Hey everyone! :)
So after our presentation today, I started thinking about that tangent we went off on during the discussion about King Henry VIII and about how he questioned the Catholic Church and ultimately usurped power from it by creating his own religion. This has happened repeatedly throughout history where someone is unhappy with the way that a certain religion is handling things so they decide to go out and create/find a religion that is more suitable to their personal beliefs.
Is it ok to question the authority of a religious institution based on the simple fact that you yourself don't agree with it? Are there some examples where questioning the authority of a religious institution has gone too far? Are some religions harder to question? If there are, why do you think this is so? What do you think is the most interesting result to come about from questioning religious authority?
Also kind of relating to this topic, why do you think there are so many disagreements among people that center around religious beliefs and teachings?
I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this! Happy blogging! :D
15 comments:
I think it is okay to question a religion, if you don't agree with it, but I also think you need legitimate reasons to be questioning it, especially if it is your religion. There are most definitely examples of religions that have taken it too far, for example, the case in A Thousand Splendid Suns, taking people's body parts, killing people for crimes that may have been justified, giving women virtually no rights. I don't think the religions themselves are harder to question, I think it's the people enforcing the religion that could make one easier or harder to question openly. In the Catholic church the worst that could happen is getting excommunicated (if you don't repent), which in itself is pretty serious, but compared to being killed, it's not nearly as bad (although if you murder someone, the law might get you, unless it's in Mariam's case, she would probably have gotten off for self defense or something). You are still alive to make peace with God. I'm not much of a history buff, but I do think the whole Henry VIII thing was pretty ridiculous as far as an interesting result. First Henry creates his own religion, then Mary comes along and changes the religion back to Catholocism, then kills tons of people for not being Catholic, and then Elizabeth comes and turns it protestant again. To me that's pretty insane. As far as the disagreements between people about religion: people want to believe in a higher power, so therefore religions were formed based on bibles, prophets, etc, and over the years as people have become more liberal and coming up with their own thoughts, more branches of religion have broken out, and in wanting to connect with other human beings, people try to convince others of what they believe so that they can connect on a spiritual level and the more religions that appear, the more differences and disagreements pop up. And obviously some people are more adamant about convincing others than other people are.
I think that not agreeing with an authority is the primary reason people question. I mean few people question the authority they agree with. So, as far as questioning a religious authority, I think it is ok to question your religious authority if you do not agree with it by trying to change what you dislike or by finding or creating a new religion. As long as you respect others rights to choose their own religion,it is ok to question your own as it applies to you.
In regards to Henry VIII, I think it was less that he questioned the religion because he disagreed with the main tenants of Catholicism, and more because the pope didn't grant him exemption for a divorce. It is still an example of questioning authority, but it was definitely for selfish reasons and not for any fundamental difference. The thing was that there were valid things that made the Catholic church unpopular in England at the same time (mainly how the church demanded money from the people for church services-- like baptism-- and the practice of indulgences). But Henry didn't outright disagree with these practices, he just wanted a divorce.
On a broader level. I think all the violent disagreements about religion are crazy. I mean at the very basic level, most religions teach the same concepts ( honesty, love, faith, forgiveness, etc.), people just get hung up on the particulars. That one person calls his god Allah and the other calls his god God shouldn't cause such intolerance and disagreements.
Questioning religion like anything else needs to have valid reasoning behind it. Any type of questioning authority can be taken to the extreme. I think religion falls under its own category because if someone is unsatisfied with their religion they usually change to a different one instead of changing the current.
Conflict between different religions has been going on forever. The main thing I think we need to do is agree to disagree. It is normal to try and persuade people to follow or change to another belief but it should always be done in a nonviolent manner.
It is definitely ok to question religion. However, if you have to question it, then it really seems like you just don't believe in it. People are able to believe whatever they want, meaning that we could all create our own churches if we choose. This is what Henry VIII did. He didn't believe in the Catholic divorce policy, so he created a new religion. However, the royal family gets its title through divine right, so he still had to believe in the same God.
Often it seems that people question those who enforce the religion. This too is ok within reason. Malicious or violent disagreement with religion is not ok. Religions are usually based around peace, creating no reason for violent opposition. People around the world believe in many things. This diversity causes disagreements because religions are almost entirely opinion-based. There is no real evidence, so people feel they have to do whatever it takes to defend their religion themselves. This should not, however, ever lead to violence.
I definitely think that it is okay to question religion (at least to an extent). I think that in order for a person to make their own decisions about a religion, they have to question what their parents thoughts and beliefs are on religion in some way (though it doesn't have to go as far as something like the Amish rumspringa). Additionally, I think that it is definitely okay for a member of a religion to (respectfully, as I think people should be with just about any authority) question those who are in leadership positions about how they are doing things or interpreting, for example, the Bible because no person is perfect. I also think that someone who disagrees with a religion's beliefs should be able to question them both personally and express this to others, as long as they do so with respect, and I think they should also be open to a change of perspective (I think many religions can get bad stereotypes caused by a select few of their members).
I agree with the statement that the reason people question authority is because they disagree with the authority. But I disagree with what Henry VIII did because he did it all for selfish reasons. His first wife never successfully had a son who lived so that is why Henry VIII wanted an annulment, but just because your wife miscarried or her children died shortly after birth isn't grounds for an annulment so Henry just made his own rules. He also had mistresses, one of whom got pregnant, so he was in no way eligible for an annulment (which was his fault). This doesn't grant him the right to take matters into his own hands though, many people suffered for his choice (six wives is extensive). His questioning authority had nothing to do with whatever else the church may have been doing at that time in history.
In a place where there is Freedom of Religion, I think that you have a great privilege to question religion. You can switch religions easily or choose not to practice at all. In other countries, you risk excommunication if you question authority so it is way more risky. That being said, I also agree with Bridget's point about "agreeing to disagree". Everyone should be able to question their own religion and keep it at that. Questioning someone else's religion only causes problems and segregation.
I think if you're questioning authority for valid reasons, then it is completely acceptable. However, I don't think the reasons behind King Henry VIII's questioning of the Catholic Church were correctly driven; they were selfishly driven.
There are certainly some religions that are more difficult to question. For example, Oprah has done specials on escapees from cult-like religious communities and the escapees tell how difficult it was to initially realize what was occurring was wrong because that was what they were fully immersed in. They also describe how much of a struggle it was to escape. I think that questioning the authority of these types of religions is extremely difficult just because there is no intermediate state for questioning it. It seems as if escaping the religion is the main form of questioning its authority.
I feel that far too often individuals disagree with the constraints of the religion they follow. If they truly believe that a higher power dictates the rules made, they should happily follow the religion as long as no one becomes harmed in the process. For example, some people feel that premarital sex is ok, and choose to not follow that part of the religion. While the individual disagrees, they should realize that if they make a decision to engage in this activity, they are going against their religion rather than rationalizing the act as being ok. People may say the rule is outdated instead of accepting the fact that they are breaking the rules. These rules have been set by a higher power and it is not for humans to disagree with them. The only time people should question their religion is when manmade rules that hurt others are instilled. No religion is focused on the suffering of people. Things such as "God Hates Fags" should be questioned because this is a target against a people and will only drive future followers away. God says to hate the sins, not the sinner. If people are not getting hurt by the rules, then they should be followed and taken as rules that will better them off in the long run.
People have free will, so it is certainly possible for them to question religion. Even the Bible discourages religion ("religion" meaning simply going through the motions and trying to obtain righteousness through deeds rather than through faith). However, just because someone has the ability to question something does not always mean that it is a good idea. I find it quite amusing that some people think they can just "create" a new religion, when religion usually deals with a creator of the universe. How can a man create a god?
I think that it is certainly acceptable to question the actions of people within a religion because people have faults and are not always in the right. As far as the religion itself, I think there are two different ways to question it. You can either disagree with the religion, or be part of the religion but disagree with some of the rules. No one can force you to believe a religion (hence the free will I mentioned earlier). But if someone believes in a religion but questions some of the principles, that is just questioning God Himself, which seems silly to me.
I like what Eric said about people disagreeing with the restraints of their religion, and simply choosing to rationalize it so that they can do what they want. I think that, particularly in modern day America, people often pick and choose parts of a religion or religions that they like and discard the rest, but as he said, if people really believe what they say they do (that there is a God who will hold you to a certain standard), they are simply digging themselves a hole by following certain parts of the religion and discarding others. I think that, though no one can be perfect, when people who say they believe a certain thing, but overtly and intentionally don't act like it (or ignore certain parts of the religion), they can give everyone else who believes the same thing a bad image.
It is justifiable to question a religion, but one cannot be selfish in going about this. In King Henry VIII's case, his desire for divorce was more selfish and foolish of a reason to create a totally new religion. However, in other cases this would be totally justifiable. One of my favorite moments in the Bible is where the people are about to stone a woman to death for commiting adultery and they ask Jesus if he disagree's that this is an appropriate punishment. His response is one that in my opinion questions their authority "He who is free of sin throw the first stone." In a sense he questioned the authority of the leaders of the religion at the time who seeked to enforce the law of Moses. He merely pointed out that they were in no place to pass judgement, that is a place for God to take and only Him. In this case the questioning of religious authority was totally legitimate, and justified (not to mention he was Jesus Christ which just made him more awesome.) But there are totally moments where it is wrong to question it.
As with any other type of questioning authority, if one were to question religion the reasons would definitely have to be valid. If one does not agree with the teachings of a certain religious group, I think they definitely should question it. For me the beauty of religion is that it's whatever you make of it, so questioning teachings you don't necessarily agree with can be very healthy for one's religious faith.
As for the most interesting result of questioning religion, I'm going to have to go with Martin Luther. If that guy had not questioned the authority of the Catholic church, who knows where we might all be now?
I agree with Meagan- questioning religious authority definitely needs legitimate reasons. It is not enough to challenge a religion just for the sake of faith. The questioner must have stronger motivations behind his/her actions than just attacking religion.
Yeah, there are times where questioning religious authority has gone too far, with Henry VIII immediately coming to mind. Not only does he abandon the Catholic Church in favor of the Church of England because of his desire for a divorce, he also flaunts his own authority to do so. Part of the problem with Henry VIII (and others who have the capability) is that he questioned religious authority and flaunted his own in order to pursue a selfish desire, rather than using his power to create some sort of improvement for the people. In this case, he went too far by creating major conflict through his actions, rather than finding a better solution.
I absolutely think that you should be able to question religious authority. However, I don't think that anyone should be able to control another person's beliefs. Seeking guidance and togetherness is one thing, but when society begins to TELL you what to have faith in, I take issue with that.
King Henry VII was well within his rights to question the Catholic church and create his own church. He was definitely looked down upon for that because it was different. Being Buddhist, I also come under a lot of fire for my beliefs because they are not popular. I do not mind inquiries, but I don't like is being questioned simply because I'm a considered to be a "deviant". I think too many people take popular religions COMPLETELY for granted, even if they don't share that faith. The less common religions and philosophies are often the ones that are attacked.
Post a Comment