|
I'll try and be concise about this, because it's a complex issue on which one's stance could be easily miscommunicated.
I don't personally subscribe to the ideology behind organized religion. To establish a set of moral, behavioral, and conceptual "laws" based on information/events that questionable in their very existence is, to me, a total oxymoron. This is not to say I scoff at spirituality - as chabib pointed out, one does not need a prescribed religion to be spiritual.
I don't necessarily 'fault' anyone for subscribing to organized religion, but there are basic tenets of certain beliefs that I simply can't identify with, and at that point, it merely becomes a social choice. For example, I can't get down with Catholicism for a number of reasons, including but not limited to its bureaucratic nature, worship of icons, history of persecution, endorsement of misogyny, emphasis on ritual and sacrament.
This is only a random example, nor am I suggesting that all Catholics adhere to all credos of the denomination. But it illustrates the idea that you can disagree with someone's choice of faith just as you can disagree with a social habit, when considering the motivation behind such choices. I wouldn't choose to associate with a heroin addict, for example, because I don't endorse the mentality that instigates that kind of behavior. I wouldn't choose to associate with a born-again Christian for the very same reason.
Religion has fallen under the protective PC blanket, with society exonerating it from dissection and criticism. I see religious choices more as manifestations of character, value sets, and basic personality structure, and I have no qualms about choosing to alienate people based on those factors. Again, it all comes down to social interaction, and religious differences are just as valid as habitual ones when it comes to divisive elements.
|