Rewriting Religion, or Reinterpreting? (Updated from 2/4/2015)

 

"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 do freedom of speech, and 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 example of free speech gone awry.  Ferguson became just 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 business owners that were not 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, listening to outside instigators who could care less about the destruction they caused.  In reality, any fuse could have been used, but the explosion still would have occurred, it was just a matter of ignorance.

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?  Would the business owner be right in shooting to protect his property? His family? 

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 with the crime of domestic terrorism.  I think free speech is a protected right until it crosses the line and 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 be 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, but it does make it necessary.

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, so the cattle 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 the 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.

We find these same issues in religious texts.  There exists verbiage 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, 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 corrupt agendas, repeated translations, and rewrites to make the "easy to understand" more understandable, you know, what God meant to say.  

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, it the "voice" actually said anything.  And that, for me, is the danger we face in mucking with "instructions" any further than we have.

When the regulation becomes so convoluted as to be misunderstood or not understood it is time to scrap the rewrites, start over again from scratch, and come at the regulation 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 informs the teacher, and the teacher doesn't grasp the message, don't let the teacher pass on the information until they do.  Reinterpreting the message is not the answer.  What we find is that several interpretations of the message are being spread.  Undoubtedly, 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.  We need to start over and write them so a child can understand.

Where Christianity is concerned, we have a better grasp of the language, grammar, and meanings of those times than we have ever had.  Let us take a current translation of original texts and come up with more accurate scripture.  Those books that cannot be verified, or that have a questionable origin, may be included but need notes describing the issues.  All the books left out of the bible need to be re-examined and offered up as a relevant history of the times.  The new material that has come to light in recent years needs to be examined as 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 and forgiving Father.

Unfortunately, religious politics will prevent this from happening.  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 about what those documents have to offer is an entirely different issue.  We need to adopt a new paradigm in 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 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 a 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" that's the problem.  Maybe it's a bad document?

God created imperfection, and mankind personified it.  God became discussed with the "interpretations" of His word, so he made a new covenant in which he wrote the laws across the hearts and minds of everyone.  He left it up to the individual to interpret his desires.  Smart God.  In this way, you can't blame anyone but yourself for your sins.  It is truly your life and only your life.  

So, go with God.  He gave you everything you need.

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

-- Jeremiah 31:31-34

Editor's Note

(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)

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. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider an alternate viewpoint. 

I fervently hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful and constructive discussion, in an arena of mutual respect, concerning those opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, 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 learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.

Pastor Tony spent 22 years with the United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and, finally, a senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with the premier, world-renowned, Western Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects involved in pharmaceutical research.

Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, and wages his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteered as the lead chaplain at a regional medical center.

Feel free to contact Pastor Tony: tolerantpastor@gmail.com