(Continuing commentary on quotations taken from Felix Adler, Life and Destiny, "Religion", 1908)
Part
III
¶ It is the
moral element contained in it that alone gives value and dignity to a religion,
and only in so far as its teachings serve to stimulate and purify our moral
aspirations does it deserve to retain its ascendency over mankind.
“There is a time to act for the Lord by breaking his commandments” was a saying current among the ancient Hebrews. This means there is a time to act for religion by protesting against what passes for religion; there is a time to prepare the way for a larger morality by shattering the narrow forms of dogma whereby the progress of morality is hindered.
I disagree with the first statement in this section. Functionally, religion is a form of social control. Moral schmoral. In any society, the system of religious belief buttresses the status quo by motivating conformity to norms of behavior within the system. Law, when it exists outside of religion, is also a form of social control. In contemporary industrialized societies, we often recognize law as the greater and more direct form of social control, but religion supports that law by providing the ethical and moral basis for its tenets and by supporting behavior that conforms to its general trend. Gossip is another form of social control (“What would the neighbors think?”). “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is not about medicine; it’s about behavior. Religion does have other functions to perform--see the earlier discussion of hope--but its essential function is to make sure that people act in ways that support the dominant social structure and institutions of political and economic power.
On the other hand, I see the final statement in this section as central to Adler’s purpose: To aim for what he saw as a higher morality, better ethics, by breaking free of dogmas and strictures that had become ineffective in his time. In my mind, this is another way of saying that religion cannot be static because society is not static. As knowledge grows, as social practices change, religious explanations for knowledge and behavior need to accommodate the new information, the new norms that grow out of that new information.
Adler died before World War II, but that global cataclysm brought two new sets of demands on American society at war’s end. Black Americans who had served their country in the military returned home with new skills and knowledge and also with a new understanding of their rightful position in society. American women who had served their country by taking on many jobs formerly (and normally) held by men saw the return of the nation’s military men as a force returning them to their former inferior and disadvantaged position in society. They, too, had a new understanding of their rightful position in society. In both cases, however, Adler’s vision was accurate in predicting that new knowledge would demand changes in old beliefs.
A religion that justifies slavery, as Christianity once did, does not function positively as a matter of course for those who are held in slavery. When that religion shifts, however begrudgingly, to disavow slavery, but still supports segregation and discrimination and inequality, it still does not function positively for the whole community. Either version might have sufficed for a society that was homogeneous in “race” (a human construct), but it was doomed to fail its practitioners once the society became mixed (by whatever means). Black Americans returned to a post war America with new insight and new determination to claim the rights of citizenship and humanity. Their religious beliefs had already shifted to include them in the larger society. Today’s religious communities become less and less relevant to the people they wish to serve because people have moved on while their religious institutions have not. Science discounts the old beliefs in “race,” racial “inferiority,” racial traits, and so on. History shows the bias of Western “civilizations” when ancient remains show cities and trade routes and scientific advances in places far away from the northern climates once believed to foster innovation and progress. Racism has no place in modern society—nor, I would argue, in the religious thought that supports such a society. Racist beliefs, even those wrapped in religious justifications, are relics of the past unsuited to support contemporary social and economic institutions.
A religion that justifies sexism, as Christianity still seems to do, does not function positively as a matter of course for those who are relegated to socially inferior positions. When that religion shifts, however begrudgingly, to allow for more physical safety for women, but still discounts the value of their work, bars them from meaningful roles in their community, and subjugates them to male domination, it still does not function positively for half of the planet’s adult population. To be fair, many of the older religions hold similar views of women and their value to society, so Christianity must be considered an example, noting, nonetheless, that it is still the dominant religion in America. American women left the factories and offices and schools in which they had served during the war, returning to their homes to serve, as their mothers had done, as homemakers and participants in producing the postwar baby boom. However, they did not forget the independence and satisfaction of their work during the war; many became determined to claim their rights of citizenship and humanity, and they taught their daughters to do the same. Today’s religious communities become less and less relevant to the people they wish to serve--even though women still participate more than men in religious activities--because women have moved on while their religious institutions have not. Science and history have both shown that women can perform anywhere they are physically capable of serving--and they are more physically capable than social prejudices permit. Still American women earn less than men for doing the same work. Still American women are denied, in the old religions, equal access to positions of leadership and authority. Sexism has no place in modern society—nor, I would argue, in the religious thought that supports such a society. Sexist beliefs, even those wrapped in religious justifications, are relics of the past unsuited to support contemporary social and economic institutions.
Ethical Culture has its own checkered past to reckon with. There have been some periods and some Leaders who have treated the matters of racism with no more than “benign neglect.” Men, as one lay leader commented not too long ago, still “take up a lot of space” in Ethical Culture. The diversity of our community demands more openness to a “progress of morality” that grants dignity, recognition, equality, respect, space for people of all colors, nations of origin, sexual orientation and gender identity, talents, interests, and personalities.
The good news for Ethical Culture and its participants is that Adler laid an excellent foundation when he insisted that religion itself must progress with the society that it serves. Good, that is, for those of us who feel that we do not have to be bound by the errors of our past, that we can change and grow and be better today than we were before. Whether Adler or any other individual within the Movement changed enough or fast enough or in any particularly desirable direction is irrelevant in the broader context of a Movement which can honestly evaluate its flaws and weaknesses and also honestly seek to become more Ethical, more capable of meeting the needs of the contemporary society in which it exists, not that of some mythical past.
