“Religious supremacism”
Apr 8, 2007 Faith and Works
A good morning for this discussion! (Well, it’s the eve of the end of Passover festival, is what I mean of course!)
Ali Eterez asks, in the comments at Dean’s World:
Is it Religious Supremacism when a member of one religion says that his religion is true to the exclusion of other religions?
My answer is yes.
Then every religion — absolutely including Islam, I mean, please! — is guilty of this, or it isn’t really a religion at all — just a discussion group or a social club such as Reform “Judaism.”
That doesn’t inform how adherents should treat members of other religions or those who profess no religion. But if you don’t believe your professed creed is true, you’re being a hypocrite. And if yours is true, unless it has no tenets at all (in which case, see above), its tenets must in whole or part contradict other belief systems.
That means that if you are a member of an organized (even conceptually) religion, you are by the suggested definition a “religious supremacist.” (UPDATE: Maybe the nomenclature is in fact a problem here!)
This is where religion is not liberal, “classically” or otherwise. As Kevin D. says, “You make that sound like a bad thing.” Quite to the contrary.
April 8th, 2007 at 1:16 am
I discussed this topic in a blog post last year: http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2006/04/freedom-and-torah-supremacy.html
April 8th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Ron:
I’m with you. Religious supremacism is what it is.
Of course the problems arise when adherants want to, ahem, act on their beliefs, shall we say.
So, mark me down as being a firm believer in the separation of Church and War.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Perhaps a slight distinction needs to be made. I would argue that one who makes public truth claims for his (or her) own religious beliefs, and will not consider opposing claims from adherents to other religions, is in fact “supremacist.” If one is not willing to submit one’s beliefs to the microscope of public rationality, those beliefs should have little role to play in the public sphere. So, I have no problem with people who think that their religion is true and others’ are false. Yet I get a tad uneasy when people insist such claims can form an unproblematic basis for public policies.
April 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Why cant you just judge each religion on its own merits without the feelings of supremacy and related side effects.
One farfetched possiblity – maybe many (ok not all)but many religions are “the truth” albeit using different perspectives/ belief systems/notions but similar overall objectives.Similar to that notion that all paths within judaism are “the truth”…..
Or if your feeling especially free spririted this spring, you can create your very own personal loose leaf bible with the profound parts picked piously from your favorite religions.Buddhism has some great concepts to choose from.
Sharon Begley actually just came out with this fascinating book – Train your Mind change your Brain (a groundbreaking collaboration between Neuroscience and Buddhism)
April 8th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“Judging” something on its “merits” means you decide good, bad or indifferent, Jaded. Ultimately you choose your own religion based on your judgment of “best.”
They cannot all be true if they have contradictory tenets, even if Sharon Begley makes a nice parnossah from popularizing the flavor of the week (Buddhism) for the trade hardcover audience.
On the other hand Judaism says there is a place in the world to come for the “righteous” of all the nations. But righteousness is not based on the New York Times Bestseller List!
Putting the shoe on the other foot: My religion requires me (and maybe you) not to eat any leavened food during Passover. Period. Buddhism says, what the hey. Groove out. If I follow Buddhism, as a Jew, I am doing something wrong according to my religion by eating a donut. Chances are that if I get uptight about leaven in my house, as the Torah requires me to do, I am probably also not doing right by one or another noble truth. Et cetera.
Two plus two equals four, not whatever.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
“2 + 2 = 4” is a linear sequential thought process. Those with lateral oriented leanings and everywhere thinking don’t always get past the 2 + before moving on to vowel oriented sidetracks. As such neither the” 4” nor the “whatever” are contemplated in nice sequential sequence.(They probally also do less than ok in the mathematical oriented myths department) And life just becomes a random scrapbook of fading photographs and merry memories with the occasional inspirational page freshly plucked from the loose leaf bible.
Religion is basically a structure system to organize bitter beliefs/reinforce myths/notions secure / coddle insecurities/make sense out of uncensored emotions and painful happenstancings and plenty of feel good theories. And the consistent inserting of faith/ love /prayer / belief and related spiritual activities…when faced with niggling negative notions and hopeless perspectives.
Those with an innate need for rigidity/reason/preprogrammed purpose/order/rules and regulations thrive on it.
Any one of the many religions could work nicely if you think about it.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Well, that’s one way to kill the thread. You’re allowed to believe that. I used to believe that, too. Now I believe that you are actually describing irreligiosity, and not religion at all.
That’s simply empirically false. Many do not thrive. Some flash out because religion still doesn’t address their psychological and emotional needs for everything to be tied up in a nice little package of easy emotional listening. Then religion makes a fine target for their screwed up lives, plus they have a secular society to back them up and tell them how grand they are for seeing through it all and here, hoist another. Not impressed with the dimestore psychology — that’s freshman year stuff, Jaded.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Not all religions hold that other religions are false.
Islam holds that Judaism and Christianity are both true, just corrupted by men and that Muhammed completed all the true prophesies.
Sikhism holds that both Islam and Hinduism are equally valid.
There are other examples, and these are serious religions.
On the other hand some religions do hold that all other religions are false. I’m perfectly fine with that. It’s never bugged me a bit. Yes, it’s religious supremacism, but so what? I only care what happens when people turn violent over religion, which of course happens in most religions.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
This is from a website that I don’t know anything about called Religion Facts:
That’s about as direct a negation of fundamental Christian tenets as I can imagine. It considers them false. Is my source wrong? Possibly — but you always warn us not to generalize about Islam, Dean. You’re not doing that now, are you?
As to Judaism, where to start? Generalities about the holiness of Abraham notwithstanding, the Koran directly contradicts the Torah repeatedly, even stating that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the intended sacrifice of Abraham. That makes the Torah “false.” This is not a narrative detail — the Sacrifice of Isaac (the Akeidah) is a fundamental iconic event in Jewish theology.
I could go on, but the day is short…
April 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Friends,
I would offer that the concept of “One True Religion” is only valid amongst monotheistic religions. If there are, as I believe, many Gods, then there are many paths to travel, and the path one chooses (or is chosen for him by his Diety), is as valid as any other path.
The concept of the “One True God” brought a lot of difficult baggage with it.
Respects,
April 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Gwedd, it’s true that monotheism does suck all the air out of the room of friendly ecumenicism. That’s its premise. But your argument still does not hold water. If my religion is premised, fundamentally — as it is — on being the only truth, yours, which cannot contain mine and anything else. This is especially true where, as an added bonus, mine explicitly says yours is false.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Ron,
My Paganism can certainly have room for your religion. To me, the God of Abraham is just another of many Gods. In Abraham’s case, it is his family/personal Diety, one he brought from Ur. and the worship and verneration of which he passed on to his decendants. It is the God he chose (or inherited) to worship, the one whose assistance he prays for, and to whom he makes supplication.
The Romans had no problem accepting the God of the Israelites into their empire. To them, it was just another of the many Gods one needed to consider. What was difficult for many Romans to understand was the insistance by the Jews that their God was the “One True God” to the exclusion of all others. They had never encountered that concept before.
Regardless, I figure it will all come clean in the wash. Cetainly, the Truth of our beliefs will become known to each of us soon enough.
Respects,
April 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
It’s an interesting logic game — can I or can I not define my set as to be incapable of inclusion in your set?
But my set forbids me from continuing the conversation any longer — it’s the eve of the end of Passover festival, so I hope you will come around again or just stick around, Gwedd — really nice to have your input!
April 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Ron: I’m not sure I see your point. Or, you don’t see mine.
I didn’t want to turn this into a discussion of Islam. I’m not a Muslim and am never going to be one. I was merely noting that many religions hold that there is truth in other religions. Islam isn’t the only one. So does Sikhism. So does B’Hai. So does Hinduism. And so on.
If we want to talk about Islam in particular, it certainly disagrees with some Christian and Judaic tenets. But Islam also holds, as an item central to its faith, that both Christians and Jews worship the same God as they do and that there is much truth in both of those other faiths. That is not a new-agey, modernist, ecumenical belief on their part. It’s been in the Koran for 1,400 years and is central to their faith.
They also hold that the Bible (old testament, new testament, tanakh, torah, etc.) are authoritative and should be revered. They just think they’ve been corrupted over time by copy errors and wrongful traditions of men, and the Koran corrects these errors.
You wouldn’t agree with that, of course, but that is what they believe.
The Muslims hold, in common with Judaism, that God has never taken human flesh. The Muslims hold, in common with Judaism, that there is no “trinity” and that God never begot any “son.” They hold that all the prophets of the Tanakh were valid prophets of God, but that the written records we have before the Koran are unreliable. They hold to many of the same dietary laws as the Jews, which the vast majority of Christians reject. And so on.
Like the Jews (and unlike the hard-core Christians), the Muslims hold that you can be righteous before God without accepting Jesus as Messiah, God, and Saviour. They also say you can be righteous with God without accepting Muhammed as a prophet.
So let’s be really clear here: Islam may well be entirely false, but it’s foolish to act like Christianity is somehow closer in nature to Judaism than Islam is. In point of fact it’s the opposite. Which is probably why Jewish scholars are still revered all over the Islamic world, including the RaMBaM. It’s also why the record of Christian relations with Jews is so much worse than the record of Islamic relations with Jews. Historically, Muslims have always treated Jews with a hell of a lot more respect than Christians, the recent unpleasantness over the modern state of Israel notwithstanding.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Ron,
Thank you for your kind words. My posting is not meant to enflame or admonish in anyway. Just plain discourse. I wish you a joyous Easter. I’ll come back. You have some interesting posts, and heaven knows I like to talk
I would add this, however, to the discussion about the OTG and prosletyzing, relations, etc.
According to my remembrance, when asked how they should preach the Gospel, Jesus instructed the Apostles to go forth and spread the “Good News”. He also instructed that should any town or city fail to heed the Word, that they were to simply turn and walk away, and when they reached the edge of town, to kick the dust from the sandals and be on their way. At least that’s how I read it.
To my mind, what that means is that the “Good News” is to be passed from the Apostles to the gentiles, that the Apostles were only the messengers, and thus, should any reject the message, it was not the place of the Apostles, or anyone else, to remonstrate or force the issue. Pass the word, answer the questions, lead by example. The rest is between the recipient of the message and God.
Respects,
April 8th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Ron, like any good religion, judaism has many different facets and factions of which some sub factions do feature, force fed menus of frozen rigidity/stale surfacey reasoning/preprogrammed purpose with your peas/order/rusty rules/ regulations. And yes there are many end users who need this sort of structure to thrive on and yet it may confuse others into atheism. Thats where it gets tricky I guess ,tripping on the local laws without processing the global picture properly…… For the laid back spiritual consumer = “nice little package of easy emotional listening” there is always the ubiquitious Aish programming found everywhere and everywhere in between.For the sincerely searching there is the embracing of many different religions in unison. And for the discerning consumer ,there’s atheism perfect for the skeptically inclined ,emotionally enhanced with a bright shade of erudite and or just plain weary.
At the end of the spiritual day though, Its always good to choose where you plan on thriving, it just makes thriving so much easier and probable.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Yes, it does get tricky, doesn’t it?
Good yomtov, Jaded.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“He is God, He is one, He has no companion, He does not beget, He is not begotten.”
An exceptionally good essay. Read the whole thing (as Instapundit would say.)
April 8th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Christianity”>Christianity: Holds that the Jews are fundamentally correct, but that the Jews missed the big news of the coming of the Messiah. Holds that the Jewish religion is correct on many points but has missed The Good News. The world’s #1 religion, with a bullet.
Islam: The world’s #2 religion. Holds that Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally correct but have erred on some major points due to corruption by men.
Hinduism: the world’s #3 religion, holds that the monotheists are wrong but holds that the monotheist religions are nevertheless correct on many points. Basically, there are lots of Gods, and the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims are just worshiping one of many Gods, probably the same one. Many even name Jesus and Muhammed as Gods.
Sikhism: Holds that Hinduism and Islam are both equally valid, but that Sikhism itself is the ultimate expression of both. (How they do that I’m not quite clear, but they do.)
Bahá’í: Holds that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and others are all equally valid, but that Bahai is the true expression of all of them.
Zoroastrianism: Holds that there is one God. Possibly older than Judaism, depending on which source you look to, but in any case exists outside of the Abrahamic tradition. Accepts the possibility that other religious faiths may be correct on some points so long as they are monotheistic.
Druze: Consider themselves to be both Christian and Muslim and also think both mainstream Islam and mainstream Christianity are incorrect on some important points.
In short, Syncretism is not a new, modernist idea. It’s been going on for a long, looooong time. And no, all ancient religions do not hold themselves to be the only holders of the truth.
April 9th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
One of the things that is tricky about beliefs is the idea that they are superior to other beliefs. Ideas are not that way.
I still believe in my relgious beliefs, and I hold them to be true. The problem with all religious beliefs, particularly the monotheistic ones, is they are exclusive by nature.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Ron,
I think you (and others here) are basing your arguments on the premise that a religion is either totally right or totally wrong. I believe there are shades of gray. Obviously, if I believe my own religion is completely right, none other can sit on that high throne. Yet some other religions could be mostly right, though wrong on some particulars. It is the attitude that if one’s religions is right, others are just “false” and instruments of the devil, that really bothers me.
– Daniel
April 11th, 2007 at 12:12 am
I agree with you, AVOR.
Daniel, you are entitled to believe there are shades of gray. My religious belief is that you are incorrect, however. This is, however, a long way indeed to brining the “devil” into it.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:48 am
“My religious belief is that you are incorrect, however.” Can you explain this more? I’d be interested in hearing your beliefs on proposals for religious cooperation such as those of Rabbi Froman.
Can non-Jews have meaningful contact with God (such as mystical experiences)? If yes, then couldn’t they build on these experiences to teach beneficial values in their respective cultures? How can you be sure that people like Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad were not such people who had reached (perhaps varying degrees) of mystical enlightenment?
April 11th, 2007 at 8:34 am
I think that Meir Soloveichik made a very good argument for accepting the irreconcilable differences in religions in “Of (Religious) Fences and Neighbors in last month’s Commentary.
It’s discussed here and here. I am more comfortable with the latter approach than the former.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Great comment, Soccer Dad! Thanks for the links.