How would every religion need to change if we were truly serious about making this a better world?
My article in today’s Austin Statesman:
Thanks to Tom Spencer of IACT of the invitation to write it.
You are welcome to share anything you find on this site. Please link back to jimrigby.org.
How would every religion need to change if we were truly serious about making this a better world?
My article in today’s Austin Statesman:
Thanks to Tom Spencer of IACT of the invitation to write it.
What kind of religion does the world need? The answer is clear: none. What the world could use is some good philosophical beliefs based on reality, etc. as you write. But philosophies are beliefs that people can mold a bit to fit themselves without the demands of a “religion”. Religions are generally used to exclude others, whether intended or not, and we need to move past that as people, not as believers in this god or that god with this absolutist dogma as laid out for the last umpteen years.
Thank you David for the feedback. I have a couple of questions I would like to hear your thoughts on.
1. Would you agree that art is also important for life, and that some kind of artistic expression complements the philosophical side of living?
2. I am trying to say that religion can be either exclusive or inclusive. Martin Luther King and Gandhi seem like examples of people who are both religious and inclusive. Do you disagree?
Don’t feel like you need to respond, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
Dear Mr. Rigby,
I just finished reading your article in the Statesman this morning and found it intriguing. Particularly as it seems to suggest that our current interpretation of religion seems to be more concerned with political power and proselytizing cheerleaders. But, I think that your criteria for ‘the religion that the world needs’, (while worthy), neglects the question, “Does the world need a religion?”. Based on the behaviors of current practitioners of the various faiths, I’d suggest the answer is no.
While I don’t doubt that somewhere, someone, is doing something good in the name of religion, (thinking of the church ladies of my childhood who helped needy folks for no purpose other than doing good), most of the woes of the world seem to have roots in the competition between the various dogmas.
I would also suggest that those same church ladies contradict your interpretation of Niebuhr’s elaboration of St. Paul’s call to faith, hope and love. You’re thinking macro, but on a micro level, simple acts of kindness, a comforting hand on the shoulder of a grieving person, taking food to the less fortunate, or simply being a friend to someone who needs a friend are among the myriad of worthy things that can be achieved in our lifetime. I remain convinced that my philosophy of random acts of kindness has made a difference. I don’t doubt that an examination of your life would also turn up many worthy deeds. While not likely to solve the world’s problems, we are able to positively affect lives.
I would also like to compliment you on what appears to be among the more enlightened discourses on religion by a person of religion. Most tend to take a conclusion and then try to find info to support that conclusion.
I wish you well on your journey of discovery.
Regards,
MF
—
If you don’t know why you think what you think, you’re not thinking.
Mike,
I think we have differing definitions of the word “religion,” but I appreciate you kind response and your service to the world through acts of kindness. We can certainly agree on the importance of that.
Jim