There is a widely-found alignment between conservative, religious and militant views, opposing an alignment of reform, secular and human rights views. Though some of this shouldn't be surprising at all, after all it is the classic left-right wing division in politics, the fact this line divides the religious and secular is new to me.
Previously I had thought that this division exists in Israel because of the unique history and geo-political environment, but I discovered this is a worldwide phenomenon. It saddens me to acknowledge the obvious connection between conservative thinking and religion, both are traits of those in fear of searching for renewal or embracing change. It seems that though many religions were born out of some kind of revolution - philosophical, social, so forth, they lose that flexibility later on.
The connection between militant stances and religious ones were those that surprised me the most, why would there be such a correlation between secularism and humanistic approaches, and vice versa? It seems that the conservative fear of change fuels a never-ending battle with all forms of change, foreign and internal, of different cultures and different ways of thought. You start waging war against the enemy beyond the border, and you end suppressing any sign of uprising or variety and difference at home. A futile attempt to stop evolution, bottling the demon until it thirsts revolution.
Religion in Hebrew - דת, by definition, is a hierarchic form. It consists of a set of rules, rules dictated by someone, that someone having authority. A common form of hierarchy is the Family, I would like to compare it to the military form for a moment. While the importance of authoritative hierarchy in families can be explained by the need to having the means to educate children who sometimes have little or no sense of their own good in the long distance, in the military it is based on the need of complete control by the political system. The military is considered an arm of the political offices, "the continuation of policy through other means", an arm with a mind of its own is useless. Therefore we find hierarchy serves different purposes in different places, foreseeing the best fulfillment of each member, or enslaving individuals for the cause of other individuals.
It seems the weakness of the political systems induces the use of abusive hierarchy, while the self-confidence of parents induces a form of hierarchy which is extremely flexible and aims to be based on mutual-respect.
What kind of hierarchy are we searching for in religion?
For a case study I'd like to bring up the clerical class in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Shiite custom and philosophy had encouraged clerics to be involved and speak up in political and governmental issues, so much that a movement developed the idea up to revolution, constituting a government of clerics. You would think that clerics would become involved in the new system, influencing policy in all the avenues now opened, but no... Nowadays, esteemed clerics steer away from politics, only low status figure are positioned in the system. Once you build a clear hierarchical system based on religion, political debate becomes a dangerous arena, it becomes a debate where one side might be declare takfir, heretic. It fills the discussion with fear, it draws its power form the fear of the masses, just now you have the fear of G-d as a political tool as well. Shiite Iran had lost its flexible ability of review and debate, switched with abuse.
So, what hierarchy are we searching for in faith? Is there a place for hierarchial systems in an adult forum of individualistic adults?
