarian, atheist, agnostic, homosexual, environmentalist etc etc etc might think.”
Why do you need to consider what they think? What are you trying to do here? Considering whether they are offended by what you say? Considering what they want to hear?
I think the part that we have to learn is expressing something with clarity such that the other person understand your meaning within context and not take it as something else.
Just some incoherent thoughts after reading your post.
Haha. I have the same problem.
I love satirical videos and jokes that make fun of life, and people in general (which well, admittedly is kinda racist, stereotyping, etc etc). Generally I like to laugh at the silliness of life regardless if it is true or otherwise.
Now I have to think awhile before just posting links or stuff. And
have to censor some of the more extremes one cuz I dunno how others would react. It is like I know some of my friends can’t take certain jokes…
And yeah, I can’t really post my opinion on creationism, lol, cuz some of my friends think evolution is bullshit. And I don’t wanna get into an argument with them. Esp, if we are seeing each other everyday. lol.
Yeah, it is like I have to be politically correct all the time if I wanna life to be bearable (instead of having this and that pple telling u why did u do/say/post that). And nope, I can’t think of any solution yet. Do tell me if u come up with anything feasible.
These days, it seems that the only bar required for the implementation of censorship is the mere charge of feeling offended. No other thought process or logical debate is necessary to substantiate an argument.
Feelings, nothing more than feelings.
. . .
Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,
Wo-o-o, feelings again in my arms.
Feelings…
IMHO, such behavior enables intellectual sloth, cultivates passive aggressiveness, and enables cowardice.
I personally prefer the in your face acerbic veracity of George Carlin.
People (and emos) who feel offended can go jump off a cliff or something (then perhaps they can feel that gravity doesn’t apply to them).
Further reading
Cracking the speech code.
Code of Silence: Who’s silencing free speech on campus –and why.
Ben:
I couldn’t agree with you more, those are the perfect words “These days, it seems that the only bar required for the implementation of censorship is the mere charge of *feeling offended*”
Eterna2:
I know exactly what you mean! And i’ve no idea of how to get around it…. One of my friends has in his email signature “The only way to avoid criticism is to say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing”
And I’m not immune from being offended too.
My blog comments here is moderated (ie I have to click “allow” for it to be shown”), mainly for safety reasons (ie. in case someone who hates me decides to put my phone number, house and work address up).
Thus far i’ve tried to follow strictly to these self-imposed rules, and censor only
1. Advertisments (the viagra kind) 2. When the commentor asks for confidentiality/ directs in to me personally (rare……..)
But there some comments where I find it very hard to click “allow”!! Cos i’m so pissed off. But usually i still do. I think censoring comments online is as violent an act as silencing someone with a gunshot in real life.
The only occasion where i censored a couple of remarks was with this post
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/sexual_discrimination/ . Some of those remarks i censored were actually valid, but I felt would be very hurtful to the many commentors who actually opened up to share a very vulnerable and sensitive side of themselves. I’m not sure if that was a good move on my part, and it does make me think about this whole issue of offense/censorship from a different angle. For that post, those comments felt as inappropriate as someone charging into a private counselling/therapy session to make a political statement.
Please Lah:
I totally agree and value honesty in opinions like you do……..
Thanks for sharing yours. To respond:
“Why do you need to consider what they think?”
Because I’m hoping to be able to continue hanging out with them?
Just to give an example. EVERYONE I know who has been involved in the AWARE saga directly (i’m not talking about people who just vote / volunteer as ushers) has had personal relationships strained because of some opinions aired at that point. You know what happened with Siew Kum Hong? Most of us experienced that too, its just that he experienced it on a much more public level because his profile is just so much higher than the rest of most of us. And it’s quite sad when someone doesn’t want to work with you anymore, even tho’ the only thing that’s changed is that they are aware of a particular view you have that they don’t like.
“I think the part that we have to learn is expressing something with clarity such that the other person understand your meaning within context and not take it as something else.”
Heh. I used to think this was possible, until I started writing my blog. Anyone who disagrees, please don’t believe me, go write a blog yourself, and experience it for yourself.
Just to take this particular blogpost as an eg.
I sent it as an email to 2 seperate discussion groups I’m involved in as well.
The non-religious group who’s considering formalising the group & registering it as a society interprets my words as a criticism of their idea and is quite defensive.
The religious group who’s made up of more conservative people have not make a single comment. Which I’ve come to learn that in the conservative subculture of Singapore, can mean that you’ve pissed them off so completely they decided they’re not responding in front of you but behind you.
My partner, who’s very sweet and good to me, reads this and all he sses and is concerned about is that i’m saying i’m hurt.
And on my blog, the 3 comments suggest that most blog readers see it as a discussion of free speech.
This is not the best eg.
The best eg. of how I don’t know how to ever write so that people can get my point were the collection of posts I wrote during the whole AWARE episode.
There were comments in some gay websites calling for people to beware of Mathia because she’s a Christian and she’s on the other side pretending to be someone on our side.
There were comments from AWARE supporters applauding the effort I was putting to give all the info in a transparent way.
There were also comments from AWARE supporters who accused me for putting up sensitive/confidential info, or for coming across as speaking on AWARE’s behalf , and what gave me that right to?
Conservative parents who read it accuse me of trying to subvertly change their children into homosexuals. I’m labelled “a known lesbian” blogger in the Conservative camp (at the same time as being labelled a “christian spy” in the gay camp)
Progressive people applaud my effort of doing something to improve the situation.
My best friend reads it and says she doesn’t understand why I can’t just be normal and watch TV at home, and why I’m making it a point to offend half of Singapore and put my career and future in danger.
Then there’s this girl whose boyfriend broke up with her to go out with me, but who then got back with her boyfriend when I rejected him. She sees all my blog posts and advocacy work as my personal mission to convince all the girls in Singpore to steal other people’s boyfriends. She thinks that i’m making reference to her with every blog post I write.
And there are those who see everything I do as a complete waste of time because 1. they believe nothing will change 2. it’s not making me any money 3. I’ve more important things to do in life like write my thesis
And of course my partner reads it and his primary concern is how I would feel when the different things are happening.
The main lesson I’m taking away from all these is that the message of a written work is more determined by the reader than the writer. Everyone reads from their own personal agenda, not from the authors’. And I’m thinking about religious texts writen thousands of years ago in a totally different cultural context. Does anyone even know what the authors meant? Because everyone is reading their own personalised version of the religious text.
Thanks for sharing and speaking your mind! I value reading your blog because you speak your mind.
What you said is very true. Whatever has been written/spoken will be interpreted based on the reader’s world view (for example, all the religious text out there).
Hence there’s really nothing much you can do. There’s nothing that you need to do. But welcome the diverse views of others.
we see things not as they are, but as we are.
the french postmodern deconstructionalist school took your ideas farther in the last few decades.
religion is not about god: http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Not-About-God-Traditions/dp/0813539552/
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/06/evolution-religion-s.html
you can’t please everyone, and you shouldn’t try. civilized adults can be friends with people they have serious disagreements with.
i may disagree with you about lots of things but i still like you!
i may disagree with you about lots of things but i still like you!
phew! hehhehe
Just finished watching that video Meng
Fascinating, thanks
Actually i was fascinated until the last 10min, when he talked about some people with a temporal lobe disorder who had a tendency to need to write about philosophy & religion. That sent shudders down my spine. I think i might be nuts.
Haha. Not likely. Temporal lobe epilepsy is pretty obvious.
The symptoms felt by the patient with TLE and the signs observable by others during seizures depend upon the specific areas of the temporal lobes and neighboring brain areas affected by the seizure. The Classification of Epileptic Seizures published in 1981 by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) recognizes three types of seizures which persons with TLE may experience.
1. Simple Partial Seizures (SPS) involve small areas of the temporal lobe and do not affect consciousness. These are seizures which primarily cause sensations. These sensations may be mnestic such as déjà vu (a feeling of familiarity), jamais vu (a feeling of unfamiliarity), a specific single or set of memories, or amnesia. The sensations may be auditory such as a sound or tune, or gustatory such as a taste, or olfactory such as a smell that is not truly present. Sensations can also be visual or involve feelings on the skin or in the internal organs. The latter feelings may seem to move over the body. Dysphoric or euphoric feelings, fear, anger, and other sensations can also occur during SPS. Often, it is hard for persons with SPS of TLE to describe the feeling. SPS are often called “auras,” and are sometimes thought to be preludes to more severe seizures.
2. Complex Partial Seizures (CPS) by definition are seizures which impair consciousness to some extent. This is to say that they alter the person’s ability to interact with others. They usually begin with an SPS, but then the seizure spreads to a large portion of the temporal lobe and impairs consciousness. Signs may include motionless staring, automatic movements of the hands or mouth, inability to respond to others, unusual speech, or unusual behaviors. Because judgement is impaired, persons experiencing CPS may not legally drive vehicles for periods of time which are set by local governments worldwide.
3. Seizures which begin in the temporal lobe but then spread to the whole brain are known as Secondarily Generalized Tonic-Clonic Seizures (SGTCS). These begin with an SPS or CPS phase initially, but then the arms, trunk and legs stiffen in either a flexed or extended position. After this, coarse jerking of the limbs and trunk occur.
Source: Wiki
An interesting video about stimulating the temporal lobe to create pseudo-experiences (similar to religious visions, seeing aliens, etc etc).
But note that Michael Persinger’s research is not mainstream (robust and accepted by scientific community – is more exploratory stage) yet. But interesting, cuz one of his theory is that natural changes in the earth’s magnetic field would lead to religious visions and, in fact, reports of such experiences increase in an area before and after seismic events.
Hey babe~! (At least I hope you’re the same Mathia I know… I don’t know THAT many Mathia Lees in the world who’s involved in AWARE & commented about KFC on her FB…)
Read your blog, quite by accident cos I decided on a whim to google ur name today. (long story, tell u when i see u =P )
Here’s my 5cents, for what it’s worth.
The world is too big and complicated and really on the verge of extinguishing itself for us individuals to have to worry about what another individual thinks. Honestly, I doubt we’ll be able to please everyone. And I AM surprised your KFC comment wld offend… it’s just KFC for crying out loud.
Basically, you cannot help reading any material through a tainted lens… and the readers will definitely misconstrue some parts of what you’re writing.
Guess what I’m trying to say (without going into one of my rants) is this : Say what you want, live your life the way you want it, and so long as you’re not committing a criminal offense in the eyes of the law, the rest of the world would either have to fall in step behind you or get outta the way… that’s the Mathia I know and I’m proud to have as a friend.. stay that way babe, okie?
And for what it’s worth, there’ll still be little old me backing you up =) *hugz*
My best friend reads it and says she doesn’t understand why I can’t just be normal and watch TV at home, and why I’m making it a point to offend half of Singapore and put my career and future in danger.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
I assume your best friend is one of the normal folks?
I saw a T-shirt: “Be like Jesus”. My reaction: “piss people off and get crucified”?
the message of a written work is more determined by the reader than the writer. Everyone reads from their own personal agenda, not from the authors’. And I’m thinking about religious texts writen thousands of years ago in a totally different cultural context. Does anyone even know what the authors meant? Because everyone is reading their own personalised version of the religious text.
The message that people take home can be more determined by them than the writer. That doesn’t mean the message is determined by the reader.
And it’s a sure thing that whatever religious texts’ authors meant, it’s much closer to the modern fundamentalist conception than the modern liberal conception, Karen Armstrong’s nonsense notwithstanding.