Representative of religion?

[Eonwe]

Been thinking about this one a lot since September 11, and this quote today made me think about it again:

*Originally posted by cazzle *
I think the inclusion of the words “Jehovah Witness” in the subject line was wrong. You wouldn’t have put “Jewish” or “Catholic”, would you? What they did to their child was not based on chuch teachings, but on their perversion of the words of the Bible.

They may be fucked up, home schooling, child beating, religious fanatic, mentally ill pieces of shit, but they aren’t Jehovah Witnesses - they just call themselves that.

Folks often say, “he/she isn’t <fill in religion of choice here>, he/she just says that’s the case. I know what that religion is really about, and that person does not represent it at all.”

It seems to me that if someone is using religious doctrine to back up any sort of behavior, than that person is of that religious faith. If I’m using the Bible to justify killing innocent people, and I do it in the name of Jesus, I’m still Christian. Osama bin Laden is Muslim. The folks in the thread I quoted from (I guess I’ll give you a link here if you’re interested) are still Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I will agree that you certanily can’t judge an entire group by the behavior of one or two individuals who are out of the mainstream, but…

If a religious doctrine and religious teachings are the inspiration for behaviour that supposedly runs contrary to that religious teaching, it is absolutely imperative that the religious leaders (how many times can I say “religious” in one sentence?) of that faith go about clarifying and changing the patterns that lead to the abhorrent behavior.

I see this conversation going in two different directions. At first I figured it’d be along the lines of, “Person X does or does not represent his or her religion when performing acts contrary to that religion’s supposed teachings?” but I can also see it addressing the question, “Is it incumbent upon religious leaders to change their methodology and perhaps some fundamental beliefs and attitudes when their religion often gives rise to people behaving badly in the name of said religion?”

Ok folks, let’s have at it!

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Not sure I’m understanding you, 'cause if I am, it’s a lulu.

it is absolutely imperative that the religious leaders (how many times can I say “religious” in one sentence?) of that faith go about clarifying and changing the patterns that lead to the abhorrent behavior.

“Is it incumbent upon religious leaders to change their methodology and perhaps some fundamental beliefs and attitudes when their religion often gives rise to people behaving badly in the name of said religion?”

So, you’re saying that you think that there’s something in the Jehovah’s Witnesses theology that encourages parents to flog their children? Got any kind of cite for that?

Got any kind of cite for “how often” Jehovah’s Witnesses go berserk and beat their own children to death, as opposed to, say, Methodists or Moslems?

I doubt it. If that is what you believe, then I’m sorry, I don’t have words to address that. Those people were psychotic evil killers, no matter if they’d been Jehovah’s Witnesses or Methodists or Moslems.

Nothing to debate here, IMO.

[Eonwe]

Ok, sorry about not being clearer, let me give another stab at what I was trying to get at.

And, first let me say also that the following example is purely ficticious, and a made up story to help illustrate what I mean. I am by no means implying that the following is true. Also, I by no means meant to imply that Jehovah’s Witnesses are abusive more regularly than any other religious or non-religious individuals. I cited that example merely because it reminded me that I was thinking about this issue, and when someone says, “oh, they say they are (fill in religion here), but they’re not, because a real (whatever) wouldn’t do that,” it raises red flags for me. Who put that person in a position to tell someone else they are not of the faith they say they are? I don’t really think that’s in any of our power to do.

Anyways, on with my point.

[made up anecdote]
Let’s say a Christian decides God hates gays, decides to beat a few up. Various Christian spiritual leaders decry this act, saying, “hey, that’s not what we’re about, man. All you people who are thinking we Christians are like this are just wrong, this guy was an abboration and doesn’t represent us at all,” and that’s the end of the story.

Now let’s say that this sort of thing starts happening more frequently (as in, more than once). People beating up gays in the name of Jesus.

If this starts happening the first excuse just seems to hold less and less water for me. The, “it’s not me babe… no no no it’s not me,” thing doesn’t work when you’ve got significant numbers of Christians beating up gays.

If I were a reporter, for example, interviewing the Pope after a bunch of Catholics had beaten up a bunch of gay people and he said to me, “well, they really aren’t Catholic, and we in no way support their behavior,” I would turn around and say, “but wait a minute. They go to your church. They get their spiritual and religious ideas from your priests. When something bad becomes so wide spread, do you really think you can write those people off as just ‘not getting it’ and not really part of your church? Might this not mean that you need to be communicating more clearly about this sort of thing?”
[/made up anecdote]

Religious organizations wielding powerful belief systems and indoctrinating people (no negative connotation meant there) from a very young age have a responsibility to make sure that people “get it.” If people aren’t getting it on a widespread level, it’s the religion’s problem, and should be dealt with by that organization. A clear example that comes to mind is the large number of Muslims who aparently think that people in the US are infadels and deserve to die (note: not all Muslims, or even most Muslims, just a significant and vocal minority). I hear often that “they’re not really Muslims” and “Osama bin Laden is not really a Muslim; Muslims don’t behave that way.”

Now, I’m not trying to say that the Muslim religion condones terrorist behavior. But what I am saying is that the Muslim religion in the way it is practiced seems to be giving rise to action that is contrary to what it actually purports as being right action. On an individual level you can explain this away as just a nutball who’s got a few screws loose. But when masses of people are behaving the same way, it’s important for the leaders of the Muslim religion to seriously look at and revaluate what they do and say so as to keep these attitudes from being a never-ending problem.

(preceeding paragraph I think clearly illustrates what I am trying to argue, or begin to argue, or inspire others to begin to argue, or whatever).

[iadoraeudora]

Usually Catholics are the object of such generalizations.

Lots of people have told me things like “She can’t stop having children/get divorced/get cremated, Catholics don’t believe in birth control/divorce/cremation.”

Of course they do all of those things, so of course they believe in them.

It’s like saying Americans believe in the Constitution. No, they all have a section they want amended. That’s why amendments keep coming.

[Gaspode]

Who put that person in a position to tell someone else they are not of the faith they say they are?..If I were a reporter, for example, interviewing the Pope after a bunch of Catholics had beaten up a bunch of gay people and he said to me, “well, they really aren’t Catholic, and we in no way support their behavior,” I would turn around and say, “but wait a minute. They go to your church. They get their spiritual and religious ideas from your priests. When something bad becomes so wide spread, do you really think you can write those people off as just ‘not getting it’ and not really part of your church? Might this not mean that you need to be communicating more clearly about this sort of thing?”

That may be a reasonable example for Catholics who seem reticent to excommunicate members although even there it’s iffy.It’s certainly a horrible for the JWs who disfellowship memebr for infraction like smoking cigarettes.

Who put that person in a position to tell someone else they are not of the faith they say they are? According to the Witnesses God did. The parents in the original example have broken the law and killed a person with no justification, both of which, if true, will be cause to have them disfellowshipped. As soon as the parents are able to talk to the church Elders and present their side of the story a decision will be made, and unless there’s some compelling eveidence theyw ill be immediately disfellowshipped. Except for the fact that the father at least in in custody and unable to talk to anyone aside from his lawer he would no longer be a JW, so that answers that question.

I guess it also kind of answers the second question. People who commit these acts don’t remain JWs, therefore these people really aren’t getting it and aren’t part of the church. Being a memeber of the organisation entails following fairly strict rules which are set out in black and white. No one can call themselves a JW without being baptised, and no one gets baptised wihtput undergoing at least 2 months of study with an Elder. Since it’s made quite clear during this study that breaking the law in any way (including ‘minor’ stuff cheating on your taxes and littering) is unacceptable and that beating people up for offending you is totally against the percieved teachings of God, then it’s a little difficult to argue that people who beat up homosexuals aren’t simply ‘not getting it’. If someone were to join a secular organisation like the Sierra Club, and then proceeded to go out and napalm rainforests, strip mine the Grand Canyon and turn every last whale in the ocean into pet-food would it be reasonable to say that he just didn’t get it? That although he may have been a card-carrying member at the time he wasn’t acting in accordance with what he had been informed were the groups beliefs?

To ask a question in return Eonwe, how much training and how severe a punishmnet is required before we can say that people aren’t getting it? Hypothetically someone wishing to become a RC recieves three years intensive training, at least 4 hours/day, before recieving their first communion or whatever makes an official Catholic. That person is clearly informed every day during those three years that beating homosexuals is wrong, and that they will be excommunicated if any suspicion of such activity is even placed on them. That threat is known to be carried out. Do you still see the church as failing?

It seems to me that you are expecting standards of at least the JWs that aren’t met by any secular organisation. Police recieve training in correct procedure, yet still take bribes and sodomise prisoners with broomsticks. Military officers recieve training and yet still kill and torture prisoners and civilians. Politicians takle bribes, teachers sexully assault children and so on. There has never been an organisation on Earth that has managed to get every member to toe the line all the time. Based on that I have to conclude that it’s impossible, no matter what the incentive, training or punishment. If that’s true, and I expect you to provide an examples if you dispute this, what else can the JWs, or any other religious organisation, do side from providing training, ascertaining that new memebers understand the tenets of the faith and what constitutes acceptable behaviour and immediately remove them from the organisation if they deliberatelay fall out of line? If someone staes quite clearly to a preist that they accept that beating children is an evil act that will get them excommunicated and then goes ahead and does it despite this, what responsibility does the church bear? How much more effort can the organisation make to ensure that people are ‘getting it’?

Unfortunately I think if people are going to lie, they’re going to lie. All any organisation can really do is give training in its beleifs, ask people in good fiath if they accpet those beliefs, mandate that they continue to study those beliefs in order to remain part of the organisation and then remove people who go against those beleifs.

[capacitor]

Thanks Gaspode. I was about to lose my temper and start a acid-laced rant.

Eonwe, are you going to say the same thing about the Muslims who whipped themselves mentally and somtimes physically into a hateful frenzy and wish for the violent destruction of Israel and America, that they represent Muslims aroud the world? Gee I hope not. Or that the orthodox Jews who try to enforce the sabbath with rock throwing of their own, they are representative of Judaism? Or do oyu really think that Phelps and his gang going to funerals of gay people to verbally piss on their graves, are representatives of all Baptists, even if they do it more often? Or that Lolo represent atheism, even if there are maybe more like him?

You should get the point right now. Just because a sinful, hateful act is done, or more frequently done, in the name of Jesus or God, it alone does not give the act sanction by God or religion or group the actor claims to be an avatar or member of.

[capacitor]

Oh and gaspode, I disagree about the smoking part. I knew of a guy who lit up a stogie in church, in what he thought was a secluded part of the church. All of the incense in it could not reduce the stench in the place, and on the othe patron’s clothes. It smelled like h-, well you get the picture.

[MHand]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
Or that the orthodox Jews who try to enforce the sabbath with rock throwing of their own, they are representative of Judaism?

Its not exactly on topic, but since you mentioned it, I feel a need to respond here.

The stone-throwing attack that I believe you are refering to never happened. It was first reported in the November 15, 1994, issue of the Arizona State University daily paper. A retraction was printed on November 29, 1994 after the 24-year-old senior journalism major who had penned the piece admitted that the entire account, from start to finish, had been the product of her own fertile imagination.

Unfortunately, many other papers picked up on the story before it was retracted.

[JRDelirious]

Greatly put forth, Gaspode…

Also, there is the small detail that unlike the RCC, many religions do NOT have some sort of “central government” that can just lay down the law from above. Many have standard doctrinal and administrative rules and procedures for being a member “in good standing” and for recognizing a “preacher” but otherwise the congregation/preacher/member is expected to act according to conscience in light of the teachings, and it is THEIR responsibility if they do wrong.

Even if a religion has a central governing body, unless that specific hierarchy is government-enforced, nothing prevents the dissenter / fanatic / heretic from continuing to preach and teach on his own (The Assemblies of God defrocked Jimmy Swaggart. He just continued the ministry as his personal, independent operation).

[Eonwe]

capacitor,

you asked:

Eonwe, are you going to say the same thing about the Muslims who whipped themselves mentally and somtimes physically into a hateful frenzy and wish for the violent destruction of Israel and America, that they represent Muslims aroud the world?

To which I will respond by restating that:

originally posted by Eonwe
I’m not trying to say that the Muslim religion condones terrorist behavior.

So the answer to your question is no no no no no. Just as I would never say that my lack of clarity and coherency represents all members of the SD. I did not mean at all to pigeonhole any religious groups in this thread. The example about talking with the Pope was only because he was the first religious leader I could think of, and had nothing at all to do with what I think about the RCC. If you reread my two posts, I’d hope you see that I tried to be very clear that I was not trying to accuse any religion of being a certain way, and in fact am talking about definite minority populations within a given group. If that was not clear I appologize.

But, I will say that I find my premise definitely refuted and I retract my original assertion after Gaspode’s great post (and the comments of others). I guess it is unreasonable to expect a group to affect the kind of internal change which I originally gave them the responsibility of doing. Especially given the fact that, as JRDelerious points out, there often is no governing body with any sort of influence in many religions.

I still don’t think that (unless there is an actual ex-communication-type process) a person can state that someone is not of the faith they claim because of their actions, but that discussion doesn’t seem to be grabbing anybody.

Well, I stand corrected with ignorance slightly abated… for now (dun dun dun)!

Tune in next time for the fight against ignorance part II.