Comments on: What is religion? http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/what-is-religion/ The mind doesn't work if it's closed Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:19:06 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ken Perrott http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/what-is-religion/#comment-62 Ken Perrott Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:37:06 +0000 http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/what-is-religion/#comment-62 Thanks for your comments Isaac. Your approach does suggest that it is possible for theists and non-theists to work together. I think there is a real need for this as the problems that seem to provide a motivation for much of the "Interfaith" activity really do apply to us all. I guess there are problems of attitude on both sides. I have certainly found resistance to the idea that non-theists are part of our religious diversity. On the other hand I think many non-theists are put off by the "faith" label. In that sense the name is divisive. Perhaps the unity will come with action around more defined objectives and concrete problems. I am interested that you see the current interfaith activity as being more about <i>"maintaining good relations between communities, and only indirectly on the traditions or beliefs by which those communities define themselves."</i> That's what I thought. So I think it is important that non-theists are seen as one (or more) of these communities. Thanks for your comments Isaac. Your approach does suggest that it is possible for theists and non-theists to work together. I think there is a real need for this as the problems that seem to provide a motivation for much of the “Interfaith” activity really do apply to us all.
I guess there are problems of attitude on both sides. I have certainly found resistance to the idea that non-theists are part of our religious diversity. On the other hand I think many non-theists are put off by the “faith” label. In that sense the name is divisive. Perhaps the unity will come with action around more defined objectives and concrete problems.
I am interested that you see the current interfaith activity as being more about “maintaining good relations between communities, and only indirectly on the traditions or beliefs by which those communities define themselves.” That’s what I thought. So I think it is important that non-theists are seen as one (or more) of these communities.

]]> By: isaacfreeman http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/what-is-religion/#comment-60 isaacfreeman Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:30:43 +0000 http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/what-is-religion/#comment-60 Hi Ken - thanks for your post here and your comments on my blog. <em>We can see this in the way “Interfaith” groups have been formed in New Zealand - atheist and agnostics are excluded</em> I've expressed my doubts about whether people who identify directly as atheists or agnostics would find anything of interest in interfaith activities, but you're quite right that they shouldn't be excluded. I've been working on a revised constitution for the Christchurch interfaith Council, to incorporate various recommendations, and I've been careful to ensure that there's nothing preventing atheists or agnostics from joining. The current version hasn't been ratified yet, but it requires only that people indicate their religion by whatever terms they prefer, so that we can have some idea how diverse we are. There's nothing to prevent an interested person writing "atheist" for their religion, and taking part on an equal footing with anybody else. This has been approved by our interim Executive, and the whole revised constitution will go up for a vote at our first AGM in August. In fact, I don't think there's anything in the current constitution preventing atheists or agnostics from joining, but the revised one should reduce any confusion on this point. <em>So, I can understand why religious groups may take an exclusive approach to social action implied by the “Interfaith” groups. They may base this on religious tradition, rather than belief.</em> There are different schools of thought on what constitutes an "interfaith" group. Some are directly about beliefs, and I think they tend to act as discussion groups for individuals. Others focus on maintaining good relations between communities, and only indirectly on the traditions or beliefs by which those communities define themselves. The current burst of interfaith activity has tended towards the latter approach, but I think both are valuable. <em>But they are still accepting some non-theist traditions (Buddhism for example) while rejecting others (Rationalism and Humanism). </em> I really do think this is just a matter of self-selection. For whatever reason, Buddhists seem generally more interested in presenting their beliefs as a "faith" (at least for the purposes of interfaith activities) than Rationalists or Humanists are. I don't think there's any deliberate exclusion. Hi Ken – thanks for your post here and your comments on my blog.

We can see this in the way “Interfaith” groups have been formed in New Zealand – atheist and agnostics are excluded

I’ve expressed my doubts about whether people who identify directly as atheists or agnostics would find anything of interest in interfaith activities, but you’re quite right that they shouldn’t be excluded. I’ve been working on a revised constitution for the Christchurch interfaith Council, to incorporate various recommendations, and I’ve been careful to ensure that there’s nothing preventing atheists or agnostics from joining. The current version hasn’t been ratified yet, but it requires only that people indicate their religion by whatever terms they prefer, so that we can have some idea how diverse we are. There’s nothing to prevent an interested person writing “atheist” for their religion, and taking part on an equal footing with anybody else. This has been approved by our interim Executive, and the whole revised constitution will go up for a vote at our first AGM in August.

In fact, I don’t think there’s anything in the current constitution preventing atheists or agnostics from joining, but the revised one should reduce any confusion on this point.

So, I can understand why religious groups may take an exclusive approach to social action implied by the “Interfaith” groups. They may base this on religious tradition, rather than belief.

There are different schools of thought on what constitutes an “interfaith” group. Some are directly about beliefs, and I think they tend to act as discussion groups for individuals. Others focus on maintaining good relations between communities, and only indirectly on the traditions or beliefs by which those communities define themselves.
The current burst of interfaith activity has tended towards the latter approach, but I think both are valuable.

But they are still accepting some non-theist traditions (Buddhism for example) while rejecting others (Rationalism and Humanism).

I really do think this is just a matter of self-selection. For whatever reason, Buddhists seem generally more interested in presenting their beliefs as a “faith” (at least for the purposes of interfaith activities) than Rationalists or Humanists are. I don’t think there’s any deliberate exclusion.

]]>