Over-Ruled yet somehow Under-Ruled

In an article published today February 15, 2011 in the New York Times entitled "Few Focus on Religion in One Cairo Neighborhood" the settlement is that there are more pressing economical, political and, social needs that will do more for helping the people of Egypt than that of any religious structure. I have highlighted below some of the comments from the Egyptians living in an area called Imbabah located north of Cairo along the Nile River.

I am not, in this small observation, wanting to discuss the rights or wrongs of the religious regimes and political parties that have been in power in this area. However, after reading this article it left me with questions and concerns about the view that is projected on religion. The following…

"Bread, social justice and freedom," the 21-year-old college graduate said. "What's religious about that?"

"The last thing youth are thinking about is religion," said Mr. Mitwalli, who hides his cigarettes from a family where all the women wear the most conservative veil. "It's the last thing that comes up. They need money, they need to get married, a car, and they don't have anything to do with anything else. They'll elect whoever can deliver that."

It remains an oddity of the long struggle between the government and the Muslim Brotherhood that both an aging opposition and a corrupt state spoke the same language of moral conservatism. It has left Egypt more ostensibly religious over the years. Measured by sentiments here, it may have also provoked a backlash among youth recoiling at the prospect of yet more rules promised by an even more stringent application of Islamic law.

"In my view?" asked Osama Hassan, a high school student who joined the protests in their climactic days. "We need more freedom not less. The whole system has to change."

Freedom, in the sense of no rules or a position of autonomy, (I am sure not partial to Egypt's current dilemma but wherever the people feel their individual rights or popular sovereignty are denied them) takes a natural precedence and becomes common theme. A certain "begging of the question" still remains, do religious rules bring a negation of freedom?

I find the media and other entities infringing on a hasty
generalization fallacy here. This generalization places a stigma on all religions, as if their goal is the suppression and censorship of a nation by compulsion of a moral framework expressed through a dogmatic intolerance. This is a semantic error, as freedom should not be defined as an autonomous position, doing what one pleases. Rules provide a structure of conduct that allows people to freely participate in that nation. Rules are, in fact, freeing because they are a judiciary of people's individual rights (life, liberty and property) therefore rules represent unity of civility and contradict coercion.

Revolting sentiments toward religion are understandable when "rules" are synonymous with oppression; but what if the responsibility of a religion where the individual rights, social and cultural civility and an objective of unity for people? Unfortunately, "moral coercion" even happens inside a religion and always because of a misplacement of responsibility.

This institution, religion, when understood properly and initiated correctly provides the kind of ruled platform that allows "bread, social justice and freedom" to become a possibility. For media or any other entities to ghettoize religion and its pure responsibility, withholds any possibility of renewal for Egypt and any other revolting country.

                                                                                        

New York Times; "Few Focus on Religion in One Cairo Neighborhood" By Anthony Shadid; Published: February 15, 2011

A Position of Neutrality

In every era there are motivating factors or values that seem to emerge and great principles are then placed on this peer pressure of "normality". These principles naturally give way to dogmatism and an enthusiastic evangelism of "dude, that's like… so yesterday". Society verifies it, culture lives it and usually humanity suffers from it. Well for the church, it also has acquiesced to the new normality sustained by a contemporary and postmodern tolerance of everything equal.

……. As I think over my following comments, I find myself faced with a dilemma. I sincerely want the modern-day evangelical church leaders and attendees to hear me out; however my words stand the chance of being nothing more than ink on paper because the modern-day church, as a subscriber to contemporary tolerance, see's my challenging of opinion as being intolerant. I ask for your indulgence and that you hear me out.

I think now more than ever the church is more culturally isolated than it has ever been. One of the frustrations our think tank contends with is that the contemporary church believes they are more culturally savvy and socially aware than ever before; unfortunately this belief is merited by the contemporary conception of tolerance.

The modern-day Church is working hard at a new zeitgeist, one that rejects a reputation that suggests confrontation, didactic responsibility, and difference of opinion in social and cultural livelihood. By way of emphasis the modern-day Church is instead focusing on expressing an existential vibrancy through philanthropic efforts, loving your neighbor, serving the poor and, strong community fellowship as a more accurate Christian reputation. These reputational emphases are exactly what are expected when "toleration" most values acceptance. This is why I have sympathies to the modern-day Christian church, it is the subtly of this contemporary tolerance that has snuck in and corrupted their theology. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview acquiescing to a reputation of neutrality.

Neutrality

As a thinker this new effort confuses me. This neutrality seems to take away from its strength, having an intellectually rigors worldview that is able to answer questions of reality, greatly define social structure and significantly contribute in the cultural milieu, only because of its exclusivity rather than its neutrality. This begs the question "can neutrality give this worldview a respectable place for people to place their belief or faith in"?

The question, although given the circumstance is a valid one, is an illogical question. If a worldview is neutral, that is it stands for nothing, what would there be to believe in? If a worldview is neutral, accepting everything, than you don't "believe in", it would just be a prior knowledge. One of the serious concerns for the modern-day church is that a position of neutrality, believing in nothing and accepting everything, removes you from the public square. The serious part is that with a zeitgeist that dismisses confrontation, didactic responsibility and difference of opinion in social and cultural livelihood, your worldview then lacks the ability to speak to your existential vibrancy.

Another distress point to this kind of neutral tolerance is a pluralistic worldview that, having a predetermined value of epistemic ignorance, accepts all religious ideas as equal. This pluralistic worldview suggests to be tolerant is to extracting oneself from all confrontational issues creating a social and cultural unity. The distress point is when two opposing views conflict with one another, this reality suggests that one view exceeds the other therefore leaving the "all idea tolerance" unworkable. This presupposes that to be tolerant to society we should engage ideas and not treat them equal.

For those who also are thinkers, we recognize the real adversity of this neutral tolerance the Christian Church has implemented is its default guard – it is "unchristian" to question or confront so to confront or questions tolerance, it also is "unchristian". Ironically enough the liberating hero of this invalid tolerance is reason itself speaking into the existential vibrancy.