Sunday Thought, February 8, 2015: Rewriting Religion, or Reinterpreting?

"The crazed fundamentalists of all religions call for the subversion of equal rights – they deny the words of our Constitution which grant that all men are created equal and replace them with words from antiquity which they claim are holy. Here in America, we even allow tax exemptions to bigoted ideologies that seek to hold back society with their unproven, personal beliefs taken from ancient books written by men who claim divine inspiration. Where is the beyond a reasonable doubt evidence or the preponderance of evidence that would pass the bar of scientific scrutiny?"

-- TheMonastery.org, "Call to Rewrite Religion"

In a peaceful, free, society, when does freedom of speech, freedom of religion, cross the line and become a threat to the peace and safety of others?  The riots in Ferguson, Missouri would be a great recent example of free speech gone awry.  Ferguson became another in a string of incidents in America depicting innocence under fire.  As a racial statement the actions fell flat considering most of the pain, anguish, and destruction directly affected the residents that were rioting.  The particular fuse for Ferguson was the death of a lawless bully too stupid to do what he was told.  The existing bomb was a community with no respect for the rule of law or anyone else's rights but their own.  Any fuse could have been used, the explosion still would have occurred, it was just a matter of time.

I am a patriot, and as such I believe in the rights of others as laid out in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  But I also believe there must be moral limits to those rights.  Freedom of speech ignited the waiting fuse in Ferguson and set off the bomb of rioting and destruction.  If the National Guard had shot everyone looting or burning during the first night of rioting, what are the chances there would have been a second night?  Would they have been right in doing so?  Freedom of speech turned a demonstration into total anarchy.  The police and National Guard would have been protecting the rights, property, and safety of the law abiding citizens of the United States from domestic terrorists.  Yes, the minute they crossed that line into acts of violence against a segment of our society, they went from being citizens to domestic terrorists.  Some would say they are just criminals, and they would be right, these people should be charged for the crime of domestic terrorism.  I think free speech is a protected right until it threatens the safety and welfare of others.

In the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States, Oliver Holmes wrote that causing such a dangerous panic by untrue words was not protected speech. What isn't widely known is that this was later clarified in another Supreme Court case (Brandenburg v. Ohio). It wasn't that the false warning caused “clear and present danger” that would deem it unprotected, but rather, the speech must incite “imminent lawless action.”

-- TheMonastery.org, "Call to Rewrite Religion"

If Christians, in their zeal to do away with abortion clinics, state that all the doctors performing such procedures should hurt or killed, the centers bombed, this is inciting lawless action.  Is it "imminent lawless action?"  That would depend on how soon some insane Christian fanatic brings the threat to fruition.  I am not an abortion proponent.  However, I believe there are times when it is, unfortunately, called for.  It doesn't make it right.

We find these same issues in religious texts.  There exists language that, depending upon one's interpretation, can be construed to allow for untold violence against individuals, groups, and society.  Interpretations are usually driven by outside influences like politics, money, emotion, and lately by personal agendas.   But, how is the "word of God" interpreted any other way than the way God wanted?  It is written; therefore, it must be obeyed, right?  The meaning behind the "word of God" is only as accurate as far as the person who first received it.   From the first telling the story begins to be corrupted, if not by outside influences, then by repeated translations and rewrites.  

Let's say I own a ranch with a massive herd of cattle.  I've discovered that some of the cattle are afflicted with a communicable disease.  To save the rest of the cattle I instruct my foreman, my voice on the ranch, to separate the sick from the healthy, and put down the ones that just can't be saved so we don't spread the malady to all the other ranches.  My foreman's second language is English, but we've worked together for some time and I made the instructions simple for him to understand.  The foreman carries out the instructions but, while doing so, hears from another well-respected foreman that all the cattle are at risk and should be killed for the greater good.  Not being able to get hold of me to confirm, and knowing how deathly serious the situation is, he proceeds to kill all of the cattle on my ranch.  Being the "master," I gave instructions to be followed.  Being human, the foreman wanted to do the best job he could and reinterpreted my instructions with new information he received, and misunderstood.  Instead of killing all of the infected cattle, he destroyed the entire herd and put me out of business.

I think God gives us instructions to save the "herd" from destruction, but outside influences, translations, mistakes, and parables created in an attempt to clarify meaning, have distanced the intent of the "word of God" from what the voice actually said.  And that, for me, is the danger we face in mucking with it any further than we have.

When the regulation becomes so convoluted as to be misunderstood or not understood it is time to scrap the re-writes and start over again from scratch and come at it from a different angle.  It might not have ever been the "word" that was the problem.  It might very well have been the messenger.  If the principal teaches the teacher, and the teacher doesn't grasp the message, don't let the teacher teach until they do.  Reinterpreting the message for them is not the answer.  What we find are teachers spreading the wrong message to the students.  There is no doubt that something needs to be done to bring religious thought back in line with peace and love before we destroy this planet through misdirected faith, but rewriting already misunderstood documents is not the answer.  Start over.

Where Christianity is concerned, we have a better grasp on the language, grammar, and meanings of those times than we ever had.  Let us take a current translation of original texts and come up with a more accurate scripture.  Those books that cannot be verified, or that have questionable origin, may be included but need to be noted with their issues.  All the books that were left out of the bible need to be re-examined and offered up as relevant to the times.  New material that has come to light in recent years needs to be examined as to age related to the "original" text and then used to possibly update poorly transcribed, translated, or interpreted pages.  We need to have a complete picture that, perhaps, one book will not suffice to cover, and then we need to agree on the meaning behind the words, remembering how we expect God to be the loving, forgiving, Father.

This will never happen.  But further misinterpreting of sacred documents that have already gone through thousands of years of misinterpreting will do nothing more than muddy already polluted waters.  What we teach of what those documents have to offer is an entirely different issue.  We need to adopt a new paradigm to how we teach and preach "religions of peace."  

As with freedom of speech, perhaps we can try to agree on the clear and present dangers in teaching an interpretation of peace that is steeped in "imminent lawless action."  Any religious sect that condones the killing of peace and innocence in the name of their god, needs to answer to the parent religion for their crimes.  Any religion that approves of these atrocities needs to be held accountable by the rest of the world for crimes against humanity.  It isn't what is written that is necessarily evil; it is how we read what is written than determines whether it is good or bad.  

Our belief, or faith, our concept of all that is, rests solely on our interpretations.  It's just as thought, mind you, but, if what we read can't be interpreted as morally pure, loving, peaceful, and righteous, maybe it isn't our interpretation.  Maybe it's a bad document?

Editor's Note:  

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
  

Pastor Frank Anthony Villari

Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite.