In many of my entries about religion, I GO HARD! When I ‘bash’ religion, I start with the assumption that religion is responsible for the negative perception many persons hold about the world. But today I’ve been wondering how/why people choose to follow one religion over another. What element(s) go into how some people commit to a religious following? Do they think about the benefits and the risks? What makes them commit regardless of the consequences? And then I wonder, why do others never commit to a following, no matter what?
If I put myself in the shoes of those that commit to a religious following, I can get why they would do such a thing. But if I am to accept the notion that it is evil NOT to subscribe to a religious following, I HAVE TO wonder how can one base his/her life on a premise that doesn’t really serve the greater good of all? Are we REALLY a society full of things ONLY black or white? Now I know that we are individuals and we are not responsible for each other, but I have to say that when an individual cast another aside because he/she does NOT believe in the ‘rain god’ they serve; didn’t they commit to the drought they are trying to prevent? How do they commit to something that supposedly makes them ‘good’ and/or ‘holy’ and that same thing makes them leave non-believers like me behind? Doesn’t their commitment make them EXTRA vulnerable to faith healers, charlatans and frauds of all stripes?
Obviously there are exceptions to the rule where religious commitments are concerned. There are individual people and individual faiths that are tolerant towards people of different faiths and towards people with no faith at all. But whether we accept it or not, the rule in religion is intolerance toward those who don't commit and I can’t wrap my mind around this defense mechanism, but then again, don’t you have not to think and or question things in order to fully commit?
No comments:
Post a Comment