Religion is Open Source

[PatrickG]

Okay... I grew up mostly on 19th century Restoration Movement Christianity. In general, individual congregations my family went to were fairly conservative, socially, but the entire movement is, itself, what I would describe as religiously libertarian. That is to say, denominational structure and hierarchy were seen as irrelevant, at best, and detrimental, at worst.

It varied from congregation to congregation but the basic idea tended to be that we held democratic elections at the congregational level. Each church had bylaws set forth by their founding members, with a constitution subject to amendment. The overall template tended to be that there was a Board of Trustees with an influential CFO (and sometimes CEO) acting as a kind of counter to the minister, who acted as an influential hired spokesman.

Because the movement was founded out of a disgust for sectarianism, the overall attitude that seemed common was that every denomination was probably misguided on some point (just as every one of our congregations might be as well) and that no denomination had exclusive claim to salvation.

Catholics get into Heaven. Methodists get into Heaven. Quakers get into Heaven. Baptists get into Heaven. Unitarians get into Heaven. All provided that the INDIVIDUAL in question lived a life in accordance with Biblical teachings.

If there is room for debate over a Biblical issue, nobody is "right" and all opinions should be respected. The flipside of that being that a serious enough dispute might mean you'd be more comfortable worshipping with theologically likeminded people either at a denominational body or another nondenominational church.

The most prevalent teachings were basically that we viewed baptism as essential and would baptize anybody as soon as they indicated a desire to be and we believed we were instructed to take communion weekly and it was offered at every service. (Though, honestly, it never made sense to me that people generally only partook at one of the services they attended if they attended multiple since the instruction cited is "as often as you meet".) These two things are basically seen as "Christian Civil Rights" within the movement and anybody who sets foot in the average Restoration Movement church could ask for either; our ministers would baptize somebody in a lake at 2:00 am if it was the most convenient method and while we generally taught that communion is for the baptized (which we viewed as immersion by choice), we wouldn't withhold communion from somebody whose views differed.

The core credo of most of these churches is taken from Augustine: "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

I realize that everyone is shaped in differing ways by their religious and cultural upbringing but I see this statement as an identifier of what religion is and should be in a free society. In my mind, religious teachings not compatible with this three part teaching can't be legitimately protected without compromising the freedom and autonomy of the individual.

In my mind, if it isn't open source (subject to interpretation at the individual level, citing sources and influences and accepting the consequences of where your interpretations lead you, both terrestrially and celestially) then it isn't religion.

For me, that's where Scientology fails. I could be a Catholic and lead an offshoot movement. I could be a Jew or a Muslim and practice my own brand of the religion, at least in the U.S. and most of the west.

You can't do that as a Scientologist because their teachings aren't public; their religion isn't open source. They do not allow scholarly and theological criticism and review of their beliefs and you are in no position to claim an understanding which differs from leadership.

Now, granted, some of this could be said of the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention but the reality with those groups is that you are free to take their religious teachings, take issue with them and start a separate religious movement which, while condemned by the old hierarchy on a critical basis, will not be denied the right to operate or exist.

At the heart of this for me is a rather simple idea: Truth is not owned. It is not fabricated by human hands or human minds. It is discovered. Truth exists independent of the observer. You may fabricate a figure of speech or an expression and own that phrase... But if the idea it relates is intended as a statement of truth and not observation, if it purports to express fact, no human or institution should be considered the owner of the idea.

If you report an incident as fact then you do not own it. It's the same problem I have with the "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" people and their legal action against Dan Brown for the "Da Vinci Code". They claim their interpretation of the bloodline of Jesus as the true "Holy Grail" to be fact. If it is fact then it should be subject to open source, free inquiry -- through subsequent writing and research and inquiry.

I'm not saying somebody should be able to photocopy their book and disseminate it. But if they purport their ideas to be truth then the ideas (independent of whatever copyrighted phrases and editorial notes they own) should be public domain.

It's like Shakespeare. Shakespeare is public domain. However, you CAN own an edition of Shakespeare. You can own the notes. You can own a non-standard annotation system, an indexing structure, an original edit of the text which rearranges, omits or inserts material. You can own your research without owning the truth which that research purports to find.

That is how I see religion, which like any science or academic inquiry, purports to deal in truth and truth MUST BE public domain and open source. (I don't get how DNA that occurs in nature can be owned either.) Moreoever, I don't see how any religion or entity which claims to deal in truth can be protected or recognized otherwise. If you don't open your findings to inquiry and criticism, you are, by my definition, calling yourself a liar.

[K-DoG7p7]

[Hybrid2]

Originally Posted by PatrickG

Okay... I grew up mostly on 19th century Restoration Movement Christianity. In general, individual congregations my family went to were fairly conservative, socially, but the entire movement is, itself, what I would describe as religiously libertarian. That is to say, denominational structure and hierarchy were seen as irrelevant, at best, and detrimental, at worst.

It varied from congregation to congregation but the basic idea tended to be that we held democratic elections at the congregational level. Each church had bylaws set forth by their founding members, with a constitution subject to amendment. The overall template tended to be that there was a Board of Trustees with an influential CFO (and sometimes CEO) acting as a kind of counter to the minister, who acted as an influential hired spokesman.

Because the movement was founded out of a disgust for sectarianism, the overall attitude that seemed common was that every denomination was probably misguided on some point (just as every one of our congregations might be as well) and that no denomination had exclusive claim to salvation.

Catholics get into Heaven. Methodists get into Heaven. Quakers get into Heaven. Baptists get into Heaven. Unitarians get into Heaven. All provided that the INDIVIDUAL in question lived a life in accordance with Biblical teachings.

If there is room for debate over a Biblical issue, nobody is "right" and all opinions should be respected. The flipside of that being that a serious enough dispute might mean you'd be more comfortable worshipping with theologically likeminded people either at a denominational body or another nondenominational church.

The most prevalent teachings were basically that we viewed baptism as essential and would baptize anybody as soon as they indicated a desire to be and we believed we were instructed to take communion weekly and it was offered at every service. (Though, honestly, it never made sense to me that people generally only partook at one of the services they attended if they attended multiple since the instruction cited is "as often as you meet".) These two things are basically seen as "Christian Civil Rights" within the movement and anybody who sets foot in the average Restoration Movement church could ask for either; our ministers would baptize somebody in a lake at 2:00 am if it was the most convenient method and while we generally taught that communion is for the baptized (which we viewed as immersion by choice), we wouldn't withhold communion from somebody whose views differed.

The core credo of most of these churches is taken from Augustine: "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

I realize that everyone is shaped in differing ways by their religious and cultural upbringing but I see this statement as an identifier of what religion is and should be in a free society. In my mind, religious teachings not compatible with this three part teaching can't be legitimately protected without compromising the freedom and autonomy of the individual.

In my mind, if it isn't open source (subject to interpretation at the individual level, citing sources and influences and accepting the consequences of where your interpretations lead you, both terrestrially and celestially) then it isn't religion.

For me, that's where Scientology fails. I could be a Catholic and lead an offshoot movement. I could be a Jew or a Muslim and practice my own brand of the religion, at least in the U.S. and most of the west.

You can't do that as a Scientologist because their teachings aren't public; their religion isn't open source. They do not allow scholarly and theological criticism and review of their beliefs and you are in no position to claim an understanding which differs from leadership.

Now, granted, some of this could be said of the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention but the reality with those groups is that you are free to take their religious teachings, take issue with them and start a separate religious movement which, while condemned by the old hierarchy on a critical basis, will not be denied the right to operate or exist.

At the heart of this for me is a rather simple idea: Truth is not owned. It is not fabricated by human hands or human minds. It is discovered. Truth exists independent of the observer. You may fabricate a figure of speech or an expression and own that phrase... But if the idea it relates is intended as a statement of truth and not observation, if it purports to express fact, no human or institution should be considered the owner of the idea.

If you report an incident as fact then you do not own it. It's the same problem I have with the "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" people and their legal action against Dan Brown for the "Da Vinci Code". They claim their interpretation of the bloodline of Jesus as the true "Holy Grail" to be fact. If it is fact then it should be subject to open source, free inquiry -- through subsequent writing and research and inquiry.

I'm not saying somebody should be able to photocopy their book and disseminate it. But if they purport their ideas to be truth then the ideas (independent of whatever copyrighted phrases and editorial notes they own) should be public domain.

It's like Shakespeare. Shakespeare is public domain. However, you CAN own an edition of Shakespeare. You can own the notes. You can own a non-standard annotation system, an indexing structure, an original edit of the text which rearranges, omits or inserts material. You can own your research without owning the truth which that research purports to find.

That is how I see religion, which like any science or academic inquiry, purports to deal in truth and truth MUST BE public domain and open source. (I don't get how DNA that occurs in nature can be owned either.) Moreoever, I don't see how any religion or entity which claims to deal in truth can be protected or recognized otherwise. If you don't open your findings to inquiry and criticism, you are, by my definition, calling yourself a liar.

Great post. Agree with it all.

[Weetomuncher]

I have a strange mixture of religious experiences with a few years of nominal (non church attending) Presbyterianism as a child, although my first primary school had quite a lot of religious teaching before I converted to Mormonism at age 8 and continued for 3 years before I started attending a conservative congregationalist church for about 3 years before another spell of nominal Presbyterianism (as a lot of people in Scotland seem to have nominal Presbyterian beliefs where they don't attend church but have some form of religious faith) until I started attending Salvation Army services about 4 years ago.

I have had a few periods where I haven't been able to go to church for a while through illness (at the moment I haven't been able to attend church for a while due to ill health) and I don't like missing services.

It is very easy to start your own church nowadays and a theology degree and a small hall can get you quite far in religious terms.

Almost anyone call themselves Reverend as theological degrees and other religious qualifications can be obtained outwith the boundaries of a recognised church.

In the US, almost every religious wacko seems to claim to be a Baptist, with few of them being in one of the recognised branches of Baptist tradition.

As for the Bible, it is difficult to change the wording but it is easy to change the interpretation of the meanings of Biblical quotations.

I would rather people would just follow the general flow of the Bible and stop using literalism when talking about a 2000 year old book that is written in contrasting styles and contains a variety of different ideas.

The people who insist their entire lifes should be led according to ancient scripture should realise that many of the outdated concepts in the Bible are long extinct and that people should live a good life according to modern concepts and standards.

[MacQuarrie]

Originally Posted by Weetomuncher

In the US, almost every religious wacko seems to claim to be a Baptist, with few of them being in one of the recognised branches of Baptist tradition.

The snake-handlers (Church of God of Tennessee) aren't fond of baptists, and vice-versa.

[MacQuarrie]

You could always just Be a God yourself....

[Lovefloor]

But just for me to understand something, OP... you think that the fact that people at Scientology keep their doctrines/methods hidden, means that the freedom of religion should be partially mitigated/extenuated in the specific case(Scientology)?

[Grazzt]

Originally Posted by MacQuarrie

You could always just Be a God yourself....

Also useful for when you encounter Gozer.

[MartinRedmond]

nvm trail derailment!!!

[K-DoG7p7]

I am a god..
atleast thats what the ladies call me

[Weetomuncher]

Originally Posted by K-DoG7p7

I am a god..
atleast thats what the ladies call me

A goddamned freako is not the same thing as a god...

EDIT: I'm joking, btw.

[MacQuarrie]

Originally Posted by Grazzt

Also useful for when you encounter Gozer.

I need to go rewrite that page now!

[MacQuarrie]

Originally Posted by K-DoG7p7

I am a god..
atleast thats what the ladies call me

but do you have a Certificate of Deity?

[K-DoG7p7]

Originally Posted by MacQuarrie

but do you have a Certificate of Deity?

no but I reject the notion that I need one..

[Weetomuncher]

Originally Posted by K-DoG7p7

no but I reject the notion that I need one..

Gods don't need certificates, they only need superpowers!