True religion is the life we lead, not the creed we profess.
- Louis Nizer, lawyer (1902-1994)
What Nizer called true religion, some today call spirituality. Or something close. We don't have a good word for someone who is spiritually in touch with God but doesn't conform to the dictates of a religion.
Many people equate "religion" with organized religion. They feel so strongly about membership in an organized relgion being the only definition for "religion" or for being religious that they consider another who is not a member to be an atheist or a pagan. Christianity even adopted the word pagan to mean anyone who does not believe in the God of Christianity.
If membership in an organized religion is what determines whether or not a person is religious and organized religions have been guilty of heinous crimes and violations of their own principles, it's no wonder that people have trended away from "religion" in recent decades.
To understand statistics regarding religious affiliation as iterated in the media, we need to understand that not declaring affiliation with an organized religion does not make a person non-religious, nor does it make them atheist. It just makes them non-practising adherents of a total religious belief set.
It means that a person has beliefs that are not expressed in accordance with the doctrines of major religions. Being accused of being a member of a religious sect, for example, makes a person a social pariah, so people would rather declare no religion than admit to being part of a small religious group that might be called a sect.
What name do we have for a person who has sought out their own spiritual identity, who believes in a power greater than that of humanity and who has committed their life to follow a life course that is in accordance with what he or she believes is the right way to live? Atheist? Agnostic? Heathen (another favourite word of Christianity, though Jews and Muslims use it as well)? That's religious name-calling, something that the principles of organized religions insist should not be done.
Some people call themselves "humanists." These people often do so less because they don't believe in a supernatural power and more because they reject the teachings of organized religions about the supernatural. They don't commit themselves to belief in a supernatural power, instead preferring to help other humans in ways that would have made Jesus of Nazareth and the Prophet Mohammed proud of them.
In a sense, religions have soiled their own beds. Then they condemn others who refuse to join them.
Cutting through all the semantic crap, Louis Nizer said that what is important is how we live, not what we say we believe in. For there are many who profess their beliefs openly and strongly, but fail to act in ways that would affirm their oral commitments. They are people that Jesus would have condemed as hypocrites (he used the term 24 times in the Bible). No doubt the Prophet would have used similar terminology.
Often a person who claims that he doesn't believe in God, when questioned intensively admits that he believes in God, just not in the kind of God that members of organized religions profess to believe in, the kind of God they have given unreasonable and unprovable characteristics and attributes and one that inevitably disappoints because He doesn't live up to the advertising of His loyal followers.
God is not who the Pope or the Ayatollahs say He is. God is not who religious fanatics say He is. God is not who the religious faithful say He is.
God is who He is. He doesn't have to explain Himself to anyone or prove Himself to anyone.
For those who are unable to see the existence of God around them or to feel His extraordinary presence within them, God probably doesn't exist.
God can live with that. Just don't live like a total screw-up.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, striving to put life in perspective.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
Bill, the only part of what you said that might be debated by me would be the definition of morality. That has traditionally been defined by religions. The fact that morality is almost the same all over the world and has been throughout history tells us that there is something more universal to morality than definition by any one religion.
Thomas, is religion the set of principles or the people who claim to practise it? Just an open question, not a challenge.
Debra, as God would be in each of us, we might be tempted to think that God is fragmented, thus we would each be looking for the rest of ourselves. I think that we each search within our limited frame for an explanation for why we are the way we are. We can't find that until we accept that we are part of the one whole. The closest we can come to that physically is to touch each other, which is why touch is a basic need. But once we have felt accepted as part of the whole, we understand that nothing else is like that.
Then we carry on two existences, one physical (of this world) and another spitirual (as carriers of our portion of the whole).
is so timely to read...for people to understand that it is our responsibility as we ALL are 'humanist' to act in the manner that you describe in your last sentence in answering Debra's
comments. I might also mention....you know I so enjoy your articles, I also enjoy your comments. Thanks as always, Mo
Thanks for your comment.
Wilhelmine, I didn't mention that word because I wasn't certain that everyone would understand it. Those who believe in God without a crutch, public voice or channeler are in a minority.
My grandmother was a wise woman and a true Christian. I was never made to go to church. It was a choice. If I went she would afterwards ask two questions. Did I like it? Did I learn anything that I considered important for my life? If I answered no to either question we never returned to that same church. Consequently I learned that my thoughts and my own personal spirituality had validity, and that the same held true for other peoples. Afterall, they were there because it worked for them. The lithmus test of genuine spirituality is seen in ones actions
It's following the unelected dictators of some religious organizations without regard to the principles of their religion that can lead us astray.
Your grandmother was indeed a wise woman, Debbie.
"Bill, the only part of what you said that might be debated by me would be the definition of morality. That has traditionally been defined by religions. The fact that morality is almost the same all over the world and has been throughout history tells us that there is something more universal to morality than definition by any one religion."
As an example, I had a lengthy debate with a Mormon friend who couldn't seperate religious teachings from what I think are basic family/society lessons aka morals. I told him that while I've never really attended church, and haven't read but a few pages of the Bible, I know better than to murder, rape, steal, etc. I asked him how he could explain that. His argument really didn't hold any water, other than giving me the impression that he considered me a time-bomb since I didn't have a strict religious regimen to prevent me from doing such things! I tried to assure him that my concern for my fellow man and pacifism were in no way in jeopardy by my lack of faith. In fact, I often wonder if the whole "clean slate forgiveness" idea of being able to repent in certain religions make people *more* likely to commit illicit acts. People are people, and attempting to hold yourself to a particular standard often leads to hypocrisy. As the Wiccans say "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt".
Your Mormon friend is well indoctrinated. I will guess that he doesn't feel the need to think for himself because his religious leaders does that for him. That is very common in religions where people are passionately committed to doing things all one way.
Thanks for your thoughts.