Ability of religion to adapt to change?

[Sibling Chatty]

Good article about the unfortunate stagnation of religious though.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/11/09/notes110907.DTL&nl=fix

"We as a culture just might be suffering a slow, painful death by spiritual stagnation, by ideological stasis, by cosmic rigor mortis. It has become painfully, lethally obvious in the age of George W. Bush and authoritarian groupthink that our major religious systems and foundations don't know how to move. They don't learn, adjust, evolve, see things anew. They don't know how to dance. And what's more, this little problem might just be the death of us all."

Fascinating writer, very relevant article.

[anthrobabe]

Religion is stagnant--- not a good thing.
Nice article.

Religion is a fine and good thing for many people- until it stagnates- because with stagnation comes ROT

[Griffin NoName]

I submit an alternative to the topic title:

Ability of evolution to adapt to religion?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

How do you repeal dogma (inherently stagnant) when you are dealing with the absolute (God)?
----
In evolutive terms, if the environment isn't fruitful for a religion to subsist it will transform itself to survive or disappear to be replaced by one that takes advantage of such environment. Given that what we see as backward in religion subsists quite well, a better question would be, what is making the current environment so fertile to fundamentalist religions (like say the evangelicals)?

[Opsa]

Oh, I can answer that: FEAR.

Fundamentalist religions thrive when there's lots of unrest in the world. Scared people want flat, safe answers that leave no doubts. The only problem is that absolutist religions quickly become stale when exposed to change. Rules made long ago based on obsolete ideas don't hold up to the test of time.

What might help would be to develop an elastic spirtuality based on the best parts of all religions that leaves open room for change. We need to get the idea that it's okay to adapt. If God created the world, God obviously made it a changing, growing environment. Can't spirituality include that? Can we accept that evolution could be a sacred thing?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Because that would mean that God is not omnipotent. Or so I think.

I would suggest that religion can evolve...when change is slow. But today, when policies and issues differ from year to year, month to month, there is not time for something so big and top-heavy with dogma to catch up.

[Sibling Chatty]

I would suggest that religion can evolve...when change is slow. But today, when policies and issues differ from year to year, month to month, there is not time for something so big and top-heavy with dogma to catch up.

Excellent observation.

And one reason, possibly, that the more dictatorial, autocratic, yes--top-heavy and dogmatic religions are running scared (and scary).

So many of the folks that I know that HAVE been sticking with the Uber-Fundie turn of our "raised-in" religion are beginning to question it. They're finally seeing that the corporatism, fascist-turn of the government and faux-patriotism that the 'church' has been promoting are NOT the 'fruits of the spirit' that they'd been told, but the proofs of the attempted plutocracy, masquerading as a theocracy.

Those that aren't buying into the Dominionist version of a Third-Reichian America are just stunned and confused. What is their 'movement' supposed to do when the leaders embrace someone like the heretic Guiliani? Is everything they were told is NOT negotiable--actually negotiable, in order to preserve the ruling class?

Some are becoming aware, as well, that the proposed upcoming Guiliani-Clinton election is merely an exercise in labeling...nothing REALLY changes that much.

The people that regarded me as a hippie-pinko freak in college now have LOTS of questions...like "How do I reclaim my soul--because I think I sold it out somewhere about 1987." And ya know, I feel for them, but I don't know that I have the energy to argue all the points with them...

Some people may have to figure it out on their own.

[Opsa]

...and that raises the question of whether or not it's time to completely re-do our outdated two-party political system here in the U.S.

Which would be harder: changing the U.S. political system or the religious system? They're both pretty fundamentalist.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Try the political system--much harder to change a man's gods than his politics.

[Sibling Chatty]

Currently, there's so much intermingling that it's almost impossible to tell the difference in some cases...

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

True. But I think it's been the way for eons. It's just more noticeable now.

[Sibling Chatty]

It has been for eons, but we're at a point in time where, due to modern methods of communication, the control of the 'dominant group' that's been utilizing both for their own ends (especially in the US) is slipping precariously.

The combination of available information and more diversity in the spread of  information (the power of the blogosphere, to a great extent, as well as internet availability of news sources from other countries) has destabilized the tight control of information.

Example? Had there been live blogging and photos of the entire Iran/Contra mess, Reagan would have been impeached back then, and the Bush Dynasty would have been averted. Seein' as how the entire Iran/Contra mess was GHWB's baby that he and the scumballs (Hi Dick! Hi Rummy!) manipulated Reagan into...Ronnie might have escaped charges for anything except stupidity/senility, but Bush I woulda fried.

Now, whatever is done, there's this blase attitude because they got away with I/C, and even though it was discovered while they were in office, the continued Republican consolidation of power for the Imperial Presidency (started under Nixon) and the dissolution of the checks and balances of the three branches of the government gave them just enough power (thanks, Newtie and your Contract on America guys) to be able to get away with it.

It's more immediately manipulated now...AND more opposed. Unfortunately, the political power to unearth the deep claws that Mother Church has in our political process is difficult to mass. Progressives and especially pseudo-Democrats are afraid to raise their voices because they MIGHT upset someone. (See also N. Pelosi, about to be handed her ass on a platter.)

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

True.
Can I help giving Pelosi her ass? Please?

In order to separate politics and religion, there would have to be a mass insurrection. And I doubt, given the complacent way most Americans have dealt with torture, etc., that it will happen. We'll need some incredibly charismatic to lead it. Or several somebodies, better yet.

[Opsa]

True.
Can I help giving Pelosi her ass? Please?

In order to separate politics and religion, there would have to be a mass insurrection. And I doubt, given the complacent way most Americans have dealt with torture, etc., that it will happen. We'll need some incredibly charismatic to lead it. Or several somebodies, better yet.

Hut ho! Charasmatic leader?! That would be cultastic! We don't want that.

Chatty's opinion would explain why the people in charge seem so anti-internet.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Ok, I should have been specific. There needs to be someone who can get the attention of those who can make changes and help motivate them. I didn't mean a Stalin or a Jones. We don't need another one of those.