matters of life and death

are people in our post-postmodern world willing to talk about religion?

most definitely. people the world around are forced to talk about religion because of the conflicting worldviews that come into contact through globalization. i have found many people are more than willing to discuss religious topics.

second question: are people willing to talk about controversial practical issues like euthenasia or politics?

yes, the world over. people are very willing to discuss why a particular political policy should be enacted. or they are eager to argue the grounds for gay marriage. our post-postmodern world is forced, in fact to talk about such topics due to the expanding global commerce.

third question: are people willing to talk about the intersection of religious matters and practical matters?

i dont think so. people have seen the conflicts that have arisen from religious beliefs. they have witnessed the political wrongs that are done in the name of religion (which is not new and has always been present in history). they see the intolerance of people from all ends of the religious spectrum, and frankly, they are tired of it. no, more than that, they hate it.

i saw this very clearly as i was discussing with a group about the question of who has the right to determine life and death. there was much talk about whether vigilante justice (ie personal right) is justified. there was discussion of communal right (as in a democratic society) or even a dictatorial right to determine life and death. as we progressed in the topic, it became readily revealed that underneath the pretensions of the above systems that none of these truly had the right to determine life and death. in fact, even if they unfairly tried to judge a person, they often failed. for instance, often intentional efforts to kill a person (even in a manner considered legitimate like execution) fail. in the same way, even when someone tries to save life (a doctor for instance), they often fail even when they expect to succeed.

who then determines life and death? the obvious answer was that there might be a higher power (personal or innate) that dictated the rules of life and death. however, the group began to feel uncomfortable about that as a possibility. no one wanted to discuss how religion might intersect with the pragmatic question of life and death.

whether there have been, and continue to be, problems that arise from religious perspectives, we must not be limited in our decisions by determining that religion has no place in policy. instead of rejection religion, we must merely rejected dogmatic religious beliefs that refuse to even discuss difference of perspective. for you fundamentalists, this doesnt mean that you must concede truth. it doesnt mean you have to deny your beliefs. it merely means that you have to be willing to be open to the fallacy in your position. we have to admit that we are merely human. we have to acknowledge that there are others who may have valid points, even when they disagree with our religious beliefs. we must discuss our differences. we must discuss religion as it is relevant to the situation, but without a rigid rulebook.

will you be willing to put aside your dogmatic beliefs if they are proved wrong?

i will