It may be that I
misunderstood Chapter 5 of Pathologies of
Power, however I had real difficulty with the argument that Farmer was
making in favour of Liberation Theology. I am not fundamentally against
religion, I believe in freedom of choice and so that of course includes freedom
of religious practice. However, when the author of the text that I am reading
starts to refer to “structural sin”, I will begin to lose my faith (so to
speak) in the author’s argument. I couldn’t agree more that “the impotence of
national bodies…to effect solutions, stems from the self-interest of those who
stand to benefit from their oppression of human beings” (142) but the “moral
intolerableness” that Farmer goes on to quote has an underlying implication
that suffering is caused by the immorality of heathens. This is ridiculous.
Farmer then goes on to
refer to the evil that is present in the hearts of powerful individuals. He
seems to neglect the obvious counter argument to his preaching, which is that
many of the powerful people who oppress others are in fact religious. His “Liberation
Theology” and its judgement is a completely flawed way of advocating the
importance of religion. Farmer suggests that liberation theologians actually act, whereas as those who aren’t
religious do not. What evidence does this Doctor, who is obviously a highly
educated and intelligent man, have to support this assumption?
My parents are both
atheists. My parents have given up the whole of their lives to acting in support of vulnerable people
such as the homeless, children in foster care, people with mental health
difficulties, people with drug problems, refugees and the elderly, just to name
a few. Is this man really arguing that liberation theology is the only way, or
even just the best way to make a difference? What the world needs is not
judgement. Yes it needs action, and certainly love for your fellow man but both
of those can exist and thrive just as successfully within a secular system.
I agree that the argument is flawed in some way because there are people such as non practicing, non believers, and people who are strictly against the whole convoluted organized religion idea. Even though religion and their sacred texts act as the laws of God does not mean we are heathens if we do not know the law of God. most people use common sense and what is around them without using religion to keep them within the lines.so I agree with Erin about needing action but i do not believe his argument is credible because his own beliefs seem to have gotten in the way of his actual argument
ReplyDelete