“Morality in Regards of Religion”
Religion has become a far more restrictive way of living over the course of history. Is it because of science, because of open minded thinking, stagnant lifestyles, or a need for psychological adaptation? Morality for centuries has been closely associated with religion, and often times the defining line is blurred. What is morality in regards of religion? Religion since the recent century has been the defining guidelines for proper behavior in societies around the world. Take Christianity for example. A large portion of the United States laws and regulations are based off the founding fathers who were Christian. While we learn certain values that are universal, such as murder is wrong and so is stealing, we also gained several laws that are now put into question. The problem with religious morality is that is not universally accepted, nor does it treat everyone fairly. Modern society finds error with a single mindset, which is the method of religion.
First, the primary issue with morality based on religion is that it does not evolve. Religion is a repeating pattern of the past, thus it is difficult for it to adapt to modern social standards. The ten commandments for instance were supposedly written over thousands of years ago, yet they have not been changed once or adapted because of their assumed absolute by being voiced by “god”. While these codes were once acceptable centuries upon centuries ago, how to they accurately cover all the diverse moral issues in modern society?
When law and duty are one, united by religion, you never become fully aware; you are always a little less than an individual. There are reasons why the division of church and state are kept separate to the best of ability. Consider the modern dilemma of having a Muslim, a Christian, an atheist, and a Buddhist all living in the same community. The obvious problem are conflicting faiths, how does one coincide with the other? If they are extremists in their faiths, then they simply do not coincide. Their ideas on proper morality might suggest that they convert or not associate with someone of another religion, which of course goes against the laws on prejudice. Can they rightfully be punished when they are simply following their beliefs? The answer to this is simply that they cannot use their faith as a reason to disgruntle or harass another individual. Religious morality only fairly applies to members of its respective faith, not the masses outside of its beliefs and codes.
Now to delve into more touchy subjects; consider abortion. Abortion is a topic that can ruin relationships, friends, and couples. Christians, along with other religions, do not accept abortions as proper moral actions. It is considered murder in their eyes. However, analyze the unprepared foolish teen that had a crazy night and now is pregnant. She is from a poor working class family, the “father” of the child is long gone, and she is still is in high school with no income. Does she have the means to support a child, to offer it a life that would be happy and secure? No, she will have to rely on her already stressed parents who are not ready nor should have to support another generation in the family. The child would grow up in an environment that would set him down a very underprivileged path in life. Its not fair to raise a child in an environment such as this.
Now religion has taught many principles and moral practices that are widely accepted. Honoring your father and mother, burying the dead, it is wrong to kill, ect. A faith usually functions on what the group assumption of what is morally right. So this is the same function as a democracy, for a small population. If one faith can agree that “it is morally wrong to kill another human” then there is at least a general consensus. Yet the statement isn’t the problem, it’s the supposed origin of it that causes unrest. When the argument becomes “ no, it is right because our god said it, not your false god” then they cross over into the non-moral based act of pressing personal beliefs upon another.
Take into account the necessity of ritual and perpetuation within religion. It relies heavily on the notion that it’s ways will not change over time due to teaching old values and laws into the youths, which radically limits the ability to change. Ritual is a habit of a system that no longer has a driving purpose for living. These rituals are unfortunately what end up becoming the basis for teaching. Religious morals are implemented on an icy slope. With the coming of the widely accepted morals, rapidly afterwards come the isolated and biased moral judgments that apply only within it’s own faith.
We cannot completely disregard religion from morality either, since it is so deeply rooted in society and such actions would go against the freedoms granted to the citizens of this country. What can be done to keep the code of ethics as mutually acceptable as possible? There are no easy solutions to this, however the power of long term education is quite powerful, as religion in itself proves. Create a system where religions learn to accept one another. Since the individual faiths do not accept that concept of suffrage, it needs to be a government imposed lesson implemented at grade schools. Does it go against someone’s rights to have them taught equality at a young age? The question needs no answer, it is obvious. Multiple generations are needed for this to become a truly effective method, since the parents may prove an obstacle in this.
Does religion belong in morality? Many of the principles and lessons do, however the faith itself does not belong intertwined with it. Religion cannot be morally accepted if they impress without consent, or conflict with another religion. At the same time a purely atheistic community may possibly need the “circus effect” of religion in order to provide an astringent listing of codes to follow. Religion still plays a major role in the decisions of moral uprightness, it just has become convoluted because of the number of conflicting faiths living within a small distance of each other. Religion also does not carry the voice of a single individual as well as it carries the consensus of a group. So how can it ever be fully applied without moral consequence when it denies even one person of another belief system their rights of a citizen and their own differing moral judgments?
