More thoughts provoked

[avevale_intelligencer]

earth_wizard, quoting Susan Jacoby from her History of American Secularism, posted a rousing call to arms for secular humanists to "become freethinkers again." In the course of the post he (she) mentioned the need for a nation "founded not on dreams of justice in heaven but on the best human hopes for a more just earth."

I find myself thinking about the converse as usual. Is it really true that some, or even any, religious people find it acceptable to neglect justice on earth because it will all be all right once we get to heaven? (I use "we" in the loosest possible sense, of course.) This is an idea very commonly associated with religion in our modern culture: one thinks of the well-known song about getting "pie in the sky when you die," or John Lennon singing about people living for today if there were no heaven.

It isn't the way I was taught to look at things, in the Christian schools where I was edumacated. What they told me was that, in order to get to heaven, you had to work for justice and fairness on earth; to try to be just in all your dealings with others, as they in their turn are enjoined to be just in their dealings with you. The parable of the just judge and the widow springs to mind. Some forms of Christianity emphasise that life is suffering, which of course in many ways it is, and there is the bit about "turning the other cheek" and returning good for evil, but I never saw that as advocating any sort of fatalism, but rather the exercise of control over the only person whose behaviour one has a right to control, viz., oneself. To return evil for evil does not lessen the amount of evil in the world, and turning the other cheek does not exclude the possibility of having the law on the guy if he hits you twice. It isn't in any sense "good," after all, to encourage people to do bad things.

So, perhaps we need a call to arms for the sincerely religious of the world, who are so often portrayed as spineless, drugged, deluded pawns and fall guys. Perhaps it's time to reclaim the notion of religion not as an excuse to abdicate from the world, but as a reason to engage with it, passionately, on every level; not as the refuge of cowards, but as the armour of heroes. Perhaps it's time to remind the world that religion and morality have not always been as estranged as they are now said to be, that they were once the two horses drawing the chariot of humanity. But to do that, the morality of religion may need to be reinvented, not using rules from a three-thousand-year-old textbook on how to be a nomad, but carefully and compassionately in the light of the knowledge of ourselves we've gained since then. The People of the Book need a new edition.

The only sure way to build a dream of justice in heaven is to make justice on earth. Otherwise how will we know what it looks like?

Comments

What about Wendell Berry?

[earth-wizard.livejournal.com]

After reading your prognosis I thought of the writings of our agrarian philosopher, poet, novelist Wendell Berry who throughout his life strove for both a democratic and Christian engagement for justice and practical earthly solutions.

Yes, I agree, even such writers as the scientist, Edward O. Wilson, believed there might be a need for an ecumenical involvement of religionists in the pragmatic and earthy need to save our planet. His book The Creation: an appeal to save life on earth is a prime example. He grew up in a Baptist world and only later became a secularist humanist through his studies of evolutionary theory and other sciences. Yet, he did not disparage religionists and felt that without their cooperation in this endeavor, as the moral agents of tradition and stewards of earth - as he saw it in his upbrining - we would have a tough time in overcoming some of the obstacles to the depletion of diversity on our planet.

I, too, am a secularist, but like many was raised in a religious world with all that goes with it. I do not have any problems with it, since for me the guiding principles of the Enlightenment based as they are on tolerance are the measure of any true civilization. Religion is as old as humankind, and will remain with us till the end of our species I'm sure, so for most secularists (not all) we hope only to be accepted for our unbelief and not be castigated for our stance. Yes, I know many are militant in the athestic activistism realm, but I believe this is only an extreme aspect of the secular world not its center or heart. From Montaigne to Thomas Mann the secular humanist tradition was able to incorporate a cultural framework that could truly be seen as both humane and enlightened concerning this earthy realm. It would be nice to be accepted with this kind of deference by the relgionists of the world.

Re: What about Wendell Berry?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this. And yes, it would be nice if extremists on both sides would calm down a bit and offer the other side at least basic respect, if not actual courtesy. People like me, caught in the middle and unwilling to retreat to the bunker of agnosticism, would much prefer to benefit from listening to fascinating and fruitful conversation, instead of having to duck to avoid missiles whistling overhead.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Is it really true that some, or even any, religious people find it acceptable to neglect justice on earth because it will all be all right once we get to heaven?

Yes, if by "religious people" you include some ministers of organised religion (a sort of nitpick here, I feel that anyone who is really a follower of the teachings of most of the major religious leaders will not ignore justice and suffering in this world, but there are many who call themselves 'religious' who do not).

I grew up in a church where, like you describe, salvation was regarded as something which has to be worked at in this life, not just belief. As James said: "Faith without works is dead" (James chapter 2 is all about this topic). However, we were vilified by many other churches for this attitude, they preached that all that was necessary was to believe, and that those who didn't believe (or as they put it refused to believe) could be ignored and anything which happened to them was their own fault.

I know of at least two large churches which have had the policy that believers should not mix with unbelievers except for the express purpose of bringing those unbelievers into the church. They make exceptions for work and other necessary contact (shopping etc.) because not everyone can live in a church-only enclave, but any other socialising including voluntary social work was strongly discouraged and criticised. I know people who were chastised for belonging to the Mother's Union and to multi-faith groups working for peace.

So yes, this does indeed happen. That sort of attitude is one of the reasons why I am not fond of organised religion, it's too easy to get a "us and them" feeling and that "they" are not worth (or worthy of) effort.

(As a recent concrete example, a certain major American church spent millions campaigning against gay marriage. That's not even failing to fight for justice, it's actively fighting for injustice.)

[dickgloucester.livejournal.com]

When a knight won his spurs in the stories of old
He was gentle and brave he was gallant and bold
With a shield on his arm and a lance in his hand
For God and for valour he rode through the land

No charger have I and no sword by my side
Yet still to adventure and battle I ride
Though back into storyland giants have fled
And the knights are no more and the dragons are dead

So let faith be my shield and let hope be my steed
Against the dragons of anger the ogres of greed
And let me set free with the sword of my youth
From the castle of darkness the power of the truth.


I've always loved this hymn.