The difference between Ethics and Religion

I know I have written about this before but it is a very good question and today an ever more important one. They are, however, two quite different things. To me the very basis of ethics is the “golden rule”:– Only do to others what you would like them to do to you.

All religions (repeat all religions) have this written somewhere in their “Book” or “Books”. But to me the words – written and book – are the problem with religions. The “words” were written by human beings and are interpreted by human beings, no matter how Holy, or Divine, or educated, or devout they may be, it will still be their writing and their interpretation of what they heard or saw. And people, all people, religious or otherwise will interpret what they see and hear through the filter of their life experiences. It cannot be otherwise. Remember that not one (not one), not Buddha, Jesus or Mohammad, ever wrote anything down. There is some dispute as to whether or not they were even literate. Everything that we know about them and their teachings was written by their followers – sometimes many years later.

People have opinions based on their life experience, education and current circumstances. This, most certainly, colours what they do and say – also what they write.

And there is a difference between Religion and Spirituality. Religions, in my understanding are supposed to give guidance to followers, to understand how to get closer to God (or Allah, or Yahweh, or the Great Artificer, or whatever name you give to the Almighty). In other-words how to become a better person and (possibly) more spiritual. If this were not so, why follow any religion?

There are over 7 billion people on earth at present. There are, I believe 72 Jewish sects or interpretations or schools of teaching; there are 3 sects in Islam with, as far as I can determine, 73 different basic interpretations or schools of teaching; there is dispute about how many Christian denominations, sects or schools of teaching there are – a quite astonishing figure of about 20 000 (twenty thousand) has been quoted; there are 5 basic divisions in Buddhism with many difference interpretations or schools of teaching; Hinduism – the oldest surviving religion in the world, has hundreds of different interpretations of the various teachings (I am unable to determine how many).

But (with the exception of Buddhism) they all claim to worship God - a Supreme Being (presumably the same one).

There are so many religions and interpretations because we are all different, with different expectations and views on life. We are not clones. People will always try to find some form of worship that is close to their way of thinking, something that satisfies them and brings them comfort and peace.

Another problem is that religions (all religions) give power to the leaders or teachers. A classic example is the Catholic Church, which is a vastly wealthy organization, and the Pope (an elected leader) wields immense power in many areas.

Power always brings corruption and abuse of power (as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet, famously wrote, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”). And with human beings, fickle as they are, this always has been and always will be, even with checks and balances. Corruption is not ethical. People in power will always try and use it for their own benefit or to make them seem “better” in their own estimation.

There is, and always has been, abuse (sexual and physical) of women and children in all religions – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Priestly abuse and paedophilia are oxymorons. They should not go together, but they often do, unfortunately.

This is why, in my understanding, there is a difference between Ethics and Religion even though all religions have written somewhere:- Only do to others what you would like them to do to you.

And again, that question of spirituality. This I cannot answer. But I know that religiosity is not the same as spirituality. Never was.

If anyone is interested I was born into a not very devout family – Church of England. 

The dangers of simplistic slogans

It seems to be fashionable, or the cool thing, to reduce complex issues to simplistic 3 or 4 word slogans.

If history is any guide slogans repeated often enough, are assumed as truths. Belief in these slogans leads to a steep inclined plane which propels all involved lower and lower into ever more harsh and deplorable policies. Apathy by the educated and predominantly self proclaimed elites in any country you care to name, who conflate identity with skin colour; skin colour with ethnicity; ethnicity with criminality (drug dealers and rapists); and ethnicity with religion (“they worship a different God”); religion with a need to compile a register, to make a list of all such people the easier for them to be kept under surveillance – such conflation is self destructive. It will lead very quickly to concepts of national and racial purity, and is only a short step from barbarism.

What follows is a damning statement about the dangers of apathy in the face of slogans and propaganda, by the German theologian Martin Neimöller, who had been imprisoned by the Nazis:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

If, today, now, the words Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims, “illegal immigrants”, Afghanis, Syrians or whatever are substituted with any of the above, the picture presented would be a bleak one indeed.

Different people – so what!

They may have a different colour skin; they may speak a different language; they may have different customs; but they will all scream in pain when tortured (as I am sure I would do); they will all bleed when hurt; they will all die of hunger if not fed; they will all die of thirst with out water.

They are all HUMAN BEINGS, like me and like you.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus all worship God – God, Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu (or Shiva or Brahma) – different names for the same thing. All worship in a different way, according to their tradition, but does it really matter?

The fact is that about 65 million people are displaced at present, in the World. This is the greatest number since World War 2. And many, if not all, have been displaced because of their skin colour, their language, their customs or the manner by which they worship God.

This is nearly twice the population of California. About the population of Great Britain and also about the same as the population of France!

This is appalling. It is outrageous that this displacement and the suffering – almost always the suffering of the most defenceless and vulnerable, women and children - should take place at all.

All because of a perceived “difference”!!

There is much wringing of hands and many words of condemnation, but methinks, too little action. These unfortunate people now have no home, little food and shelter and in many cases, no country. Children are denied education, denied the emotional and physical stability and support that is so necessary for their development to achieve fulfillment as useful citizens of the World.

Religious persecution, and this displacement of millions is, at its root, religious persecution, is a significant relapse of values, a relapse of humanity, a relapse back to Medieval, even primitive times and is a very poor reflection on our current, collective, morality.  How about the “Golden Rule” – treat others the way you would like to be treated? Have we forgotten this? Does it no longer apply?

It was Nietzsche (admittedly not one of my favourate philosophers) who, I believe somewhere said, “Anyone who fights with monsters should take care that he does not in the process become a monster.”

Are we becoming monsters?

Do differences really matter that much?

Over seventy years after the Second World War, I don’t believe this will be looked upon as our “Finest Hour”, by future generations.

A Homogenised World?

The World (and it’s people) is changing – what I experienced as a child does not apply today. What I experience today will not be what my children or grandchildren will experience when they are adults. The World is becoming more cosmopolitan – dare I say more “homogenised”?

I have often wondered about the strange desire of mankind to travel, to explore, to emigrate, to settle in other lands. This, generally admirable desire, often led to greater knowledge of the world and should have lent itself to tolerance and understanding. But no! More often than not the travellers caused problems – they became invaders because they were often technically more advanced or militarily stronger – so they overwhelmed the populations of the lands they arrive at.

This is evident in history stretching right back to the migration out of Africa into Europe some 50 000 years ago – the Greeks into Asia, the Romans into Europe and England, the Arabs into North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, the Mongols into Asia, the Spaniards into South America, the Portuguese into Africa and India, the English and French into North America, the English into Australia, and so it still goes on.

In most instances what these travellers/invaders introduced to the original inhabitants was beneficial – often after the initial shock wore off, they were tolerated, they integrated and so became part of the population. This movement of people was in most cases slow and may have extended over generations. People moved at walking pace, or at that of the ox, the sailing ship and, occasionally, (as with the Arabs and Mongols) on horseback.

This movement of people may, very generally, be traced by the languages spoken across the world.

A consequence of these continual movements of people was a general “equalisation” of knowledge and technology leading, again very generally, to groupings of like-minded people into city states, then nation states, which were fiercely defended. A semblance of stability ensued and people settled down. Each “state” developed their own unique customs and characteristics. This created a divisive “them and us” attitude – which still prevails.

Today however, in the Twenty-first Century, the situation is rapidly changing. State racial purity is on the decline. Immigration, speedy immigration, by air, or at the very least by some form of motorised transport is standard procedure today. For instance within a generation or two the white population of the USA will be a minority (estimated by 2045). Europe is no different and in so far as Europe is a “unified” economic grouping of nations it simplifies movement between member countries.

The complication today is caused (generally) by nations interfering in the internal affairs of others (refer: the Middle East and Asia). This is causing a massive upheaval and a mass exodus from troubled areas to what are considered “safer” countries.

This happens. It cannot be “undone” – the people who left their home countries will not be same ones who repopulate those previously abandoned countries. Another generation, another differently educated people, with different hopes and aspirations will move in.

Each country will benefit from the different cultures, languages, skills, energy and belief systems of their immigrants. It has always been so. But the speed at which the changes are taking place is unprecedented. Integration is now taking place at a frenetic pace and by default will be incomplete and fragmented. Language courses, counselling, special instruction about a country’s social mores and customs are now commonplace to make new immigrants feel “at home” and adapt.

The adults may never feel “at home” but the children will adapt to their new home much more rapidly. Guided by the precedent of armed conflict in South Africa – the Boer War – I understand it took two generations, say 50 years, before the English and the Afrikaans (Boer) speaking population more or less accepted each other. The original combatants could not truly reconcile and they influenced their children (who could possibly remember the conflict). It was only the NEXT generation that had no direct memory of the conflict and had no “input” from the original combatants (now either very old or dead) who were more accepting and, possibly, tolerant of the situation.

As I say, this is generally a good thing – people of all nations, races and creeds must learn to live peaceably together – there is no other viable option.

What this means to the USA, Europe and other countries caught up in the current “refugee” crisis is problematic. The long term effects, however, are very clear. There will be a general “homogenisation” of the world’s population – peoples will gradually, over generations, become one “colour”, will (possibly) speak one hybridized language – understood by all – a very much altered form of English, would be my selection.

Religion will be another matter entirely! Even in those countries and states which have been relatively stable for generations there are, for example, hundreds, if not thousands of different Christian belief systems, sects or denominations. Similarly with Islam – reportedly 73 sects and Judaism has apparently about the same number – 72 sects.

I can never imagine a “homogenised” world religion! We are all too different for that. But the rest? - it will come.

A Homogenised World will be the future – anything else is fraught and should not be contemplated.  

Where is God?

I have no argument with people who believe in Evolution or alternatively in Creation – I am firmly of the opinion that both can exist alongside each other. Why not? There is only one God, as far I know, and if He made everything (everything from amoeba to plants to animals and us humans) who are we to argue over how He arranged for this wondrous feat to occur?

What I have difficulty in understanding is why whole-hearted believers in “the Book” – be it the Koran, Bible, the Torah or Vedic scriptures - opt so vigorously for one OR the other belief. We just do not know (and are unlikely ever to find out) what He was thinking about at the time.

And does it really matter? We are all here, on this small planet circling an averaged sized sun which is part of a very ordinary galaxy in an unimaginably large universe.

So I ask the question posed by the title of this post – “Where is God?”

If as I believe nothing (repeat nothing) can exist without His knowledge – because He is omnipotent – then everything (repeat everything) has his imprint and is therefore a part of God’s plan. You, me, the trees, the flowers, fish, birds, insects, galaxies – everything is here because He wished it to be so. 

So God is everything.

To fight over who believes what; to kill someone who does not hold to your particular belief system; to start a war to impose your particular form of religious belief on others is insane! To me it gives the lie to their belief in God. To them God is their special God – not your God, not my God and certainly not one over-arching Supreme Being.

And, of course, only they know what their particular, special God wants, therefore they have to enforce this on others. Is this because He tells them to?

All this leads to other important questions that each of us need to answer – “Who am I? Who or What made the universe? What is my relationship to the Who or What?”

So, where is God?