Talk:Religiocentrism
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
What is religiocentrism?
[edit]- I've gathered some virtual resources which describe religiocentrism in various contexts.
- I'll look into acquiring the journal articles expressed in the article's selected bibliography.
- I've e-mailed a Harvard academic for information on religiocentrism. [1]
- I've e-mailed a La Laguna academic for information on religiocentrism. [2]
Adraeus 06:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Religiocentrism in Christianity
[edit]Within American society, the conflict of ethnocentrism is abundant. Ironically, although it is a country founded and formed by immigrants, people still have a mentality that they are superior to others, which is primarily based on race and ethnicity. However, in the Christian religions, religiocentrism, a form of ethnocentrism, can be seen in their beliefs and values, their concept of salvation, and their role in society on the whole.
Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s culture or ethnicity is superior to others’ (Parillo, 2002). Christianity is not an ethnicity or culture, but it is a religion; therefore, we can derive the concept of religiocentrism from this perspective. Religiocentrism, then, is the concept that one’s religion is superior to others’. Ethnocentrism is an important factor when determining the majority-group of a society (Parillo, 2002). The majority-group in America is Caucasians, and the predominant religion is composed of the many facets of Christianity.
One can observe the values of any religion and surely see commonalities between most. Generally, the goal of a religion is to allow people to have something to believe in, and to have guidelines for a way of life. In the Christian religions this is true: they believe in God and that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and their guidelines for life are depicted in the Ten Commandments.
However, as one looks into the morals depicted in Christian religions, it seems they try to claim exclusive rights to people of these religions. When a child is born into any one of these religions, he is given no choice as to what he believes. He is baptized immediately after birth, forcing him into a Christian lifestyle (Di Rienzo, 2002). As the child becomes grows, the decision of marriage is limited by faith. There are “doctrinal prohibitions on interfaith marriages,” (Ray, 1972) which shows the lack of tolerance for differing faith, and thus seeming superior since they cannot “share” their purity with others. Other rituals, such as Holy Communion and Confirmation reaffirm the religious life, in order to keep the individual interested. Since individuals are excluded from the personal lives of Christian people, one sees that this is religiocentric, since there is no reason other than a religious difference that causes such discrimination.
Also, in order to keep those who were born into the religion with absolutely no control active, they create regulations for those admitted to salvation after death. As it says directly from the religious text of Christians, the Bible: “I magnify my ministry in order to . . . save some of them” (Romans 11:13-14). In this, one sees that only some will be saved, and this refers to the Gentiles in the passage, who were followers of Jesus, which insinuates they are the “some” who will be saved. Again in the Bible, “For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (2 Corinthians 1:5). Religiocentrism can be identified insomuch that if one believes in the suffering of Christ in his role as Son of God, that individual will be comfortable after death, with God in Heaven. Again, since only those who believe in the aforesaid are permitted into eternal salvation, it is ethnocentric, since it is solely based on a belief, and if the belief is not abided by, then you are discriminated from this salvation.
Generally in society, there are some aspects of Christian religions that make them discriminatory. In order for this group to maintain its identity, it creates ways of life that permit the group to be entirely independent to those different from themselves: “Some of these communities are so fundamentally concerned with preventing diversity that they only shop at Christian stores, participate in sports only if the teams are Christian, and watch television that is produced by approved networks” (Di Rienzo, 2002). There is even a Christian Yellow Pages (Di Rienzo 2002). By trying to keep a group isolated from others to ensure a good religious life is religiocentric, because the isolation is based solely upon religion, and the desire to remain out of contact with those who are not a part of that group.
Another aspect in society that Christianity has an impact on is the government. One sees that the American Constitution is based on the very basic rules of Christianity the Ten Commandments. As Stringer (2004) mentions in his article Fifty Demonstrations of America’s Christian Heritage, They [the Founding Fathers] clearly saw the role of the Federal government as that of encouraging Christianity, promoting the influence of the Bible and Christian morality. Because in the beginning the majority of people who came to America were Christian, as were the Founding Fathers, they felt their religion was the most fit to represent the basis of the government. There is nothing much more religiocentric than basing a government’s primary principles on a religion.
Consequently, it is apparent that the Christian religions are very religiocentric. Not only do they have a belief system that is designed to create exclusion of others, but they create members of the group before they even have a choice, and then expect them to remain a part of the group regardless. They also create guidelines for salvation that are based on nothing but speculation, that exclude all others but themselves from the glory of the predicted afterlife. In society, they create a wall surrounding them by participating in only activities that relate to their religion. Clearly, this group is designed to discriminate those who are nonbelievers.
- So then aren't religions inherently religiocentric? A belief, by definition, is something you take to be true. It's not so much the idea of "superiority" - any individual who believes anything (religious or otherwise) must think that others who hold conflicting beliefs must be wrong. You can't believe the earth is spherical and accept that people who think it's flat don't have an inaccurate belief. You can't believe in Christ and also think the belief is "equal" to that of other religions (though the idea here is not equality, but truth). You believe it. If you thought it "equal" to other religious beliefs, well, you wouldn't believe it anymore.
- The only way for religion to be non-religiocentric would be to consider one's faith merely a matter of practice and not truth. One would have to become agnostic - otherwise there would still be the belief in God, which assumes that athiests are wrong.
- The same is true of values as well as beliefs. One must consider one's values to be superior to those of others, otherwise they wouldn't be the person's values in the first place! (though the word "superior" is a bit strong). You can't have your cake and eat it too. But we are taught these days the contradiction that you can both maintain beliefs and values, and accept that other beliefs and values are equal. This is the way we deal with the tension of accepting others while maintaining our own ideas.
- So we have a problem. We want to accept all religions, but not accept their religiocentricity. It can't be done, but that's what people prefer politically, so they accept the contradiction rather than facing it. It's easier than questioning our beliefs and values.
- But the honest person must question their beliefs and values. They must humble themselves in the face of 6.5 billion others who may disagree.24.64.223.203 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I hate to sound all indignant and what-not, but I don't have to humble myself to anyone as far as my beliefs are concerned. Questioning your own beliefs is one thing, but chan ging or weakening them because others disagree in not required of anyone, despite what the ACLU and many others would have you believe. I say this because it realtes to the POV of the article, namely, that the more religious-centered you are, the more irrational, close-minded and bigoted you are (see the history of the "See also" section in bigotry; it linked to this article before I removed it). My point? This article needs a POV cleanup.
Activism: Going Beyond the Isolated Cause (Jorge Dante Hernandez Prosperi)
I'm not certain of its relevance. I'm just collecting sources. Adraeus 06:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
How very point of view...
[edit]This article and its discussion section treats all devout religious people as religiocentric, a term linked to the bigotry article. THerefore, according to Wikipedia (using info combined from these two articles), all people who see religion as central to life are bigots. This is not NPOV, or true at all in my opinion, but I think we can all agree that it's certainly not NPOV. The "Quotes" section has only one quote, which is very POV. I personally believe "under God" IS the most important part of the pledge, so this is clearly an opinion. I'm annihilating the whole "section", feel free to re-create with more and better quotes. Karwynn 05:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)