re2005

CHAPTER 5 The Religious Ethos

The future of the global human community depends in large measure on the ability of humanity to forge a common ethos out of current competing traditions. The major religious traditions continue to provide guidelines for the way most people believe they should live their lives—the ethical bases for both the individual and the collective life of a society. Every social order must produce a set of ethical standards that facilitates peaceful coexistence, and the emerging global village is no exception. To understand the complex issues surrounding this ethos construction, I will explore the way in which it is carried out in contemporary societies as well as the ethical inheritance provided by the major religious traditions.

Constructing a Religious Ethos

A people’s ethos, or lifestyle that grows out of their worldview, serves at least three social functions. An ethos (1) facilitates the process of identity construction, (2) shapes and legitimates or challenges the stratification system of the social order, and (3) identifies taboo lines and lays out the ethical guidelines implied in a given worldview.

This chapter will examine how this process of ethos production occurs in contemporary religious practice and its implications for the question of peaceful coexistence among diverse populations and religious communities now sharing the same space. I begin by looking at the process of individual identity construction in each tradition, noting ways in which a people’s understandings of the personal and the social are guided by their definitions of the sacred. The ethical implications of a worldview are built into the individual’s sense of identity, the lifestyles of particular status groups and subcultures, and ultimately a culture’s understanding of how people are ideally to act in the context of its various institutions.

When religious identities are linked to class, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and other social cleavages, the intensity of conflicts may increase, especially if conflicts of interest fall along the same lines. Each of the world’s major religious traditions contains the potential for promoting chaos or community in the world order even though their worldviews and styles of life may differ. The fundamental ethical teachings of all the major traditions are actually very similar. They tend to begin with a basic compassion or respect for others, such as the Golden Rule from Jesus (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) or the Silver Rule from the Buddha (“Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”). The ethical standards of each religion and the way in which its major leader deals with violations of these precepts are listed in Table 5.1.

table 7

table 8

Most traditions allow for a mitigation of the consequences of an ethical violation through a confession of guilt by the violator. In every tradition, acknowledging the infraction is the key to changing the negative consequences of one’s actions. In the East, the law of karma simply explains the natural outcome of one’s actions rather than declaring a God’s specific judgment. Even here, however, confession seems to make a difference, as illustrated by the story of King Ajatasatru, who approached the Buddha with remorse over killing his father in order to usurp the throne. The Buddha, known for his compassion, assured the king that he could reverse the negative consequences of the horrible deed by admitting his mistake and changing his life. Confucius also had a similar teaching, a Silver Rule that he described in response to a question, as recorded in his Analects (Confucius, 1998, p. XV.24):

Zi Gong asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.”

Similarly, Moses and Muhammad both insist on repentance as a condition for escaping dire consequences; they are ready to forgive the remorseful sinner but prophetically warn of harsh consequences for those who do not repent. Moses intercedes with God on behalf of those who have sinned, however, and argues with God about sparing their lives. God agrees but kills those who refuse to admit their mistakes and reaffirm their faithfulness. In both Jewish and Islamic traditions, the punishment comes from God (although as in Christianity, sometimes individuals who punish others claim to be acting on God’s behalf).

In the Christian ethos, Jesus also calls on people to repent but shows a compassion similar to the Buddha’s in dealing with sinners and insists that people not pass moral judgment on each other (Matthew 7:1–6). Moreover, Jesus makes it quite clear that punishment for sin should be left to God, as demonstrated by the story of an adulterer caught in the act. By law, she is to