Critical Thinking Could Only Help Religion

It all begins with how one interprets religion. For myself, religion is the celebration of the Spirit that is shared with people of mutual mind and agreed upon mission or paradigm. We often blow off religion saying that it represents one person's vision and for that reason it cannot be spiritually liberating. Often times this comes from the negative press that Christianity has received as a result of its corruption. Whatever your beliefs, the distaste for religion may exist as a result of bad experiences with clergy, or a misunderstanding by clergy as to what the functions of their office are. This is certainly is not the fault of religion, or all organized religion in general.

What does it mean to be religious? A religious person is an individual that thinks he or she can attain the price of enlightenment faster with a mentor, group of mentors or peers. Community minded individuals might also be religious, as they seek others to celebrate their spirituality with others. This is known as fellowship. But what about the atheist? Isn't arguing for the existence of God just as fruitless as arguing against it? The point is that whether God exists or not is irrelevant to anyone other than ones self. Religion is a highly personal endeavor, and many of the world's problems would be solved by this simple fact.

I have never met an atheist in my life... only people who are terribly upset with a being which is supposed to be all-powerful and yet allows for suffering to exists -- or who have given up on the entire concept thanks to some adherent's behavior. A real priest or priestess is always mindful of the fact that they serve (and therefore represent, to some extent) the deity particular to the religious paradigm they follow. If some one behaves in a way that does not become that deity, then you can rest assured that they are clergy in word only.

Priests are teachers, consolers, counselors, and with any luck they have some understanding of the frailties of being human. If one is are really fortunate, they may get clergy that has bothered to study the paradigm they claim to follow so that when a person in need approaches them they are able to communicate things that a person can put to use to improve their condition. A Jewish rabbi would not be much good trying to administer to a dying Catholic because the paradigm is different enough to matter.

Questioning the purpose of clergy is like questioning using intermediaries at all, such as psychologists and psychiatrists. They are the same thing, except for the priest deals with deeper, more personal issues.

So why bother with clergy in the first place? When one is rebuilding a car it may be wise to ask the advice of a mechanic first. But one must remember that the area of spirituality is dangerously close to that of psychology, which is why I object to anyone considering oneself clergy simply because they do something as mechanical as performing Mass. A priest is much more than that... or should be. Clergy are to be servants of the people. Often times, a Priest can be a person's last resort.

Why couldn't some enlightened individual fulfill the role of clergy? I would hope, perhaps naively, that terms like "enlightened individual" and "priest" would be synonymous. At least that should be the goal with our spiritual mentors. An enlightened individual could (and they often do) fulfill that function: no question about it. But they are neither obligated nor checked against indiscretion. Let us examine the root of the word "religion" which is religio in the Latin. Religio means "to regulate" or "regulated." Clergy is "regulated" by the Church to make sure that it performs its functions with dignity befitting the nature of both the deity and the congregant.

The idea of having any religion or spiritual mentoring at all is often contradicted with the belief that the journey may only be taken by the individual. No one can argue that. Our experiences are uniquely ours, and no matter how well intentioned or trained a person may be in human nature; we must go at it alone. But clergy can be a mirror for the seeker. If any spiritual progress occurs at all it is because the seeker allows it to occur. The priest or priestess facilitates the experience by providing the appropriate information, celebration or by constantly exposing the congregant to the symbols he or she has adopted. Often times, self-realization may occur when a priest or priestess asks the right question at the right time. But all of this requires training.

Initiation is a two way street, and I dare say that union with The Beloved does not occur for the lazy, unless it is brought on by some trauma. If we are sincere about living a spiritual life, we must listen to opposing views and test our own beliefs in the light of conflicting religious philosophies. Consider this: nowhere in the bible does Jesus say that people should be slaves. He came to free people from the Pharisees and Rome. He told people that they should do the same work that he had done, in fact, the word Christian means "to be like Christ." When he says that he is "the only way to the Father" he was referring to a very specific attainment marked by adepts of the Hebrew Qabalah, but with a little help from the Council of Nicaea, people today take that to mean that they should worship Jesus instead of doing his work - thereby becoming slaves to the church they attend and the religious model they adhere to. This, to me, seems like an aberration of Jesus' teachings... but they are not Jesus' teachings, and this is why religion is not for the lazy.

We have to ask difficult questions, and use our critical thinking skills especially when dealing with the apparently religious to avoid being manipulated by people with agendas. Politicians have been using it since time immemorial to manipulate the masses. One need not look very distantly at our political past to see how politicians can use religion to inflame people's passions for war. For example, you wouldn't expect clergy to a religious philosophy that dictated honestly and truth above all else to violate the rules of the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by influencing the way their congregation votes, but that is exactly what many churches have done in the last couple of elections in order to try to blur the lines that exist between Church and State and force their values on other people.

In spite of evidence to the contrary (The Treaty of Tripoli, and various personal letters from the Founding Fathers) many people today are taught that this great country was founded on Christian principles. This is not historically accurate, and the church leaders know this, but they don't mind spreading lies so long as they are able to fulfill their political aspirations. Furthermore, the idea that every person that lives in American must abandon his or her culture, religious or philosophical beliefs in order to live here is highly anti-American to begin with. Diversity will save us from stinking thinking. Without it we are doomed to universal myopia.

Again, a person who is sincerely vested in their religious beliefs must use critical thinking to match their leaders (spiritual or otherwise) to the test. A good example is the righteous indignation displayed by today's so-called political right. We are told that they want less government, and yet they spend millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours trying to change the spirit and word of the Constitution in order to serve the special interest groups. Here we must simply ask ourselves if the walk matches the talk. Is the Patriot Act less government? Are the secret tapping of phones, the reading of emails, and unwarranted searches of private property less government?

Then there is the issue of poverty, homelessness and healthcare. Here we must simply ask ourselves if the biblical hero would want health care for all, or just the people that could afford it? Would he say that the earth is God's creation and should be cared for even if it means that the top 2 percent that rule the wealth of this country have to invest some of their billions into making the factories they own pollute a little less? Or keeping the forests safe from people who are unable to see the forest for the $$$? Would he stand behind our government for fighting a war in a country that posed no immediate threat to his country?

Truth is, that if Jesus was to come back as they predict, the so-called Right would likely think of him as a "communist" or "socialist" for having the audacity to suggest that every person deserves medical care; or perhaps they call him a "fruit" or "gay sympathizer" for preaching that if one were busy working on their own weaknesses they'd be much too busy to notice the faults of others. And then we'd have to wonder if the biblical parable of the stoning of the prostitute would have ended any different had the prostitute been male. Everyone must interpret their religious experience in their own way. Religion is a highly personal thing. Speaking fro myself, based on what I have read of Jeheshua, he would stand up against corruption in government, which in today's world would make him an "enemy combatant" he'd likely end up in Guantanamo Bay at worst. Fundamentalism gives religion a bad rap. Fundamentalism is a dangerous, sometimes fatal cocktail composed of a paradigm with a twist of tyranny and a splash of fanaticism.

Need another reason to show why one needs to be on their toes when it comes to religion? Personality cults. These are not true religions, but they often try to pass themselves off as real. It is natural that a person is admired for having the spiritual insight to come up with a method of attainment. But all too often, the spiritually lazy tend to forget the message and the work and fall into people-worship instead. Consider other points of view from people who adhere to the same paradigm as the founder. In short, fundamentalism of any kind hurts the practice of all religious philosophy.

Why do clergy get a bad rap? That's easy to see in light of all the scandals that follow religious leaders. But maybe it is more than that. Perhaps it is because as a culture we have no real tradition of our own. Maybe we don't respect our holy men and women because we have learned to associate them with shysters, phonies, quacks, and posers. Maybe we ignore them and discredit them because they remind us of our own insincerity and laziness. Or perhaps we ignore them because we measure them against some unreal figment of a mythological guru? Possibly, it is because our recent memory of religion or clergy is marred by a group of very loud people who think that being a priest means being in control of people's lives? Or maybe it is because we are so obsessed by things that we tend to avoid all pursuits that do not generate profit? I have no answers... just a lot of questions.

A word of warning: The religious life is hard. Ministering to people is even harder because it deals with the feelings of others that we could never experience. It takes effort most people aren't willing to put into it... but humans do like the titles that come along with the achievements... so much that they often covet them without having attained the achievement. In a way, I am surprised anyone would want to be a holy person at all. The only saving grace is that it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks or does, what is important is what we do... but whatever we do, we must endeavor not to throw the baby out with the bath water.