Just having finished reading the last chapter of Loyal Rue’s
book, ‘Religion is Not About God.’ I wanted to reflect on this chapter alone. Rue goes on for quite some time about the environmental concerns - on
various levels - the world faces and tows the line quite well between a
defeatist and an optimist about the Judeo-Christian faith regarding these
issues. While he praises the informed, he is not so hopeful about the Christian
right and their alliances with right-wing politics. A political agenda which
has created a tremendous bias against practically anything the left-wing or
those considered as left-wing liberals do. An indication that regardless of
whether this group agrees with the issues and concerns, because the
“opposition” is in large support, they will disagree on the grounds of
in-group/out-group dynamics; the idea that if they align with those who are not
of their ilk, or political inclination, they are somehow disloyal to their
base. In this sense everything that the other does, is considered
ill-conceived, wrong, and “of the devil.” The fragmented attitudes within the
group is a concern for Rue, typified in their varied responses towards the
environment, and man’s role place within it all, along with their attitudes
towards money - “God’s blessing” or they hate it.
Rue, expressing not much hope in this base of politics, remains somewhat optimistic in the trends of theologians and naturalists to
either naturalize God or divinize Nature. It would seem that Rue would like
this point to be the convergence of the secular and the religious for the
purpose of a common cause. And that an eco-centered morality is the modality in
which such a convergence will hinge upon for the care and unified focus for
both the religious and the secular. I wonder, if this is what should be the
centered focus of a multi-cultural/multi-ethical/multi-religious post-secular
society that Habermas spoke of. Rather than searching for an egalitarian
morality that can accommodate a broad-range of cultures, an eco-centric
morality for which all cultures, religions, and ways of life should focus on.
In a way, it is a return to the spirituality of Native Americans: To sanctify
nature.
Although I am in agreement that an eco-centric morality
would be wonderful for all of humanity to be conscientious of and look towards
working together in taking better care of the world we live in. I wonder if
such a push towards this dynamic is enough to get over the hump of those who
believe that climate change, global warming, and the degradation of the
environment is a myth; those who believe that the world’s resources are for the
utility of man. That the world is God’s gift to humans and that the
pursuit/obtainment of money at the expense of environmental detriment is “God’s
blessing.” In other words, how do we get over a form of Judeo-Christian ego-centrism
that pervades the attitudes of so many and has propelled the culture of
capitalism today? China, although not necessarily a Judeo-Christian culture,
has adopted many similar economic tactics to make itself formidable to the U.S.
and Euro-centric economics. Korea has fully taken the capitalism gamut and has
adopted many forms of Christianity, which has also led to many similar beliefs
and attitudes of the west. With economic strength, many countries have looked
towards the stronger countries as models not only for economic development but
for cultural values. This leads to a perpetuation of habitual attitudes that
not only deny the concerns of the environment but of humanity as well.
Compassion is lost in the face of obtaining “God’s blessings.” The environment
is sacrificed at the expense of obtaining “God’s blessing.” Virtue is lost at
the expense of false concerns of loyalty and Judeo-Christian homogeneity. And
without critically assessing, analyzing, and rooting out the habits and culture
of such underlying mechanisms, an eco-centric morality will not serve to
resolve the environmental crises that are progressively building in the
background of human quibble and neglect. In a way, an eco-centric morality is
already present amongst the world population. Japan has an official policy for
every household to recycle. Organic food has become ever-so popular. Concerns
about industrial farming, CO2 emissions, and debates about alternative sources
of energy continue and propel discussion.
Slavoj Zizek pointed to what he calls the “Starbucks
culture,” for every cup of coffee you buy, a small percentage goes towards some
virtuous cause. For every cup of coffee we buy, we are quick to pat ourselves
on the back and say that we are doing our part to save the environment or help
world hunger. We have organizations where we can donate money to so that they
can go and help countries in poverty, provide medical aid and nutrition. But
this donation stops at the front of our computer, or in some envelope, and we trust that the aid will get to where we
think it will get to. Here it ends for us. We “feel good” and consider
ourselves responsible citizens of the world in that unlike others we are
helping. But are we? This is the tragedy of contemporary ethics. We have no
sense of follow-through whether or not the aid that we think we are giving is
truly going to those who really need it. How do we know that the aid is not
going selectively to certain regions while ignoring others because of the
political climate? The Sunshine policy in South Korea, which provided aid to
North Korea, has failed utterly because of the intervention by the North Korean
government and distributing it to the wealthier portion of the population - the
portion of the population utilized to save face for the country. While everything
else was sold on the black-market. The truly poor and hungry received nothing.
Similarly, will an eco-centric morality truly help the environment when the
driving culture of management is questionable? How do we know that such
eco-centric industries, created in response to the motivation and drive for a
concern of nature, is not tacitly damaging nature in other ways? How do we know
that the creation of further eco-centeric industries serve to profit those who
look to create greater economic discrepancy, greater discrimination, greater
bias and prejudice, and even greater destructive foreign policies at the
expense of people?
My direction for a new morality cannot simply be an
eco-centric morality. Not because I do not concern myself with environmental
concerns, but because an eco-centric morality alone cannot, and will not,
resolve further crises in the environment and humanity. A common cause under a
broad umbrella poses the danger of the same culture reconstituting itself in
other forms. The habits of government and its incestuous ties with economic
giants will continue without critically looking at these habits and cultures,
without critically looking at these alleged neutral institutions who say they
have nothing to do with politics. An eco-centric morality will only become the
same product with a different colored cap and a different name with a
questionable amount of effective progress in actually addressing the
environmental concerns Rue has statistically bombarded the reader in the last
chapter. My suggestion, in contrast, to the world religions is to give up their
anti-intellectual, chosen in-group, theology; the theology that says faith is
an appropriate mask for ignorance and discrimination; that faith is more
important than basic education; that faith hinges upon the directives of their
religious leaders; that faith permits the ideation of salvation and neglect of the
present state of the world; that faith is more important than humanity, than
compassion, than practical concerns of inequality, justice, poverty, and the
ruthless pursuit of capital; that faith is an excuse for hatred and bigotry;
that faith is synonymous with political parties, agendas, and ideologies. I ask
the religious leaders of the world to reconsider what faith means in the world
today in the face of all these concerns. Why live life only to deny life? What
is faith in the face of morality? And what is the relationship between faith
and responsibility?
These would be my own suggestions and questions after
considering how faith develops and how emotions motivate beliefs or beliefs
motivate emotions. Both religious and non-religious cannot continue to ignore
the concerns of the world, while debating loyalties and personal interests. In
order to change the culture and habit of how things are executed globally, a
collective effort that stems from a basic understanding and acceptance of
differences in pursuit of the common must be established. A critical eye must
be turned towards institutions that govern our environmental policies, our
legal policies, and our economic policies that affect everyone around the
world.
