Notes on the article by William R. LaFleur “Body”

“Critical Terms for Religious Studies” edited by Mark C. Taylor

This work is dedicated to the exploration of the relationship between religion and body. First of all, LaFleur provides a short overview on the history of this relationship. We see that while most cultured initially insisted on accepting our bodies the way they were (given to us by God), there have also been many physical alterations made to the bodies throughout history on the basis of religious belief.

While Christianity has been taking pride in  being the one religion that does not promote any changes in the body, it was the first one to apply the term corpses, meaning that the body after the death of a person is merely a thing and that it is not as important to keep it whole. This allowed for the development of scientific research and eventually the growth of modern Western medicine.

LaFleur then goes on to describe the different ways in which the body is allowed to be treated in different cultures, including medical procedures and religious traditions. He is pointing out the moral issues that are rising within this subject – basically, who is to decide what is appropriate, what can be done and what not. Eventually, he proposes that we should not be concentration on whether were are stepping too far from the nature, but rather our main concern should be the cruelty involved in whatever action, even if it is based on religious tradition. 

We can see that there is not one particular approach that is absolutely consistent with the acceptance of the body the way it is, the way it works and so on. If we take the example of the Japanese Buddhists, who are opposed to organ transplant, we discover that they are not opposed to termination of pregnancy. While their idea is that the soul of the unborn child will find another way into this world, our view as an outsider to that culture may focus on the fact that they are actually altering the body (and body’s functions). The Muslim societies performing procedures with male and female reproductive organs, making them “perfect” seem also inconsistent with their idea of God being the perfect creator. 

These examples show that we as humans continue to create our perfect world whatever it means to us, in this case through ways of creating our perfect physical bodies or their functions. In fact, the actual idea that we can alter our bodies, not only for health reasons but also for the sake of pursuing our views on beauty or gender necessities is once again showing the bodies are something that we believe to be co-creators of together with whatever or whoever has created them in the first place.

The idea of co-creation is possible only within the philosophy that we are not our bodies but rather we have our bodies. This concept is sending us back to the ever existing comparison of dualistic and non-dualistic view on life. These concepts are essential in understanding the premises on which each culture is building their traditions and practices, what is considered acceptable and what not.

LaFleur insists that we as a human race have been moving in the “non-natural” direction for quite a while now, and it should be the least of our concerns, especially considering that it is truly hard to draw the line between natural and not natural at this point in our culture. Instead we should be preoccupied with the cruelty imposed on humans within religious ceremonies or scientific experiments or any other activity.