Religious Codes of Ethics

Over the past few class periods we have discussed the negative effects that organized religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have on our world.  These include religious conflicts and the creation of religious extremists.  We have entertained the possibility that there would be less violent conflicts in our world without these religions.  Although I agree that religion can cause violent conflicts, I believe that if our world were absent of religion, we would live in a chaotic environment with a devastating lack of order.

            The major organized religions contain of a moral code or set of laws that are supposed to guide followers on how to live righteous lives.  These principles and laws are usually found in religious writings that date back thousands of years.  For example, the Ten Commandments describe ten rules which people must live by.  In Christianity, Jesus’ preaching’s said that people should not retaliate in a violent situation.  These laws have laid the foundation for a just society for thousands of years all over the world.  

I would argue that even though adherence to organized religions can result in conflicts, the sets of laws and principles that religions offer keep humans from living in a chaotic society. Humans are not born knowing that murder and stealing is wrong.  They learn these values from being brought up with a code of ethics.  The basis of this system of values is often religious teachings. Even if people don’t go to charge, many of the laws of civil government are also based on the principles found in religious teachings. The morals that keep modern society civilized are extremely influenced by religious teachings

The morals and values that religions teach are what keep humans from living in chaos.  Peoples’ moral compasses usually evolve from religious influences. Even though organized religions can lead to violent conflicts, religion is what keeps the human race civilized.  

Polytheism Can Create Conflict

In the chapter of the Moran Themes textbook titled Ancient Religion, Kirsch explains that a completely polytheistic world could result less violence and extremism than in a monotheistic world. This is because monotheists who believe that their supreme being holds the absolute truth cannot co-exist with individuals who believe otherwise.  This often leads to violent clashes. Kirsch argues that a polytheistic world would allow individuals to be more tolerant of others’ belief systems.  However, I would argue that a polytheistic world could cause just as many conflicts as a world dominated by monotheism.

The first reason that a polytheistic world would not necessarily reduce conflicts is that even though individuals may be more tolerant of others’ gods, disagreements on principles of belief could still arise.  For example, even though individuals might accept the existence of each other’s gods, the practices derived from one god may contradict those of another god.  Polytheistic tolerance simply means that an individual can live with the notion that there are other gods in addition to the ones he or she worships.   This does not necessarily mean that an individual’s beliefs will not contradict another’s. 

The second reason that polytheism may bring as much conflict as monotheism is because polytheism does not provide a dominant moral code for everyone to follow. Polytheism does not require individuals to follow a common moral code or to share similar values.  In this type of society, there is no one absolute truth that states which laws must be followed and what is good and what is evil.  The absence of this means that everyone can have their own moral code, and that value systems can vary widely across society.  Because there is no one supreme power that everyone is supposed to believe in, it can lead to a world of conflict.

One of the main objectives of monotheistic religions is to enforce a code of law supported by a supreme being that knows the absolutely truth.  Because followers of monotheistic religions are expected to believe in this supreme power, they are expected to follow its laws. However, a polytheistic society means that individuals can follow an array of value systems.  If one person believes that murder is acceptable, and another person believes that it is not, there is no one religious code to decide who is right.  This can lead to chaos and possibly increased conflict.

Personalized Religious Observance

Every individual has a different viewpoint about what his or her religion means. Some people believe that being a part of an organized religion means that they have an obligation to accept and embrace its mainstream beliefs.  Others believe that identifying with a religion is more of a process of deciding which values are important to live by and choosing from a pool of ideas.

I believe that one’s relationship with his or her religion is based on the struggle to understand which values, beliefs, and traditions are meaningful to them. In my own experience, I have been brought up in a moderately religious environment where I have been given the opportunity to explore the traditions of my ancestors  and what they mean to me. This ability to choose has played a major role in how I’ve shaped my religious identity and how I believe religions should function in general. I believe that one’s experience with religion should be individual and personal and ideas should not be forced upon religious followers. Religion is meant to give people positive components of their life such as hope and meaning; it is not supposed to be a burden. Having the option to choose what parts of my religion are meaningful has allowed me to find values, beliefs, and traditions that I try to live by and that shape me as a person.  

Though many people like myself value the ability to personalize religious observance, a lot of people are raised to believe that every aspect of their religion contains the absolute truth and needs to be followed. These individuals cannot question values or beliefs or decide what parts of their religion they wish to follow and live by. Furthermore, the certainty of the entirety of a religious code can impede one’s ability to be tolerant of other’s beliefs.  If an individual believes that his or her religion necessarily cannot be right, and must be living against the words of the only truthful god.  This is what causes religious conflicts throughout the world. For this reason, many people despise religion and believe that our world would be better off without it.

I believe that if more people are given the freedom to decide what part of their religions are most meaningful, they will realize that maybe there is not only one truth and not all follows of a different religion are living against the words of absolute truth. There would be more religious tolerance and fewer conflicts.