Are there any decent religious leaders?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DrCube

Famous religious leaders, not Pastor So-and-so down at First Baptist.

Joel Osteen refusing to help Houston flood victims (and then caving but asking for donations to offset the costs of doing so) made me think about this.

We’ve got Jim Bakker, Mother Theresa, L. Ron Hubbard, Ted Haggard, Peter Popoff, Joseph Smith, Cotton Mather, Mullah Omar, etc. All on the side of “pretty terrible people”. Who is on the “decent people” side?

I haven’t heard much bad said about Billy Graham, but I can’t say I’m very familiar with his life and work. Is he one of the good ones?

There’s always Jesus, but I was hoping more for living or historical people whose life we have records of outside of their religious texts. I’ve heard all sorts of terrible things about Muhammad, for example, but I’m not sure what if any record we have of him outside of the Quran.

Mother Teresa? really? How are you defining decent?

[puddleglum]

@Novelty_Bobble

“pro-abortion” ?..what exactly is a “pro-abortion” stance? Do you mean pro-choice?

In the absurdist example above I see no evidence that Bob is a decent person and being pro-abortion doesn’t automatically confer decency by any measure and no-one has said that.
Tom on the other hand may well be a decent person because being anti-abortion does not mean that you automatically want to enforce it on other people. Without knowing more about him I cannot possibly say who’s rules I’d prefer to live under.
Being neglected by Bob or dictated to by Tom?

Neither Bob or Tom are politicians . The absurd example is to show the point that it is not what a person believes that makes them good person but what they do. There are lots of great people who disagree with me and each other about politics.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Mother Teresa? really? How are you defining decent?

Mother Theresa was a friend to poverty, not the poor.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Mother Theresa was a friend to poverty, not the poor.

Mother Teresa has been discussed extensively in quite a few previous threads. This may be the most recent: Mother Teresa - Saint or Scourge?

(I don’t recall a consensus ever being reached in any of those threads. She remains a controversial figure among Dopers.)

[Some_Call_Me.Tim]

@Novelty_Bobble

He seems a nice enough person with Liberal views but it is instructive to note his views seem liberal for a clergymen but wholly unremarkable were they expressed by Brenda who works in the next cubicle along.

The request made was for someone decent, not for someone remarkable. So, this objection seems beside the point.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Some_Call_Me.Tim

The request made was for someone decent, not for someone remarkable. So, this objection seems beside the point.

It isn’t an objection nor even a disagreement. I think Archbishop Tutu* is* a decent person.

[astorian]

If we have to embrace an entire liberal agenda, including the Sexual Revolution, for the OP to consider us decent, the price is too high.

I don’t want or need his respect that badly. I’d rather stick to my principles (and would urge all clergy to do the same) and let him hate us.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@astorian

If we have to embrace an entire liberal agenda, including the Sexual Revolution, for the OP to consider us decent, the price is too high.

I don’t want or need his respect that badly. I’d rather stick to my principles (and would urge all clergy to do the same) and let him hate us.

I’m not the OP but the whole point of my own “liberal agenda” is “live and let live”, the golden rule or variations on that theme. Can’t think why anyone would have a problem with that.

Your principles are your own, do whatever you see fit for your own peace of mind and according to your own conscience. I’m sure you would agree though that some people think that sticking to their principles mean they want to take actions that impact others. That’s the point at which I think society should stop you acting on your principles.

So no, I don’t necessarily respect your beliefs and nor should you expect it and if by sticking to your principles you harm others then you are due the hate that comes your way.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Novelty_Bobble

I’m sure you would agree though that some people think that sticking to their principles mean they want to take actions that impact others. That’s the point at which I think society should stop you acting on your principles.

The thread asks for religious leaders. Somebody wouldn’t be much of a leader if they didn’t want to take actions that impact others.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@astorian

If we have to embrace an entire liberal agenda, including the Sexual Revolution, for the OP to consider us decent, the price is too high.

I don’t want or need his respect that badly. I’d rather stick to my principles (and would urge all clergy to do the same) and let him hate us.

God forbid we expect people to not exacerbate an existing pandemic by lying before we call them good people, eh?

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Thudlow_Boink

The thread asks for religious leaders. Somebody wouldn’t be much of a leader if they didn’t want to take actions that impact others.

But the scary part for me is that those actions and impacts are dictated by the whim of a capricious supernatural being that only they can hear, or who’s word only they can interpret, or who’s authority only they can represent.

I think it ensures religious leaders are often hamstrung and regularly unable to clear even the modest bar set by the expectations of an increasingly liberal world.

Some do well but it is despite, rather than because of their religion.

[Miller]

@DrCube

But let’s look at Fred Phelps. By all rights, looking from the outside in, he was a decent man. He was a lawyer who worked for Civil Rights, donating his time and skills so that the world could move forward past segregation and Jim Crow. He never killed anyone or stole or committed fraud. But somewhere along the line the man decided his life would be best spent terrorizing the families of dead soldiers and gay people. And that he should teach his whole family to also become hate preaching lawyers who picket gay and military funerals.

Most people would wholeheartedly agree that he wasn’t “decent” at all. But does the batshit craziness of his later years outweigh the work he did for Civil Rights? He never hurt a fly, as far as I can tell, he just held up (really awful) signs that offended people from the political right and left.

According to family members who escaped his cult, he spent a lot of time beating the ever-loving shit out of his wife and children.

ETA: His estranged son Nate, on his Civil Rights work:

Nate Phelps, the estranged son, says his father held racist attitudes even during his work as a civil rights attorney.

He says his father didn’t believe blacks were equal to whites, and often insulted blacks out of earshot.

“They would come into his office and after they left, he would talk about how stupid they were and call them dumb niggers,” Phelps says.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Novelty_Bobble

But the scary part for me is that those actions and impacts are dictated by the whim of a capricious supernatural being that only they can hear, or who’s word only they can interpret, or who’s authority only they can represent.

No, most religious leaders, at least the mainstream ones, are not mavericks and do not claim to have an exclusive pipeline to God.
A lot of the criticisms here strike me as contradictory.

You criticize religious leaders for remaining faithful to the teachings and traditions of their religions; but you also accuse them of being guided by whim and caprice.

You criticize them for claiming to know and to proclaim standards of Right and Wrong, Good and Evil; but you can’t tolerate that they support positions that you “know”/believe are wrong or evil.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Thudlow_Boink

No, most religious leaders, at least the mainstream ones, are not mavericks and do not claim to have an exclusive pipeline to God.

So the popes, priests, rabbis, imams etc have no more authority or knowledge about what gods may want or expect than any other member of the faith? that seems like a large claim.

You criticize religious leaders for remaining faithful to the teachings and traditions of their religions

no I don’t. I criticise them when they try to impact others because of their traditions and faith. A huge and crucial difference.

but you also accuse them of being guided by whim and caprice.

Well the two are not mutually exclusive anyway seeing as their teachings and traditions come from writings that show a confusing amount of contradictory deity behaviour and that have also changed over time. It is almost as if they pick and choose the bits they like and that being the case they are fully responsible as human beings for making that choice.

You criticize them for claiming to know and to proclaim standards of Right and Wrong, Good and Evil

but you can’t tolerate that they support positions that you “know”/believe are wrong or evil.
[/QUOTE]

I can and do tolerate the fact that they think differently to me. I don’t and shouldn’t tolerate their imposition of those standards on others. You need to wrap your head around the difference between thought and deed.

[Pantastic]

@Bricker

“Let me define ‘decent’ as conforming to my views, and then point out how people that don’t conform to my views are not decent!”

What other mechanism would you use to define ‘decent’? I don’t see anyone using a different method in this thread, they just pick different views as important than I did for my answer. And since the views I listed amount to ‘treat me and the people close to me as human beings and support basic civil rights and equal treatment under the law for them’, I really don’t think I’m making too large of a stretch. I’m certainly not going to apologize for thinking that someone who supports torturing my friends is not a decent person.

@puddleglum

This is a ridiculous definition of decent. Say you have

That’s not a comprehensive definition meant to account for all situations, it’s a quick answer in a thread specifically about religious leaders. Using an example of people who aren’t religious leaders and specifically picking issues that I wasn’t discussing doesn’t really say much other than you’re trying to nitpick.

If you think gay marriage is a decency litmus test there were almost no decent people in recorded history until 25 years ago.

I’m not going to apologize for insisting that someone treat my friends as human beings before I call them decent. The fact that multiple people seem to think ‘are willing accord full human rights to the people close to me’ is unreasonable as a standard of decency is darkly funny to me; I wouldn’t think that ‘treats my friends as human beings’ is exactly a high standard of behavior.

And again you’re ignoring context - this is a thread specifically about religious leaders now. If I am judging whether people were decent in the past, for most people I would adjust my standards based on the social circumstances at the time. However, religious leaders claim to have some sort of timeless wisdom that goes beyond human society, so I don’t see why anyone claiming divine knowledge should get any benefit of ‘it was a different time’. This is especially true for the Pope, who supposedly gets information directly from God, or Mormon leaders who claim to have gotten a ‘hey, swap this policy around’ from God in recent memory.

@Hector_St_Clare

What reason do you have to think your moral views on these issues are correct, and that the Pope’s are wrong? And why do you think the Pope has any obligation to abide by your standard of decency, rather than the other way around?

I’m not going to treat ‘accord my friends civil rights and equal treatment under the law’ as open to debate.

[Some_Call_Me.Tim]

Just to try to drag this back to the OP:

Pantastic, do you believe that:

1. Archbishop Desmond Tutu is not a decent person by your stated definition (please clarify if no)
2. Archbishop Desmond Tutu is not a religious leader by your definition (please clarify if no)
   or
3. The answer to the OP is yes, there exists at least one decent religious leader

[Hector_St_Clare]

@astorian

If we have to embrace an entire liberal agenda, including the Sexual Revolution, for the OP to consider us decent, the price is too high.

I don’t want or need his respect that badly. I’d rather stick to my principles (and would urge all clergy to do the same) and let him hate us.

+1000.

If any religious believer (or religious leader, especially) is willing to rethink the tenets of their religion because some anonymous person on a message board considers them “not decent”, then they aren’t very serious about their religion.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Hector_St_Clare

+1000.

If any religious believer (or religious leader, especially) is willing to rethink the tenets of their religion because some anonymous person on a message board considers them “not decent”, then they aren’t very serious about their religion.

People being “serious” about their religion takes us to very dark places indeed. I rather hope that they continue to do what they’ve done over millennia and carefully shift their dogmatic positions in order to align with the moral and ethical progress in society at large. By any comparison to the original texts and behaviours, the majority of modern followers of the abrahamic faiths must not be serious at all.

[SteveEmcee]

@Novelty_Bobble

People being “serious” about their religion takes us to very dark places indeed. I rather hope that they continue to do what they’ve done over millennia and carefully shift their dogmatic positions in order to align with the moral and ethical progress in society at large. By any comparison to the original texts and behaviours, the majority of modern followers of the abrahamic faiths must not be serious at all.

What you are seeing there is not people changing their values to be more socially conscious or whatever, it’s because it is simply easier to live according to the climate of the society and the religion itself probably plays a very small role in their lives. Like politics, most people don’t really care about stuff like that as long as they can keep doing whatever. Many religious folk also refer to that as being mediocre in their faith, this is popular among more adherent Christians and certain sects of Muslims.
Also, times in general have changed and congregations in general are more liberal, and ones intolerant of homosexuals are often just as intolerant to the bigots who use it as an excuse but still live a worldly lifestyle.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Most human beings are inconsistent, muddled people who, regardless of what you personally think of as being decent, sometimes act in what you would call decent ways and sometimes don’t. Surprise, surprise, religious leaders are often inconsistent, muddled people. Does anyone have any statistical evidence about the decency of religious leaders as opposed to people in general?