thread: 2005-06-06 : Happenings
On 2005-06-07, Thor Olavsrud wrote:
John said: "Because in the world where people love each other religious differences (hell, differences of all kinds) are wonderful things to talk about as opposed to things to kill for."
I whole-heartedly agree. However, to do so would require giving up on those very same beliefs. My younger brother has married into a pretty hardcore, born again, Southern Baptist family.
At best, they believe that I (an atheist) am damning my "eternal soul." Out of the "love for everyone" principle, they see it as to help me "save my soul" from my beliefs. It is insulting, to say the least. But from their perspective, they are loving me to the best of their ability.
At worst, they see me as a corrupting influence on my brother, threatening his salvation with my godless beliefs. While I try never to be less than friendly and polite with them, it is a clear but unstated source of tension, as I have no tolerance nor patience for their attempts to "save" me or other members of my family.
Despite the discomfort and unpleasantness of the situation, it is pretty tame. Taken to an extreme, it seems quite possible and even likely to me that someone who actually believes in "loving everybody" could be convinced of the need to kill someone who he or she felt threatened the salvation of someone to whom he or she felt close. I think it would not be beyond the pale to draw a comparison with a parent who kills someone he or she found molesting their child.
I think it was Metallian who suggested that we are not all trading in the same currency. And I think this is fundamentally true. The secularists and those who are religious but non-dogmatic can embrace the idea of a respect and tolerance for differences in belief because we are primarily concerned with love in the here and now sense as exists between people.
I do not think this is valid for people with dogmatic belief. That is not to say they are not also concerned with love in the here and now sense. However, they must, by the very nature of their beliefs, be more concerned with love for the immortal soul and its relationship with God.
While it is not essential that these two types of love are opposed, it is very easy for them to become so. And, in my experience, when a person with dogmatic belief finds these two types of love in conflict, love for the immortal soul and its relationship with God must win out.
Furthermore, while we can bandy on about whether Buddhism is a religion or not, I don't think it makes a fundamental difference in this discussion. I, personally, believe that dogmatic belief in any ideology, be it a religion, philosophical movement, cult, political school of thought, etc., leads to a similar behavioral result, no matter the cause. I would argue that whenever a priority is placed on something other than individuals—be it God, the State, or the "rights of the unborn"—love for individual humans will lose out to love for that thing.
