Religious doubts...

Pavement graffiti in our neighborhood in Hurdegaryp, a Friesian village (Netherlands)

Before I go on with my football-deliberations in connection to the doctrines of Mr. Stephen Covey, I first want to share my thoughts about the Dutch developments in religion. Thank you for reading.



As I’m subscribed to the Dutch newspaper Trouw, which is a Christian-oriented newspaper with an open ear and eye for Islamic developments in the Netherlands, I try to form an opinion, nor better a belief in what is exactly the true faith. I see at least six or seven different religions which stress each other’s wrongness:

The Roman Catholic Church which says that the reasons for protest have come to an end, that protestants are not a “church” but that they are welcome now to join the Roman Catholic Church again.
The “liberal protestants” united in the Dutch Protestant Church and are deterred by the the obsolete and unjustified Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood.
The orthodox protestants who are not united in a church but scattered over several little churches each of which find only themselves adhering to the True Word of God, and absolutely find the Roman Catholic Church a sinful and heathen-like association of image-worshippers. About Islam, well they know it exists but it’s far from their minds.
The evangelicals who find churches obsolete organisations that hinder people to receive and spread the Holy Ghost among the people as Jesus has told to do.
The agnosticists who are deterred by the dogmas and prescriptions of churches (e.g. the numerous truths advocated by the Roman Catholic Church, the absolute negative standpoints about abortion, homosexuality, marriage, euthanasia etc.). They are not anti- or even a-religious but don’t want to join any religious organisation.
The absolute anti-religionists who say there’s no God or Upper Being.
The Muslims who find Christians non-believers, no matter what specific denomination they adhere to. As long as Christians don’t offend Muslims or hinder them in their religion, it’s OK that they are no-believers, although some Muslims find they should be killed or fought against, because they find proofs that Christians = Capitalism = anti-Islam.

The agnosticists, the anti-religionists, the liberal protestants and part of the Roman Catholics find themselves united in the value they attach to a parliamentary democracy with freedom of religion, freedom of speech / press, and a strict division between state and religion: religion should not interfere in religious matters, nor should religion impose preferences or impacts upon state affairs. Most evangelicals and some Christian groups (e.g. the Witnesses of Jehova) are not interested in this value, and orthodox-Christian churches find that the Government is “God’s servant”, and what the Government does wrong in their eyes (e.g. legitimization of homosexual marriages) is an error of this servant which they don’t need to follow. In fact, they get always dispensation in legally prescribed matters for religious reasons. The same holds for all churches and religious groups.

The Islam is a special case for most Dutch Muslims come from cultures with one dominant religion (namely Islam) that always has preached that state and religion are not separated, and that other religions are tolerated as long as they recognize Muslim bosshood in the form of special taxes and not being admitted to important government positions and jobs. (Comparable to the position of Jews in Europe in the periods and areas outside progroms). They must have experienced it as a shock coming into a culture which they must have considered a non-culture: everything seems to be allowed, there’s no “hidden culture” but the hidden culture comes loudly into the open, like gayness, nudity, sexual intercourse outside marriage, use of alcohol and religions criticizing each other (is allowed) including Islam (is not allowed). They came here for better economical conditions to maintain their families, at a price they are not willing to pay, so many of them kept isolated in their immigrant cultures, as kind of colonies from a better world in a not-hospitable but profitable environment. Many of their youngsters either integrated into the new culture, understanding it and using it for better progress of their home culture and the host culture, or fell back to the edges of society, even to criminality. But many Muslims in the Netherlands cannot understand why a politician such as Geert Wilders can remain unpunished after he called the Koran a fascist book and recommended to forbid it, like also “Mein Kampf”(“My Struggle”) by A. Hitler is forbidden. Hundreds of juridical lawsuits were submitted against him by Muslims, but none of them were rewarded. Also the Bible has been offended hundreds of times by atheists, but none of these cases caused a lawsuit by orthodox Christians, these are used to the Dutch culture of freedom and speech and accountability for God alone in religious matters.

It seems as if religion is rooted in peoples’ minds via rules of conduct and tradition. A member of a religious community feels himself attached to his religion by golden chains: the rules and prescriptions are sacrosanct and cannot be trespassed because they are unshakably linked to his/her religious experiences. These experiences are formed according to character, personality and social influences. Somebody from an orthodox family can develop either into the same kind of orthodoxy, formed, nurtured and grown during education and adolescence, but also into agnosticism or even strong anti-religiousness. All kinds of development are possible, and many of them cause much grief and bitterness with people who remain faithful to the tradition. I know what I’m writing about because in my and my wife’s family I witnessed those miseries. Taking some distance, what would an outsider find if a son from an orthodox Christian family would marry to a Roman Catholic girl? In a Roman Catholic Church? They would not attend the ceremony. If the reverse would be the case, the Roman Catholic family would attend the ceremony but they would get a very cold reception, hardly tolerated in the protestant church, and the vicar would say that it’s still time to be saved, addressing the Roman Catholics among the audience. Marrying to an Islamic girl, or, worse, to an Islamic boy, combined with a conversion to Islam would be a family tragedy. In the reverse case, marrying to a Christian boy by a Muslim girl, it would often be, and actually is, a reason for “revenge of honor”, i.e. murder. The distance-taking outsider would wonder why people make it so difficult for themselves. One doesn’t bother about so many other differences between people, why then especially about religion?

Well, I think that’s exactly the core of the matter: many people just want to be different. It’s the core of the so-called religions of revelation, that only members of the own group are right in their conduct and thinking, and others are not. Christianity and Islam both prescribe to expand the own group’s viewpoints, authority and beliefs (which they don’t consider beliefs but truth and knowledge) among non-believers. The Koran says that the truth of Islam must be offered to non-believers, and if non-believers refuse to accept it, then they should be punished. In Islamic countries trying to promote Christian truth is an outright crime. Only the Jewish people, probably because they consider themselves as a “people” with natural bonds, don’t have that urge to expand the Jewish religion. (For that reason they are often accused of being racists, sic!).
Enough elaboration on these differences. What is going on here? And to what does it lead?

There is a trend noticeable in Dutch society to retreat in traditional fortifications. Islam has brought to us so it seems, a revival of also Christian-religious values. In politics an outspoken Christian party has reached the velvet of the Government seats, for the first time since WW II. outspoken non-christian and/or liberal people (liberal means here: freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and absolute division of religion and state) also turn themselves more intensely against threatening these values by Christians and Muslims. We are a people of deliberation and discussion, so all these differences are broadly discussed. We are also a small people in a small country, so when an important person says something controversial in this area, it mostly causes a long discussion in the media and the house of parliament. We have to see, how strange it may sound, how developments will proceed in Turkey. Also there we notice a clash between state and religion, between what people are used to in their families and tradition, and what rulers think is best for the people: freedom of choice in as many areas of life as possible. But what if freedom of choice also means freedom to choose a tradition with limited freedom, namely the rules of religion? In the Netherlands many people are afraid that Muslims take advantage of this freedom to impose in the end the sharia which doesn’t know a codified law system, but is based on interpretation by authorized religious experts. Gone with the freedom of choice by means of which this sharia could be established. Also the Nazis made use of this freedom-of-choice system to establish their rule. But Nazis and Muslims cannot be compared, it’s only to illustrate how a democratic system can be replaced by a theocratic or whatever-cratic system just because of its freedom of choice it tries to maintain. We cannot close our eyes for this. The religious or worldview-groups in our country differ crucially from Muslim culture on that issue: they have learned to co-operate to avoid energy consuming struggles and fights leading to bloodshed and misery. In Islamic countries it’s just the all-encompassing rule of Islam which is used to avoid these things.

Only leaders who understand this can lead developments in the desired way: a peaceful co-operation of all adherers of any religion. Not the differences, but the similarities should be stressed. Every religion, as I said, preaches their differences with outsiders. You see that the elites (the top) and the rank-and-file if I may call them that way, are strikingly similar in their ideas and thoughts about this. In the middle you see how educated people who get used to socialise with out-group people challenge traditional values. Only the poorly educated, vulnerable people adhere strongly to the rules dictated by religious leaders. The middle rankers act accordingly, but in secret or inconspicuously act differently. Go through Internet-blogs from Islamic countries and you see what I mean. Poor and non-educated people have no blogs, and the educated young people use it in huge numbers.

That’s why I’m optimistic that it all will lead to more mutual understanding and co-operation. Especially the Roman Catholic Church is often accused by our protestant compatriots, that their members act so differently from what the pope and the bishops preach. There was a time, in the fifties, that masses of people and also the middle rankers, obediently followed these rules. Now we see that inconspicuously many Catholics, approved by their pastors, act differently, despite the stricter rules and emphasis on old and medieval rules. The protestant: ”let your yes be a yes and your no be a no” is becoming obsolete. Where doubt arises, let there be doubt. Jesus was full of doubt about the Pharizean rules, the only security he could offer was: love, love and again love. Apparently Islam needs armies of imams and mullahs to interpret the Koran. Let doubt rule, and only love remain. God is love.