Religion is not an ideology, though it can be corrupted to become one. Religion treats as fixed those points of revelation that have as their object that which is unchanging, namely God. Yet their application to the social order precisely requires a response to changing circumstances, including the insights of other disciplines, including economics, politics, history and the environmental sciences. That’s why there is no such thing as Christian tax policy, or trade policy or climate policy. For example, Christians have it as a matter of divine revelation that concern for the poor is not optional, but essential. How to best assist the poor remains a matter of differing circumstances and consequently competing policy choices.H/t comments section at Chicago Boyz.
High horses
Fr. de Souza on disgraced IPCC Rajendra Pachauri's elevation of global warming into a religion:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have long said something similar, but he says it better.
So is it correct to speak of the "ideology of radical Islam" or would it be more correct to say theology rather than ideology? Is it following the pure ideals of the religion, or is it a corrupted version using the tenets of the theology to serve an ideology? I've been wondering about this.
Or is it that Islam, with it's insistence (in the majority sects) that their be a confluence of the civil and religious- the ideological and the theological- is outside this separation being discussed here?
That's a good question (and an excellent point). I don't see how you can separate Daesh's ideology from its theology, though you can certainly debate whether or not its ideology is well-grounded in Islamic theology.
But, as you say, Islam intends to govern universally in all areas of life. If the goal in every aspect of life is submission to the will of God, you have to think very carefully about what God wants in every aspect of life. Thinking about what you can infer from the nature of God is theological work, even if it leads to a political ideology.
I'm not sure he's being quite fair with his terminology, though I'm in sympathy with his complaint. It's like C.S. Lewis's thoughts on "Christianity and . . ." movements--Christianity and social justice, Christianity and spelling reform. Lewis objected to seeing Christianity used as raw material to support whatever one's pet social or political theory happened to be, and warned that Christ would be taken only for Himself, not as a handy tool. In this way of seeing things, religion is about the relationship between ourselves and God, while ideology is about using God as a convenience in quarrels with neighbors.
When it comes to a conviction that it's better to kill people than to let them continue in religious error, as if we we presumed to be acting for their own good, I'm not sure where we'd have to fit that. It seems equally religious and ideological.
Post a Comment