Joan Chittister

[miriam_e]

What a remarkable woman she is. You will be hard pressed to find a sharper, more honest mind. She embodies great hope for us all. I can't even say I'm sorry she is religious (she is a Benedictine nun), because she and people like her may help religious people find their way out of the blindness that too commonly afflicts them. It would be good to not feel I have to stand against religion because of the damage it does. It would be wonderful to feel it doesn't threaten our survival as a species. Unfortunately that isn't so yet. It would be very cool if people like Joan Chittister could help make it so.

My only qualm is that she talked eloquently about how people of all spiritual persuasions can find common ground for tolerance and build upon a basic goodness in spiritualism, but as is so common in religious people she ignored the fact that they are surrounded by atheists and agnostics who are good and tolerant people without spiritualism. Sad that even one so brilliant as she ignores that.

One of the incredible insights she explained in the program was the second commandment, not to take the name of god in vain. I'd always felt this was a rather irrelevant commandment, but as she put it, it is central to making religion more tolerant and just. By making, for instance, homophobic pronouncements against gay people then religious people are taking their god's name in vain. They are assuming to speak for their god -- an incredibly arrogant thing to do.

She is filled with such illuminations. A very smart woman indeed.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/default.htm

Comments

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

:) Okay. I was a little mystified at your disagreement with my use of the word "apologist". It wasn't actually pointed specifically at you, though you were included within its compass. Your reaction surprised me. Perhaps it has different connotations over there than it does here. That's why I checked the dictionary, to see if I was missing something. Perhaps it is something in the culture. Over there "atheist", from what I can ascertain, carries connotations of deceitfulness and amorality. Over here it just means someone who doesn't believe in a god. Over there perhaps apologist means more than the dictionary term would indicate. Perhaps it does here too. I'll have to ask around.

It was just a throwaway word. Here's why I included it:

I've been recently talking with friends who defend religious people's desire to believe nutty stuff if they want and to thrust it upon the rest of us. It had bothered me that this is part of why religion has such a grip. If people would resist being forced into pretending to pray at certain events, or would not accede to religious fervour in forcing children to attend scripture classes, or would speak out against religious statements that we are a religious nation, then we would have a better chance. We need to stand up for ourselves and say that we don't go along with childish fables.

My friends demurred, saying it was too hard and some even said that they felt it was good for some people to have a belief to cling to. This bewildered me. The evidence is that these beliefs are unhealthy. It smacked of an incredibly patronising attitude to say that these people are not doing any harm and that they shouldn't be jarred out of their comfortable delusion by revealing that we around them are largely atheist.

If all the atheists and agnostics stood up and said that it was stupid and they weren't going to just let religious people have their way all the time then we might actually be free of it. There would still be religious people, but we wouldn't have the nonsense constantly thust upon us anymore. They would know our position and hopefully would see theirs as less tenable. I don't believe religious people should be forced to hide their beliefs, but it annoys me that many atheists and agnostics willingly hide their own and make patronising excuses for religious people. ("They're so inferior they might crumble without their beliefs.")

That was what I meant when I mentioned apologists. My original point stands without including the word, but I don't feel it loses anything by adding it. The intention wasn't to label you, but to add an extra extent to the problem.

I'm sorry if you felt offended by it. That certainly wasn't what I wanted.

After all that, here it is again without the word:

...there are many [bad] things done in the name of religion... but it is not religion...

This is one of the things that mystifies. How can people possibly say that? Religious people bomb buildings, shoot doctors, wage religious wars, burn "witches", block truth and science, yet others say "Oh but those people aren't doing those things for religion!" Yet if you ask the people who do those dastardly things they unhesitatingly claim a religious purpose. Why do people excuse such behavior? It is because they can't face the truth that the evil really is religion itself. (They wonder, "How can something that feels so good be that evil?" I say, "Ask a junkie.")

See what I mean? People would excuse religion by saying that those who do those horrid things are not the face of true religion. Yet if you ask those hateful people themselves, they do indeed consider religion to be their direct motive. The problem is religion. In fact the most damning of all are moderates themselves. The only way they can be good and tolerant people is by actively disbelieving most of their own religion.