Report Card by Mr F.R.
The proposing side defended a progressive stance, and argued for an adaptation of the relationships people nurture with their religion. However, they stated that this evolution was not about changing religion itself, but about changing how people relate to it. [...]
The opposing team defended a conservative position, saying that religion was more or less the kind of stability we all need in an ever-changing world. However, they conceded that some aspects of religion should adapt : not its deep roots or fundamental principles, but how it is taught and how people apply it in their everyday life.
We can say that both teams defended more or less the same position, on a pragmatic point of view : don't change the inside, but adapt the outside.
But the real debate here happened on the theoretical ground : the proposing team described religion as a set of symbols that in essence are not to change, completed by a set of practices, that should adapt to our nowadays world. On the contrary, the opposing team described religion as a set of principles and core values, and only that. Meaning that religion is the stability that we all need in order not to get lost in our lives.
To sum it up, despite several statements from both sides that seemed to agree on a definition of religion, the clash occured mainly on this very ground : both teams gave us two very different conceptions of what is religion.
We can say that both teams defended more or less the same position, on a pragmatic point of view : don't change the inside, but adapt the outside.
But the real debate here happened on the theoretical ground : the proposing team described religion as a set of symbols that in essence are not to change, completed by a set of practices, that should adapt to our nowadays world. On the contrary, the opposing team described religion as a set of principles and core values, and only that. Meaning that religion is the stability that we all need in order not to get lost in our lives.
To sum it up, despite several statements from both sides that seemed to agree on a definition of religion, the clash occured mainly on this very ground : both teams gave us two very different conceptions of what is religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment