Religion’s Role in Social Norms

by Ajahn Joe [Dhammadarsa Bhikkhu]

Sexual diversity has become an important issue in Western culture and civilisation. How do Christianity and Buddhism view this issue? Do these religions lead the way in moving towards an intelligent and compassionate society in this case, a society that is diverse (Rock 1999) and pluralistic (Merriam-Webster 2009)? Gary Bouma in his book Australian Soul... (2006) argues that a society's religious institution sets the levels of religious belief and practice required for a member of that society to be accepted [page 193]. So it would seem the answer is: “Yes”, but is it? In this paper I examine this question referencing modern research and sociological theory.

Regarding sexual diversity, we should clarify the difference between sex, sexuality and gender. The Medicine, Nursing and Health Services at Monash University offer these distinctions: "Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs"; and "Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine" (2009). So, male would be one’s sex, defined biologically and masculine would be one’s gender role, defined, in this case, by Australian society or culture.

To make things more complicated one’s sexuality, or sexual orientation is not fixed for all members of the same sex. Sexual orientation means: “nature of sexual preference: the direction of somebody's sexual desire, towards people of the opposite sex, people of the same sex, or people of both sexes (fn1) (Dictionary 2009). Sexuality would be a mental construct related to one’s body (Snyder 1995). It incorporates what one wishes to do sexually with one’s body in relation to another, but it would depend on one’s conditioning e.g. the choices one perceives one has. That would be why it could vary. The generally recognised sexualities, as in the above definition, are called: heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual (fn2).

In examining the view of Christianity regarding sexuality, one must ask, ‘which version of Christianity?’, as there are approximately 40,000 denominations in the world (Barrett and Johnson 2009). According to the Australian Census in 2006, Christianity remains the largest religion in Australia at 64% and the largest denomination is [Roman] Catholic at 26%. Buddhism is identified as the largest non-Christian religion in Australia at 2.1%, but sub-grouping details have not been supplied (Statistics 2007). Bouma (ibid) claims that there is more diversity in any religious group now than before, but this could be argued, as it may be that more people are simply more open about their diversity now, due to the changed cultural setting, where they might not have been so open in the past.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful, but the desires are not and a person with such desires is called to chastity, as the only moral response (Answers 2008). This is against the teaching from Jesus which says that even the desire to commit sin, is sin [Matt 5:28]. Of course, Jesus also taught not to judge and that he did not come to judge [now], but there will be a Judgement Day for that [Matt 7:1; John 12:47; Matt 10:15, Matt 25:32-46] (Various 1983). The majority of Christian evangelical denominations would seem to have to judge the world as not saved, in order to do their work. So, is a Christian denomination that teaches opposite to what Jesus Christ taught, still Christian? According to the Census results, it would seem so, as [Roman] Catholics and many evangelical churches are classed as Christian denominations.

What Jesus seems to have taught is to love [Mark 12:30-31], forgive [Matt 6:15] and not be over concerned about others’ faults [Matt 3:7] (Various 1983). So, surely it is up to Christians to ensure they are motivated by love and let others do the same. Churches committed to supporting homosexual people argue that the Bible condemns certain sexual excesses, whether or not they are done in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship, and that this is taken out of context in interpreting some bible verses and applied to all supposedly homosexual acts (Churches 2005). Anal sex, paedophilia or bestiality (fn3) for example, are not restricted to homosexual people, but may be done by heterosexual people too.

The above two paragraphs are a type of ‘fundamentalist’ approach to the question of sexuality and Christianity. This type of fundamentalism, ideational fundamentalism, references the texts as the authority regarding beliefs. It is particular to Christianity, whereas Jews and Moslems, when then have revivals, or renewals, focus on practices rather than beliefs (Aldridge 2000). Of course one’s beliefs lead to practices and following certain practices, as a truer expression of one’s religion, requires belief that they are such. Both these approaches would agree with the Buddha’s teaching that mind [thought] is the forerunner of behaviour [word and deed] (fn4) : Dhammapada verses 1 & 2 (Naarada 1995).

Sexuality is in the realm of morality. One of the main problems Christians have in discussing beliefs about morality is that there is no one “Bible”, but different bibles for different communities (Carroll 1991). In any case, I have found no bible that clearly defines morality or even marriage (fn5). I showed this in my essay entitled “Is Gay Marriage Damned in the Bible?” (Smith 2004) (fn6). There I point out that the verses used to condemn homosexual behaviour are very open to interpretation. These verses have recently been said to refer to homosexual behaviour, but commentaries on those verses that are more than 50 years old, do not mention this idea at all. Zondervan Publishers was recently sued for including the term “homosexual” in “translations” of some bible verses that are used to attack homosexual people, or their lifestyles (Blog 2008).

Without a clear definition of morality a religion, especially one that values religious texts highly, could not offer clear guidance on the topic. Christianity, nevertheless still tries to set guidelines, but without its religious texts clearly defining such important matters, whose morality is it that they promote? Surely it is much safer to criticise a minority group e.g. gay men and lesbians, than to question how society may promote and sanctify ‘hyper-masculinity’ (Spencer, Fegley et al. 2004). Criticising or questioning masculinity in any form would definitely not be well received by the majority.

Buddhism is a religion that clearly defines morality or ethics [siila]. The Buddha is recorded to have taught that morality for laypeople is avoiding: killing a human being, prison worthy stealing, forced sex, sex with minors or those dependent on others [this might include a spouse - the traditional “adultery”] and lying (fn7) (Smith 2007). One can see clearly from this definition that the purpose of morality is to create a reasonably safe society.

One can also see from the definition above of the sexual practices to be avoided, that sexual orientation is a non-issue in the Buddha’s teaching and this has been carried across to some Buddhist societies like Thailand. Sexual behaviour is accepted in the Buddha’s teaching, as long as the attitude in having sex is respectful; the sexual experience is an equal sharing; and no one is in danger of losing essential living support. Buddha’s teaching therefore gives clear guidelines and would seem to be humanistic and in line with approach of the Australian Government (2009). This would be why Einstein praised the Buddha’s teaching as suitable for the modern world (1939).

Bouma (2006) points out that religion “is not unitary but diverse, and it plays a variety of roles in any social context” (p186) reminding us that Christian texts have been used to promote and eradicate slavery, for example. Recently Militant Buddhism has raised its head in Sri Lanka, where a political party, solely populated by Buddhist Monks, supports the use of force to defeat the Tamil Tigers (Serverino 2008). They base their argument on some later texts of Theravada Buddhism, as it would be impossible to take their position from texts ascribed to the Buddha. The position on the use of violence is not so clear with Jesus’ teaching as Reimer (2007) points out.

Bouma (ibid) indicates that it is not only when ideas become accepted by the majority religion in a society, that social change is affected by religion. Minorities may also affect social change by joining with different groups within or external to their religion that agree on a certain issue. He also says: “Given the fact of differences [between religions], competition is likely. However, competition is conducted within the norms, laws and expectations of a society. Religious groups are becoming subject to expectations similar to those applying in the commercial world” [page 201]. So religions affect society and society affects religion.

That religious minorities may join with others outside their group on particular issues is comforting. This indicates a break down in the “imagined other” boundaries (Gearon 2001), but does not necessarily mean that they are totally gone, as those doing so in the religious minorities would probably emphasise other differences to maintain their sense of identity. Whereas forming identity would be considered a positive in western psychology, the Buddha taught “identity view” (fn8) is the first of ten fetters that one set on the path to enlightenment completely eradicates (fn9) (Walshe 1995). Instead of identifying with any of the five aspects of personal experience associated with suffering (fn10), the Buddha teaches us to know them clearly just as they are as he has done (fn11) (Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 1995). Thus one is free to critically examine issues and join any group on particular issues, as questioning issues or the beliefs behind them, would not induce an identity crisis.

As there are many factors involved, it is hard to determine which has more effect on which, religion on society, or society on religion. Scholars and researchers indicate that they both have an effect on each other. Yet the question remains: “Where exactly should be the line be drawn between religious reasons for this or that moral claim and public reasons acceptable for all citizens in a culturally pluralistic society?” (Fritzsche 2007) Religion can be used to promote diversity and social cohesion, or to create barriers and social conflict, just as politics can. As the saying goes “a bad craftsman always blames his tools”. Even though there are many good things in the founders’ messages of probably all the world religions, e.g. the Golden Rule seems to be common to the major world religions, it would seem that few religionists actually pay attention to what the respective founder said – they are not ‘fundamentalist’ in one sense of the word.

Footnotes (fn#)
1. “Asexual” would not seem to be included in this definition, possibly due to one’s sexual desire not having a direction.
2. Stereotyping homosexual men as effeminate is confusing a sexual practice [sexuality] with gender [roles]. This may be due to confusing transgendered people as gay.
3. Bestiality is also not included in the list of sexualities above.
4. The text says “all things”, which would include behaviour. It also says “mind” and thought would have to be part of “mind”.
5. I also show in my paper mentioned below that the norm for marriage in ‘the Bible’ was polygamy, which is allowed in Islam.
6. for the course RELN2407 - Controversies in Bible Interpretation
7. Any lesser actions in these areas are called “bad habits”, e.g. killing insects and should be avoided as much as one’s lifestyle permits.
8. Sakkaaya-di.t.thi
9. The Mirror of the Dhamma D 16 : D ii 93-4
10. Panca-upaadaana-kkhandha: form, sensation, idea/belief, emotion and consciousness.
11. M 72 : M i 486


Bibliography

Aldridge, A., Ed. (2000). Religion in the contemporary world: a sociological introduction. Resurgence of Fundamentalism. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press.
This article looks at the difference between fundamentalism in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The two latter focus more on eating and dress, rather than adherance to scripture.

Answers, C. (2008). "Homosexuality." Retrieved 25 May 2009, 2009, from http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp.

Barrett, D. B. and T. M. Johnson (2009). "International Bulletin of Missionary Research." Retrieved 25 May 2009, 2009, from http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php.

Blog, R. N. (2008). "Zondervan faces $60M federal lawsuit over Bible, homosexuality." Retrieved 28 May 2009, 2009, from http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21734/zondervan-faces-60m-federal-lawsuit-over-bible-homosexuality.

Bouma, G. D. (2006). Australian soul : religion and spirituality in the 21st century. Cambridge; Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, R. P. (1991). Wolf in the sheepfold : the Bible as a problem for Christianity. London, SPCK.

Churches, M. C. (2005). "Metropolitan Community Churches." Retrieved 25 May 2009, 2009, from http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home.

Dictionary, M. E. (2009). "sexual orientation." Retrieved 22 May 2009, 2009, from http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861761210/sexual_orientation.html.

Einstein, A. (1939). "Statements: Albert Einstein on Buddhism." Retrieved 28 May 2009, 2009, from http://news.fjnet.com/english/culture/t20061220_41899.htm.

Fritzsche, H., Ed. (2007). Religion within the Space of Reasons. The future of religion : toward a reconciled society. Leiden; Boston, Brill.

Gearon, L. (2001). "The Imagined Other: Postcolonial Theory and Religious Education." British Journal of Religious Education 23(2).

Government, A. (2009). "Centrelink recognises same-sex relationships from 1 July 2009." Retrieved 10 June 2009, 2009, from http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/same_sex.htm.

Medicine, N. a. H. S. (2009). "What is the difference between sex and gender?". Retrieved 22 May 2009, 2009, from http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html.

Merriam-Webster (2009). "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary." Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pluralism.

Naarada, T. (1995). The Dhammapada. Taiwan ROC, The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation.

Ñāṇamoli, B. and B. Bodhi (1995). The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaaya. Boston USA, Wisdom Publications.

Reimer, J., Ed. (2007). From Religious Pluralism to Christian Hegemony. The future of religion : toward a reconciled society. Leiden; Boston, Brill.

Rock, M. (1999). "Defintion of Diversity." Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~asuomca/diversityinit/definition.html.

Serverino, R. (2008). "These Monks Aren't Freedom Fighters." Retrieved 28 May 2009, 2009, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403370.html.

Smith, N. J. (2004). Is Gay Marriage Damned in the Bible? Brisbane, University of Queensland.

Smith, N. J. (2007). "Ethics [siila]." Retrieved 8 May 2009, 2009, from http://www.geocities.com/josmith_1_2000/siila.htm.

Snyder, S. A. B. E. (1995). "Early Hormonal Influences on Childhood Sex-Typed Activity and Playmate Preferences: Implications for the Development of Sexual Orientation." Developmental Psychology 31(1).

Spencer, M. B., S. Fegley, et al. (2004). "Understanding Hypermasculinity in Context: A Theory-Driven Analysis of Urban Adolescent Males’ Coping Responses." Research in Human Development 1(4).

Statistics, A. B. o. (2007). "2914.0.55.002 - 2006 Census of Population and Housing: Media Releases and Fact Sheets." Retrieved 25 May 2009, 2009, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/6ef598989db79931ca257306000d52b4!OpenDocument.

Various (1983). Holy Bible, New International Version. Sydney, Hodder and Stoughton.

Walshe, M. (1995). The Long Discourses of the Buddha, A Translation of the Diigha Nikaaya. Boston USA, Wisdom Publications.