The study of religion. Who would have known a class with such a boring title could provide such a debate!
My professor today was introducing us to the word religion. Within this talk, he discussed three points which I’ll try to re-communicate as clear as possible. Please comment with your thoughts on this subject! My professor’s first point:
1. Morality, right/wrong, and good/bad is all based on your social setting. Good is relative to where you grew up, therefore you can’t say one religion is right or wrong just because it doesn’t agree with you. This is a fallacy; religion and culture are the same, and religious decelerations of right and wrong are subjective to the individual social group and their experiences.
Is there such a thing as right and wrong?
The First Challenge.
A young man in the back challenged point #1. He said “what if my brother was killed by someone from another culture? Should I say this is ok since the killer has a differently cultured morality than me?”
The professor changed the question away from the young man’s brother to another person. He said that in Sikhism in Ontario there was an “honour” killing a few months ago. Additionally, some Hindus believe that when the Husband dies the wife should die also and is sometimes burned alive or kills themself in India.
Legality is what makes some things acceptable and some not. In Ontario that’s against the Law, and at one time in India that was legal. Again, this “right” or “wrong” that we call morality is culturally constructed.
I found these responses unconvincing. But I’m not smart enough, fast enough, or a good enough communicator to respond at that point. I was still sorting this out. The professor went on to his 2nd and 3rd points.
2. We must ask questions about why people believe what they do. For example, people in Haiti who survived and climbed out of the rubbled after weeks said that they prayed and were rescued by God. The Professor would ask them where was God in the rest of the 300,000 lives that were lost in the earthquake.
3. We shouldn’t generalize religions or world views, because there are so many different individual exceptions.
The Second Challenge
I was still stuck on his first point about subjective morality. So I put up my hand and said something like the following:
“What if someone’s culture doesn’t agree that making generalizations is wrong? For example, I have friends who throughout high school and to this day make generalizations about black people, Jewish people, and white people. They would say this is easier and usually accurate. I’m just confused… how can you say that there is no right or wrong and then say the things that happened in Haiti were wrong?”
Professor: “But I didn’t say the things that happened in Haiti were wrong, I just said we should ask questions” and then he repeated the example in number 2.
Me: “Ok but what about my cultured opinion about generalization? Don’t get me wrong I definitely agree generalizing is bad to do, and is not right nor good. But what if that is my culture, how can you say I’m wrong?”
Professor: “Because we are in a classroom talking about religion. It’s my rules when we are in this course. I decide what is allowed or not. Generalizing is not allowed.”
Confused Conclusion
After challenge one it seemed that the professor was saying morality is based on the culture and the culture decides, but the government has final say. Does this mean that having power allows you decide morality? Also, the logical conclusion of this is the acceptance of Hitler and his government. You can no longer say Hitler is wrong. This personally pisses me off. I don’t care who’s in charge, Hitler’s power does not allow him to do immoral things.
"No one man should have all that power" - Kanye
After challenge two it seemed that simply having power is all that matters. There is no right or wrong (morally) in the world, it only matters what an individual professor decides is right or wrong. The logical conclusion of this is that a professor could teach the morals Buddhism to his class, and tell them to agree because it’s his class. A professor could teach the morals of Hinduism, Christianity, Atheism. All that matters is power, not whether something is actually right or wrong.
If the professor is right about morality, then there is no hope.
Power does dangerous things. Show me power in this world and I’ll show you corruption. It’s clear in Old Testament of the Bible, and clear in government throughout history that trusting politician and government is a dangerous thing to do. You can’t rely on them to decide what is right and wrong. This is every thing from the killing of Jewish people to the invasion of Iraq. This is right and wrong we are talking about.
I think Canada does as good of a job doing this as they can, but what if I disagree with the war in Afghanistan? What if I think Sharia Law should be taught in public schools? Ultimately, allowing flawed, imperfect humans to decide what is right and wrong in society is going to be flawed and imperfect. Obama offered Hope, is the world and American really that much different now?
Religion is a terrible thing because it gives people power.
Religious groups say they have truth, and then they think they are better, and then conflict/wars happen. Truth about morality is dangerous. Is Sharia Law better than a democracy? The only way to get out of this whole mess is to have a truth that humbles you. Then we could be able to get along rather then saying “there is no right or wrong… but my way is right and I’m the boss so listen to me”.
If your biggest truth claim isn’t about you being right but about you being wrong. If your truth claim is about how you have done bad and you needed someone else to rescue you. If your truth claim is about a man who died on the cross for you, and not about something you did, or the power you achieved. What if the God you followed turned the power of this world upside down, and desired for servant hood and giving to others? What if the powerful God of the Universe came to be weak, serve, and give of his own life.
Well then that would change everything… wouldn’t it.
Jesus, the Son of Man, said to his followers: “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
No Bull... from Noble. 