by Nick Baez
Across the globe, the belief in some form of a Supreme Being is closely tied to both ethnic and national identification. Latinos are no different, and religious identity within the Latino community widely ranges from “atheist” to “devout (insert denomination here).” Ask almost anyone what it means to be Latino, however, and a significant majority of responses will include the words “faith,” “religious belief,” and/or “a deep relationship with God.”
Quite often, the perception of a deep relationship with God motivates individuals to make the world a better place for those who inhabit it. However, there are also a significant number of counterintuitive consequences that can arise out of such a perception. Ironically, perceiving a close relationship with God can also lead many individuals to not only vote against their own best interests (and the interests of society), but it can also lead individuals to support those very measures that cause profound injustice and suffering, as well as those policy makers who perpetuate such injustices.
Objectively, belief in a Supreme Being implies belief in something which is greater than anything we can experience. Therefore, our very perceptions of a Supreme Being should be limited, since by its underlying definition, a Supreme Being is beyond anything we can possibly imagine or comprehend. But, as is typically the case with human nature, we tend to not handle the abstract very well. As a result, in a quest for a greater understanding of something with which we feel a close connection, we tend to “humanize” such a Supreme Being. What results is, simply put, an anthropomorphic representation of God…a God which is made in the image of a human being.
However, this type of representation carries with it other implications. When God is perceived in such an anthropomorphic manner, what can result is the representation of a God who experiences all of the very fallible human emotions: a God who can be happy; a God who gets sad (or is made to be sad); a God who can love; a God who can hate; a God who can punish those who do not believe; a God who can hold a grudge; a God who can favor one country or form of government over another; and a God who has preordained a select “chosen” segment of society. This representation of God is used countless times to justify blind allegiance to a particular political party or agenda; to justify marginalization of those perceived as “different,” and to vilify those who are less fortunate, under the premise that these individuals simply did not have “enough faith.” Furthermore, politicians and religious leaders have historically purported to know the true will of God to justify the perpetuation of injustice against those who are deemed as acting “willfully against His plan.”
This piece is not meant to be an appeal to atheism, nor is it intended to single out one particular denomination over another. Rather, this piece should serve as an indictment against blind allegiance to dogmatic thought, irrespective of religious affiliation. Such blind allegiance gets us nowhere as a society; it is counterproductive to progress, it causes tangible pain and suffering, and it creates deep divides amongst those who can more effectively utilize their talents to add wealth and equity to this world.
To learn more about Nick, find him on Facebook.
______________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of
the author and should not be understood to be shared by Being Latino, Inc.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
About Nick Baez
Totally agree w you man! I see a huge correlation w the Consevative Religious Right & the likes of Fundamentalist Terrorist groups. They are similar in that they tout to be getting back to the “one True” religion as if that exhausts! It scares me to see that philosophy blossoming in this country. I know at least one murder committed in the name of saving (unborn) lives. That is SO contradictory! Anyway it’s good to see I’m not the only one wary of the notion “knowing God’s True agenda/ plan.”
It is pretty apparent that the individual writing this, has (ZERO) affiliation with any religion at all. If you believe in nothing..you will fall for anything. True you say it isn’t an “appeal to atheism” but I beg to differ. If it is not, then you are a highly double minded individual. It is better to not believe at all…then to say you “believe”…but then choose not to follow. For me, I have respect for those who are fundamentalist, conservative and otherwise…because at the very least they are passionate for what “they” consider to be the truth. They have at the very least “sough” truth..rather then excusing it…ignoring it. I have learned a lot in the time since I have become “enlightened”…but the most important thing I have learned…is that it is ALL about love. We must learn to love …and not criticize, condemn, or accuse one’s beliefs as dogmatic thought. It is in my belief…that if we fail to love one another…then we have in essence failed at “serving our calling as a human being” …I cannot speak for those who have killed in the name of “protecting the unborn”…I have not done this..nor have I planned to..however that being said, when one is passionate enough about something, passion can produce all kinds of irrational and sometimes dispicable behavior. In this case..the person failed to show love …instead they took matters into their own hands rather than deferring to God. But it would be completely asinine to link all people who have belief in a “supreme being”…to the actions of this one individual..and base “our” mindsets and convictions upon such. That to me…is worse than being myopic.
There is wisdom in some some parts of your editorial, but there is also ignorance. I am sorry, I do not mean that as an insult. To speak on a subject more intelligently one should at least read the resources available. Unlike the violent “gangs” in the United States, the bible (since the majority of this nation and Mexico as well, is christian) does not promote or even recommend “blind allegiance” as you have suggested here, and by drawing focus to a few misguided individual actions that do not represent any christian foundations or beliefs. Now with your irresponsible conclusions, you have incited some lost and angry bleeding heart liberal to start comparing “Republicans to Terrorists”. That’s just great, I’ll pray for both of you.
You, as I am sure you are aware, have managed to raise the ire of every devout dogmatic Christian who feels you have just ripped apart their faith. Just for the record, I do believe in a higher power, just not the unchallenged dogmatic beliefs and practices that go with it. Your comparisons between human traits and those that an almighty being should have hit home with me, I’ve struggled over that very thing for decades. I am also tired of all wars and political agendas being done in the name of a selected God.
I welcome those of you who have read this piece. I don’t know how much more clearly I can state this: this article does NOT single out Christianity/Catholicism. If you read it as such, then you missed the entire point. Additionally, at no point in this piece did I even mention the Bible, let alone imply that it “teaches blind allegiance.” But I guess some will believe what they want to believe and hear what they want to hear.
Nick,
I found your article very insightful and applaud you for aptly summarizing the delicate balance which exists between the profound and the profane. Indeed, it is disturbing and almost sickening when we witness articles of faith twisted and manipulated to serve worldly interests at the expense of others. Equally alarming is the increasingly rampant power of the church(es) vis-a-vis affairs of the state, especially in matters which delineate and define the public and private sphere of individuals. I hope that your article will encourage other readers to question long-held assumptions and beliefs about faith, passion, thought, and love.
Sincerely,
Shane