Religion, Part 1

Religion is such a critical topic I wish to start off addressing it.  I understand this may seem like a bad idea to start off on as it is an extremely touchy subject- one that people should avoid in day to day conversation.  However, it is extremely important to us- especially of our country nonetheless.  In fact, at the time of this writing, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a report that 83% of Americans subscribe to organized religion.  I bring up this topic not because I mean to espouse or detract from religion, but that I wish to describe its social structures and why they were created, and how they are present in similar social structures.  For the sake of brevity and to minimize the chance of mistakes, I will use examples from the religions I am most familiar with.

Religions are far more complex systems than merely a belief.  Religious socialization endows a set of values, morals, and code of conduct onto its members.  One may argue that these rules are very burdensome, but in cases like nomadic Israel, all the rules that Mosaic law imposed upon the people were critical to their survival.
One example that comes up (at least in my life frequently) is kosher food.  It seems to be quite troublesome to follow such strict diet regulations, but take a look at the clean and unclean rules that the Israelites had regarding animals.  A brief look would reveal that in general, only herbivores were eaten, which minimizes the chance that the animals would consume other unclean things.  Scavengers like pigs and birds of prey were expressly forbidden (and are also considered haraam in Islamic law). Hopefully, I need not elaborate on the benefits of abstaining from such food in those days.  One can argue also that not eating pork, shellfish, and such can also lead to less risk of food allergies, as well as lower cholesterol and fat, something we care about more these days than at that time (probably for the reason that we are eating them!).  Such rules like these assist in the physical survival of the group but there were also some codified standards of behavior and that minimized strife within the group. I could explain this much further, but perhaps for another time.
Not only must a religion have these codes to maintain cohesion and identity, a religion must contend with intersecting cultures.  A religion must be able to redefine itself to be relevant in the face of majority groups, or it may be rejected in favor of new value systems.

This brings us to our next discussion: Many religions have codes regarding endogamy, or the selection of mates within a group. The principal benefit of endogamy to a religion is the creation of further and deeper ties in the group, particularly with that of sacraments and customs associated with mate selection. I believe the codifying of this value is almost moot point, but a value beneficial to the religion nonetheless.  Let me explain.  First, I will concede that by the codifying the choice of partners within the group, additional moral feedback can be given by other members in the group, thus presenting additional barriers to departure from the group. In other words, having this manifest rule stigmatizes the behavior of intermarriage outside of the religious group, garnering criticism from peers, and thus discouraging the behavior.
That aside, if the pursuit of religion occupies a significant portion of one's life, it is difficult to depart from the lifestyle one is accustomed to.  If there was conflict between their religion and their partner(s), ultimately a decision must be made, and the goats are parted from the lambs, so to speak.  One who is not firmly rooted within that lifestyle will leave for another.  Take for example, according to US census data, from 1945 to 1995, the intermarriage of Jews with non-Jews increased from 1 in 10 to 1 in 2, and the percentage of Jews in America has dropped from 4 to 2%.  This should be no surprise to anyone: the melting pot in this instance means the erosion of the Jewish culture by assimilation into our modern day cultures.  In this light, we should marvel that that we can even find this culture thousands of years later- a testament to the incredible power of religion as a cultural preservation mechanism.

In Part 2, we will discuss modern day social phenomena with great resemblances to religious cultures.

A brief start: Redefining the Golden Rule

I just want to start off with something very simple.  If you ask someone what the golden rule is, you frequently hear something that equates to reciprocity.


This would be a good rule to follow for someone within the same culture and context, but surely we of the 21st century, belonging to a myriad of these cultures and contexts, realize that even such a general rule does not have all the answers.  The golden rule is not something so simple as tit for tat.
To use a very, very simple example: If I was served a juicy ribeye steak, I would think consider this to be a marvelous gesture. If I invited a vegetarian over for dinner, would I therefore offer a ribeye?
This may seem so cut and dry, but surely a host has mistakenly cooked a steak for a vegetarian.
What is one to do in this scenario?  This crash of multiple microcosms: One person has conflicting role of being a chef and a host.  Another has found that the roles being a guest and being a vegetarian have come in conflict.
They could both feel insulted.  They could feel they have injuries against each other that deserve reparation.  But reparations paid for sleights do not change history or correct, but merely appease.
Or they can look at things another way.  Rather than view these things as injury or insult, they can seek understand the motivations of the other's behavior.  The host was merely trying to serve the best food to his or her knowledge.  The guest cannot accept the host's gift because he or she cannot consume meat.  In such a light, these minor things are not sleights, but misunderstandings.  Misunderstandings can be clarified, and what would have been reparations proposed by another party are instead synergistic solutions built by both parties. With better understanding, better relationships can be built.
I posit then that the golden rule is in fact empathy, or to understand another.


In the course of this blog, we will surely encounter subcultures we are not familiar with. When I (or other people) write these posts, I have a targeted audience in mind.  I write with the vocabulary and the language of that audience.  But the audience I net is a little harder to predict.  I can try my best to anticipate this, but when someone outside of my targeted audience reads this, they can see things in a different context from what I intended.  Surely some may also voice their disagreement. In any of these cases, I thank you for taking the time to read my views, and I hope I can learn much from understanding your unique perspectives.