Indonesian Theological Lessons

Several times in the last month I've been confronted with issues of religion. From hearing of the difficulties we face when trying to obtain visas for some contractors from Israel, to the signing of Tim Tebow (whom I called out in a prior post) to my beloved Denver Broncos, I've witnessed several examples of how religion influences and affects our lives.

A book I am reading also contains frequent references to the ever changing relationships of Christianity, Judaism and Islam throughout history. While the book covers what to me is an interesting topic (how empiricists and statisticians using advanced statistical tools like Gaussian and Mandelbrothian models are really no more effective at predicting the "long tail" outliers than is astrology and other ancient predictive arts), the author's approach to describing and defending this hypothesis struggles to hold my attention, so my mind often wanders off on its own tangents...which explains why I'm still reading a 300 page book 3 weeks after I started it.

One such mental wandering was a reflection of the role religion plays in politics. Here are my reflections

1) Freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.

The first amendment of the constitution - arguably first because our founding fathers considered it most important - starts with: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In recent years, pressed by the ACLU and other organizations, courts have begun interpreting this to mean public institutions, like schools, cannot mention God, condone prayer, or other means of religious expression.

I am not a religious person yet I feel the courts have gone too far. If my time in Indonesia has taught me anything, the correct approach to this is to be inclusive, not exclusive. At the start of every major corporate function, we have employees lead us in prayers - one Muslim, one Christian. Indonesia celebrates the holidays of all the major religions.  With the exception of some extreme factions in Aceh, religious harmony is a cornerstone of Indonesian life.

In the US, we need to recognize that a principal or teacher who says a prayer with the class, or the school, is not a government entity imposing a religious belief. We can question the appropriateness of the timing, but not the legality of the act.  Furthermore, it is possible to sit quietly and think your own thoughts while someone else says a prayer - I've done this for decades, and even did it in elementary school. You can even silently say your own prayer, according to your own religious beliefs, if you would prefer.

Banning prayer in school effectively violates the first amendment, specifically the "free exercise" and "freedom of speech" elements.  The very same amendment opponents of prayer are ostensibly trying to protect.

2) Marriage is a religious institution.

Having a government definition of marriage is like having a government definition of God. For the federal government or any US state to specifically define a marriage as "one man, one woman" is a direct violation of the First Amendment. The government is establishing a religious doctrine - one that, historically, is uniquely Christian - as the law of the land.

Why?

I can think of a few reasons. First, obviously, is the religious influence. The Christian majority wants it defined this way because of the "sanctity of marriage" according to their dogma. Of course, this same group would allow divorce and not have jail time for adultery, so the rigidity of their religion is obviously circumstantial and selective at best, hypocritical at worst. Second, is political stability. History has shown that when men can marry multiple women, as was the case in Judaism until the Middle Ages and is still the case for Muslims, the wealthy men have multiple wives, and the poor men have no wives. This unequal distribution of marital bliss results in uprisings from the frustrated poor males who cannot contribute to the gene pool. Third, biological survival. Gender alike marriages cannot spawn offspring. It is a biological impossibility (IVF capabilities aside). The survival of mankind required men and women to pair up. Finally, is economics. Government has found a way to monetize this fundamental aspect of humanity. Tax incentives if you love the "government way". Tax penalties (estate taxes) if you love outside of the stipulated norms.  In Indonesia, when you register for family medical coverage, you can register up to four wives, and all respective children - if you are Muslim (other religions can only register one wife).

By defining marriage as "one man, one woman" are we not violating freedom of religion?

Ultimately, the government stance should be very simple: consenting adults can do what they want. Before you start ranting about this being the first step towards accepting pedophilia and bestiality, recall the key aspect of my statement: "consenting adults". Children and animals cannot consent.  I don't care if you want 10 wives and each of your wives has 10 other husbands and you all want to live in a huge, polyamorous compound in the Florida Keys, as long as everyone signs off on the adventure. I don't care if you believe Adam and Steve is more appropriate than Adam and Eve, so long as both parties consent. As long as you respect my right to live in the traditional "one man, one woman" marriage, I'll respect your right to other arrangements.

Anything otherwise is government mandated religious practice.

3) Faith is personal.

A priest, an imam and a rabbi all walk into a bar. Think they'll agree on anything?

Actually, quite a lot, at the macro level - a single deity, support for the less fortunate, a prescribed way of life. The wars and killing and hostility are over the details. Even within each faith, there is violent disagreement. The Muslims of Indonesia, at least those to whom I speak and those who write in the local press, very much disagree with the jihadists of the world.  In fact, they consider them terrorists and the Indonesian government executes them (sometimes in the act of apprehending them). Christian factions in Ireland still kill each other over whether or not man can talk to God on his own or must talk through a priest.  Considering the severity of internecine malevolence, the animosity towards external perspective should not be surprising.

Faith is personal. You can take two people from the same family, who attend the same church, and ask them the same question about faith, or a religious issue, and get two different answers. Ask two students at the same divinity school to interpret a passage of scripture and you'll get two answers. That's the way life works. All of us are the net sum of every experience we've ever had, every lesson we've ever learned, so we all interpret the same events, the same words in different ways. We filter everything through our own experiential prisms. It doesn't help that every religious book is written in a dialectal speech that would result in a sanitarium visit if anyone today spoke in a similar manner.

I advocate the approach of a friend of mine who currently resides in the Washington, D.C. area. I've known him for over a decade. We've worked together, played softball, tennis and poker together, gone to the gym together, and were in each other's weddings. It was not until I was in his wedding, six years after knowing him, that I realized how religious he was. To me, he was always the honest, dependable, highly respected friend. Not once did he talk about his religion or judge anyone based on his own beliefs. Yet in his personal life, his faith was his compass. All of the attributes I respected in him were the result of his faith, and I didn't know it.

That is the way to live.....just ask Ned Flanders.