Participating in Religious Rituals

[dianahsieh]

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ramana Reddy e-mailed me the following question a few days ago. I am reproducing it here with his permission:

I am 22 and my dad passed away almost 10 years ago. Every year a gathering is arranged in his memory. This is where the whole thing starts getting weird. According to Hinduism (which my family subscribes to), the son is obligated to perform

a ritual

every year. The ritual presumes the notion of an afterlife and is filled with the stuff of idealism.

I have recently read OPAR [

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

] and have decided to live according to Objectivist principles to the best of my knowledge. In the present case, I have absolutely no problem with a gathering in his memory, but I stand opposed to these customs which believe in the afterlife and the like.

I will probably take a lot of heat for my decision considering the faith of Indian's in God or whatever. It's not the heat that am really worried about (although it makes me a little nervous sometimes), but the correctness of my decision. I would like to be very sure of my decision before I stand trial. I do not know anybody better to ask this question to. Please feel free to answer in any manner you choose to.

If possible, also do elaborate on stuff like marriages in Church or a funeral conducted by a Catholic priest.

I wrote the following very hasty reply:

I don't have time to write much, but I would say that you should not -- as an adult -- actively participate in a ceremony contrary to your beliefs. It's not a problem to attend such a ritual, but to actively participate in it implies that you agree with it. Some of your family members may be angry, but if you don't assert yourself on this point, how many other compromises will they be able to wheedle out of you? Plus, the better family members -- namely those who respect you as an individual -- will get over any initial feelings of anger or resentment.

I'm posting this in the hopes that others will chime in with further remarks in the comments, as that was really far too brief.

Cross-posted from Metablog

[Cake]

If I had to sum up objectivism in one phrase, I would say "think for yourself." On one hand, I agree with your answer, Diana, that participating in a religious ritual is giving sanction to it. If this fellow does not want to sanction the rite, he should abstain from doing so.

However, I believe that even asking this question is inappropriate of someone who is committed to objectivism. If Ramana is unsure, he is going to have to decide on his own. No slogan or philosophy has been able to remove the responsibility of choice from human life. He should not denounce religion just because Ayn Rand said so, for the same reasons he should not believe in religion just because his parents said so.

With that said, I am convinced that it is not a sin to be unsure so long as you genuinely seek answers. If you need more time to understand, and to become decisive, take the time to think. It is worth the effort.

As a corollary, if I was in that situation and I wasn't sure about religion but decided to go though the ritual anyway, I would not feel badly if I later became an atheist. I went though all sorts of religious ceremony before I new better, and I feel no guilt about it.

The point is not to transgress on your convictions. If you are a convinced atheist, going through ritual would be an insult to yourself. If you are not convinced, it would be less bad and more forgivable.

I respect Ramana for the courage to stand up for what he believes in, and wish him all the best.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The point is not to transgress on your convictions. If you are a convinced atheist, going through ritual would be an insult to yourself. If you are not convinced, it would be less bad and more forgivable.

It really depends on the nature of the ritual, and what part you are asked to play. When my best friend died many years ago, I didn't really have the authority to have a fully rational funeral and reception. Not only couldn't I afford it, but I wasn't in any psychological shape to wrestle with his parents, who wanted a more religious traditional service. I took part in that service and delivered the eulogy I wrote for him proudly in front of 300 strangers in a meeting place for a church (I can't remember if it was actually in the church proper or not). Aside from one person I knew there who was also interested in Objectivism at that time, I wasn't even sure how to present myself. My eulogy was completely secular and even mentioned Ayn Rand and quoted from her, and no one raised a stink about that. And since I was basically their guests, at their house and at their ceremony, I didn't push the atheism issue. Later, however, I did host a wake for him that was strictly rational.

Likewise, when my grandmother died, my parents insisted I attend the Catholic funeral, including going to church. And I wasn't going to turn them down on account that I am an atheist. But I was there and not pretending to sing the hymns or repeat after the priest.

Where I would have drawn the line was taking a more religious role, such as becoming one of the alter boys at either funeral. I did carry both caskets, and the thought did cross my mind that if my grandmother found out she might be shocked, but she didn't know....

In the case of being a sort of center-point participant where one has to deliver some kind of religious trappings, as the person asking the question, I would decline. Unless one can work secularism into the proceedings, I wouldn't put on airs that I was religious when I'm not. It's part of the honesty of being an Objectivist.

In other words, tradition is one thing, but so long as one is not presenting oneself as religious, I think it is OK to participate in funerals and weddings that have religious trappings. Just don't be the equivalent of the priest or the alter boy, and don't pretend that one is religious just to please one's parents or one's friends and associates.

There are certainly times when one can be put in a tough spot, such as when I started to work for a man who I knew just received a seminar degree and wanted to be a preacher. I made it clear to him up front that I was an atheist and didn't want to talk about religion. And I figured that so long as I wasn't helping him to promote religion, that was fine, because it was a secular business. But I wouldn't go to work for a company -- say a gallery or a bookstore -- that primarily catered to the religious.

I don't know that Objectivists have come up with the perfectly rational funeral or the perfectly rational wedding, aside from having a Justice of the Peace there for official status. Of course, when I marry a girl I would definitely not want the wedding to take place in a church of any kind, not even one of the more secular libertarian type churches (or atheists churches), as I think this is a huge contradiction. So, I suppose the best thing to do is to write your own secular vows, and have it "ordained" by the state, when that becomes necessary.

I do know that oriental or Asian cultures are very big on tradition, with or without religious overtones. And this is one of the things young Asians need to fight, especially those coming to grasp Objectivism. But I had an Objectivist friend who taught English over in South Korea, and they just couldn't fully grasp the idea of being independent of mind and spirit. Tradition gets so ingrained, that they almost cannot think against it -- it's like blasphemy to them, and they really feel that way about it; so it is a tough battle.

[Zip]

This above all; To Thine Own Self Be True -- William Shakespeare