Religion is Being Redefined

It seems like I'm living in a world where the religious and the non's are growing further apart. When the religious draws a line in the political sand (eg abortion, gay marriage) and decides that it's identity rests on these outcomes; they ignore other social ills that beg their attention, detaching themselves further and further into irrelevancy. This was no better illustrated when thousands of Africans dying of hunger & other preventable diseases were lectured about condoms.

It's refreshing to see someone give a concise and rational vision on the role of modern religion; I "pray" that the meme will catch on to others; as religion is an integral part of every culture, I would hate to see ours' fade away into extinction.

In some countries, religion is thought to be defined by nationality or supposed finality of a specific revelation. That leads to laws and restrictions that prevent individuals from choosing their own religious commitment. In some countries of the former Soviet bloc, the Orthodox Church, sometimes with Islamic institutions as allies, have supported the passage of laws that prevent smaller religions from operating and receiving recognition. In some Islamic countries such as Egypt, freedom to choose one's religion is restrained by implementing a restrictive interpretation of Islamic principles allowing only Judaism, Christianity and Islam to operate. What the Baha'is seem to be saying is that the personal freedom of individuals to choose their religious belief (or non-belief) is itself sacred.

Hi Paganplace,

I don't think atheism implies any lack of 'faith' per se. Atheism only means 'non-theist'; that is, someone who does not believe in a personal, prayer-answering God. I, for example, consider myself a person of faith, a passionate pantheist, a strident moralist--and an atheist. Atheist does not mean "nihilistic hard-line physicalist."

It's nice to see a Baha'i perspective being represented on the wonderful panel that On Faith provides. I'm also likely the new look. I agree that there are a variety of ways of interpreting people choosing not to identify with a particular religious "label". However, this should not lead to assumptions about what that means. Identifying with a faith and living that faith are not the same thing, likewise, not identifying with a faith is not necessarily a rejection of faith itself. I think there is a parallel with some people choosing not to identify themselves with racial labels. Perhaps we are entering a "post-sectarian" era? If so there could be good things about it. Time will tell.

"If you think there's something 'lazy' about believing there's something sacred in the world when all the authorities keep showing themselves to be hucksters, you just ain't been there."

There is something lazy about professing belief without engaging in practice, not in the belief itself. The idea of using ritual is that it provides a connection to the sacred. Without it, the sacred washes away into the din of everyday life.

As far as hucksters, finding any men with authority that do not abuse it is a rare thing, so when you find one as a spiritual mentor, hang on. Those who think they can find the divine on their own are guilty of overweening pride. People have thought of spiritual matters for thousands of years. Thinking you can jump over them in a single lifetime is foolish.

What may be required is that religions should examine their roots to see if there are commonalities with other religions in this society, which increasingly tends to adopt a globalized posture. You need look no further than the financial condition of the world to realize this unavoidable tendency. Once the roots have been examined, then the religions should then lead the way in acting together in tandem with the requirements of this age, many of which hinge on cooperation, togetherness, unity, respect for human rights, and so forth. If religions (or faiths) could demonstrate their ability to work firmly together, then the entire world cannot escape but sit up and take notice. Many useless wars will be averted. Much unnecessary suffering may be averted. When religious leaders show the way, the rest of the world might just follow.

Furthermore, there's *much talk* about this grwoing percentage of the American populace that is neither atheist nor obedient to authorities.

Any of you folks *here?*

Would you like to speak?

Well, Ebryonadams: if your respnse to *this*

""On the positive side, I also suspect that many have not so much abandoned faith as the narrow definitions of faith that often come with membership in a specific religious tradition.""

...is merely *this,*

"So, you end up with a lazy man's faith,"

...it just shows how out of touch your fetishistic idea of 'discipline' has really gotten.

(No, that's not meant to sound kinky.)

If you think there's something 'lazy' about believing there's something sacred in the world when all the authorities keep showing themselves to be hucksters, you just ain't been there.

"On the positive side, I also suspect that many have not so much abandoned faith as the narrow definitions of faith that often come with membership in a specific religious tradition."

So, you end up with a lazy man's faith, in which they profess belief and actually fool themselves into thinking they do by eliminating all the uncomfortable parts of that faith. I have no problems with the democratization of theology. I just have a problem with unschooled people thinking they are experts. Spirituality is important if you believe in it at all, measuring the eternal against our brief stay on this mortal plane. Finding a teacher you can trust and following instructions, even when somewhat uncomfortable, is as important as professing faith.

"In such a climate, religions must struggle to remain relevant and attractive. The vitality of belief systems will be judged not only on their answers to existential questions, but on their ability to deal with a rapidly changing world -- the ethical dilemmas posed by scientific advancements, the ability to bring people of different backgrounds together in harmony, and the challenges of globalism and social justice, to name a few."

In short, the religions and belief systems that are adaptable to change and a changing time are most likely to survive. Ah, evolution. Those that can square their teachings and sacred texts with the undeniable truth of advancing science and rational fact will be the adaptable ones. How long will the faithful take it 'on faith' that the Bible is literal and incorruptable and the earth is 6000 years old? Not much longer, a rational mind would argue. What happens to fundamentalist and immovable religions? Radicalism, one could argue, as the delusional stab at the voices of reason so to silence them, even as clarity of truth takes on further definition.