|
Part 2 (The process of
thought)
I believe strongly that the pros of
religion have been grossly outweighed by their cons in our modern world.
Religion has outlived its usefulness and should by reason of logic be
cast into humanities turbulent past or at least be removed from public
concerns. And if you will allow a moment of rant I will explain my
reasoning.
Beginning in the past. The way past.
In the early days of human existence when kings of supreme power ruled
large tracts of land. Land they often had never seen for themselves
inhabited by tens of thousands of people who had likely never seen or
even heard of this all powerful king. What's a ruler to do to enforce
his beliefs, morals and power? Large armies are a good start. But armies
are hard to control and can quickly become the problem rather than the
instrument to solve the problem. Communication is sketchy at best so
direct contact with your subjects is a practical impossibility. But a
God on the other hand is omnipotent. Gods see all and know all.
Therefore you can never escape His (yes, and Her) wrath for your
indiscretions.
Ahh, the beginnings of a great idea.
The rules and values you desire others to follow no longer came from you
but instead from an all seeing all powerful God. Often many Gods. And
what better way to reinforce your power than to declare yourself the one
true vessel of God or even that you are in some way "The God" or part
God.
Historical(ish) Note: Somewhere in
the area of 3000 BC to 2400 BC The Sumerian cities were "electing"
their leaders. At some point one of them refused to step down and, at
least in the city of Kish at first, we began to see the ruling class
passed from father to son. One such case was Gilgamesh of Uruk who
claimed to be 2/3 God. This opens the door for some rather twisted
questions about parentage but the whole concept opened the door to a
ruler of absolute power. 1
This trend became a rapid success. A
ruler could simply adopt the common Gods of the area and begin dictating
"Gods" will to the people. This proved a rather good way to enforce ones
will on the masses. And in times of crisis, flood, famine, inflation,
one could always pass blame to the Gods and avoid, sometimes, the often
terminal loss of the throne.
Put this way it sounds rather
conspiratorial but it was really not. Most Kings were benign and truly
were trying to do the right thing for their people. Proof being we heard
nothing in history about most of them. With no centralized governments
and shaky communications not to mention the inherent issues of policing
the masses. The "Caus God Said So" way of law making was without a doubt
a driving force in civilizing the world. People now had a sense of unity
the "Us against Them" mentality. Unity creates social structure. Social
structure promotes specialization and with specialization comes a deeper
reliance on the social group. Cyclical.
For more on the nature of
societal growth, in particular the pre civilization aspects of it and
the necessity of social groups, see "I
don't Really Like My Friends". If you don't
have it just ask.
Even the wars waged in the name of
Gods have had a rather positive effect on our growth into civilization.
With war comes need to invent. Inventions of war have often become the
technology of the future in times of peace. Witness the Internet.
Created to allow redundant systems of nuclear death during the "Cold
War", now no more than a civilian mass communications system. Necessity
is the mother of invention and nothing necessitates rapid invention like
impending death from ones enemies.
(An Aside: Dollar for dollar the
Internet is truly the best value the world has ever gotten for a
military application adapted to non-military purposes.)
So Gods create or are kings. Kings
instate Gods laws. Masses must follow the laws or suffer the wrath of
the Gods. Laws create order. Order allows growth. Growth requires more
laws. And so on. What's this all have to do with the premise that we no
longer need religion? Read on.
Back in the present we find ourselves
in a very different world than our early ancestors. The mass
infrastructure of Governments has taken the place, in most cases, of
Gods law. Crimes are caught, tried and punished by an entity outside
God. In our case, here in the USA, that entity may be your local, state
or federal law enforcement and criminal justice system.
Travel and communication is easy today
and in some cases nearly instantaneous. Laws are routinely made,
instated and enforced by the social group as a whole. Not by any one
person. We elect our leaders and set time limits on their terms of
office. We Pay police officers and other law enforcement officials to
seek out and capture criminals. We have a multitude of devices to assist
us daily in our massive social interactions.
Take for example the lowly traffic
light. Its silent power is truly a testimony to our ability to govern
ourselves in our daily social interactions. Without this simple law
enforcement device, I would suggest that your daily commute to and
from work would all too often erupt into a striking example of
Darwinistic survival of the fittest. But we have them and for the most
part obey them. And more or less, depending on where you live, we have
rather uneventful drives to and from our destinations on a daily
basis. Let us take a brief pause for reflection on what the world
would be like without that unsung hero of societal order, the traffic
light.
We live in a huge societal group and
then within many smaller groups inside that larger one. You are an
American. A group. You are a Marylander (substitute your state here).
Another group. You are worker in [Insert Your Company Here]. Another
group. You are a family member, a part of a group of friends, a member
of an organization. All groups and the list of groups you may belong to
at any given moment, if not infinite, it is at least rather staggering.
Even in a traffic jam you are a member of a group. Albeit not one you're
happy to be in.
(I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. -Groucho Marks)
Each of these groups has its rules and
means to enforce them. Often the rules of one, higher, group will
supersede the rules of the other. But none the less there are many rules
now instated throughout our society and all are enforced in one manner
or another by something other than God.
Nor do we find ourselves short on
social groups to interact with and offer support, assistance,
forgiveness, guidance, education and all the other aspects of human
interaction that the Gods once held in their divine grip long ago. In
fact for every argument that I have heard for the "Need" of God, I am
able to rapidly name a social group who can readily fill that need
without divine interference. So what does religion do in our society,
our world, if it is no longer truly needed for the purposes once
required of it? It becomes a divider.
Religion, and by extension Gods, has
become the dividing line between people. "So what? All groups divide
people from each other." You might say. And you would be correct but few
groups structures operate with the absolute devout power of religion. By
its very need, as a provider of law in our early days, the Gods are
always correct. More importantly "My God" is always correct. Yours is
evil.
Let's look at that statement a bit
closer because it deserves broader inspection. It is, or was, important
that with so many Gods available to choose from that ones own God was
the one truly all powerful and all knowing God. This mentality was
required to force the belief that you must follow the rules commanded by
God through his vessels. Kings, priests, sages, profits and the like
spoke of their Gods as the only "true" Gods. All others were dammed to
an eternal hell or other generally lousy fate. This was a must because
if your god were only as omnipotent as the one next door what was to
prevent you from going over to his side when the tides turned against
you?
This mentality prevails today,
although many "moderate" religious persons attribute less and less
importance to the "all powerfulness" of their Gods. And for them it will
be a very short hop to the side of no Gods. But there are others. Many
others who still believe. Faith is a powerful weapon. Faith inherently
defies logic. So reasoning with the faithful is an effort in futility.
No amount of reason will convince a devout follower of any God that
their God's rules are wrong.
Taking an easy example. Lets look at
the so called Tel-Evangelists. Their followers routinely give away all
their money to the point of destitution because their God, aka the
Evangelist, said they must give. Even in the face of absolute corruption
on the part of the Evangelist they will defy logic and defend his
actions. "God said give me money to build an amusement park". And the
money flows in. Caught in the act of adultery he does not loose his
followers, no they rally together to deny the accusations and give more
money to support him in his time of need. Blind Faith is a powerful
thing.
I call this an easy example because of
the foolishness of the Evangelistic social group. It is often rather
more comical than frightening. But lets take a bigger bite and risk
alienating a much larger and more dangerous social group. Maybe even the
largest of the God groups. Certainly the most powerful. Christians.
Notice I did not say Catholics, or Protestants, Unitarians, Baptists or
any of the numerous deviations from the main source. God.
The Christian God may be the most
interesting of all the Gods man has thus far created. An offshoot of the
Jewish concept of "Only One God", a rather novel idea in its day, the
Christian God has proliferated throughout the world on a scale unlike
any other. It has formed the basis for many of the early ventures in
civilization of our small planet. It has caused and, yes, ended many a
war. It has been benevolent and malevolent throughout history. And what
of it today?
As I see it, and this is all just my
view, I'm sure you have your own, Christianity is finding itself with
its proverbial back against the wall. Faced with no further use in
making laws and increasing competition and opposition, it seeks to
enforce its will with dogma of ages past and blind faith. Faced with
diminishing power in teaching it turns to the faithful to actively
suppress the information that defies its doctrine.
Case in point the many parts of this
country, and likely the world, not only turning the pages of history
backward but indeed actually ripping the offending pages out of the
history books. Noting the recent re-trend towards the teaching of
"Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" 2 as it seems to now be called by
its proponents. I say "re-trend" because we have fought this battle
before. (1925, Tennessee -v- John Scopes.3) And here we are again
fighting the backwards ignorance of religion all over again. Worst of
all in some places they are winning.
I have heard many Americans saying
that the Muslims are a backward people living in the distant past
refusing to step forward into the future of global unity. This may be
true but many of these very people still hold that their religious
beliefs should be adhered to by those who do not share their way of
thinking. Think I'm crazy. OK here is another easy example. Why would
anyone oppose the desire for two men or two women to marry? There can be
no logical reason. Marriage as a concept supersedes religion. It is
found in virtually all human societal groups and takes on many, many
forms. Most of which do not fit with the Christian view of marriage. But
that's an easy one. As a liberal Christian you may say "Sure what do I
care if Gays get married? And we can even let them benefit from the
legal and tax benefits of being a married couple." Hummm, what was that
term "Married Couple"? Let's take a bit harder stab at this
topic.
Give me one logical, non-religious
based reason why bigamy is illegal.
I'm taking all offers and have posed
this question to many people already. The fact is that bigamy is in no
way logically wrong. Like all choices in life it has its pros and cons
but between three or more consenting adults there is no reason, other
than Gods law, that they should not be aloud to marry. And more so
benefit from the legal aspects of government approved marriage. To date
I have had no logical takers on this question. I have however been
called everything from a pervert to the Anti-Christ for even posing it.
With a few notable exceptions, such as
abortion of an unborn fetus in humans, there are no logical arguments
for most of the, religion based, laws of moral conduct that we have
instated in our society. Nudity is banned from TV, on the whole, yet
rampant murder killing and mayhem is prevalent even in our children's
cartoons. (Have you ever watched Pokemon?) A few simple words are
forbidden from being spoken but freedom of speech is a motto of the
American way.
The video game company, RockStar, came under fire for an "Adult Only",
game they made whose story line and gaming action involved mob
violence, killing police, mass murder of innocents and so on, all in
graphic, blood soaked detail. But the game was not pulled from the
shelves in mass until a grandmother discovered the above mentioned
game of graphic violence she had bought for her 14 year old grandson,
contained a viewable, only through computer hacking, scene of
un-explicit sex. (Note: The game states clearly it is not intended for
anyone under 18. No legally operated store would sell it to anyone
under 18. The game is treated in the same manner as Playboy Magazine,
being kept behind the counters and ID required when in doubt.)
This is the effect of a Christian
based religion on our morals based laws. Why do we ban the word "Fuck"
from TV? The word procreate has the same meaning yet is aloud. We ban it
because our religiously based moral code has always said to. In the
early days of radio when this and many other words were being banned it
was Christianity that led the fight. In today's society the FCC purports
that no words are banned and only the context they are used in is
regulated. Given the only "contexts" where the word "Fuck" could be
sensibly used they have essentially banned it from any use.4
Interesting note; I can find no hard stance on the FCC's site regarding
violence on TV or radio.
Would it not make more sense in
today's world to let the market decide what they want and do not want to
hear? There are literally hundreds of stations available and if you do
not approve of a particular word being used then simply don't watch the
show using it. If there are enough of you who are offended to the point
of not watching I assure you the word will not be used. TV stations want
ratings and will always go with the majority view of their target
audience. But for those of us who would not be offended by a simple
word, we have no real option on commercial TV. Your Christian based
morals dictate what we can watch. If we want to see a show with
profanity we must pay extra for that right. These are your rules and you
should abide by them but I should not have to abide by your moral rules
simply by default.
These are the "Moral Rules" we are all
required to follow but whose rules are they really? I believe they stem
from the predominantly Christian run government who was prevalent at the
key points in time when the standards were made, and may still be
running things today. One might assert that our government is run by the
"Will of the People" but in fact it is run by those most vocal and to
some extent those with the most money to throw at their cause. From a
political standpoint our elected leaders listen to those who support and
threaten their position the most. That is to say those with enough
passion or money to rally a large number of people to vote for or
against them. Inherently those who do not care too much one way or
another about something are going to be less inclined to sustain the
efforts of someone who has the passion of faith motivating them. This is
why time and time again the Christian view is the one carried out by our
government.
By all the best estimates I can find,
only 33 % of the world population is, in some manner, calling themselves
a Christian. There is no reason I have been able to find to suggest that
this number is not equally representative of the USA as well. (My
numbers come from several Internet sources including government and
privately compiled data. The data are truly only educated best guesses
based on representative populations and should not be construed as
facts. I recommend searching out the available data yourself and drawing
your own conclusions.) Assuming this number is accurate then 33 % of our
population is dictating the moral values, to some extent, of the other
67 %. Is it not time to update these standards and our societal view of
morality in media as a whole? Maybe even change our overall view of what
is morally acceptable and what is not in all aspects of life? Question:
Sex -v- Violence which do you find more "Morally Objectionable"?
OK I got personal there for a moment
but the point, I hope, was made. Although we like to think we live in a
world of personal choice and a separation of church and state we do not.
These archaic ideals with no logical foundation in modern society are
routinely applied to those who do not wish to adhere to them. I dare say
the majority of us who are not Christians do not wish to adhere to the
beliefs of the Christian Church as applied to what we watch on TV.
Certainly logic plays no roll in it. And yet that is still the case. A
religion that shunned sexuality and embraced violence (Crusades, witch
hunts, and I will even go so far as to say abortion clinic bombings)
dictates the moral code of our modern society. And not just what we
watch on TV or play on our gaming consoles.
Who you can marry. How many people you
can marry. In some states, still, what you can do with the person in bed
even after you are married. Yes there are still sodomy laws on the books
in some states.5 Although I shudder to think how a state would go
about enforcing them, so in all practicality, they may be moot. However,
it is still an atrocity that they are still in place and a testimony to
our Christian roots that they were ever there at all.
I personally am ready for an America where if ones personal decisions
cause no person outside of you harm then you can do what you want. An
America where each person is truly free to decide what their personal
moral values are with no consideration to what Gods they warship if any
at all. Where each Americans Religious beliefs remain their own and
never manifest themselves in another's life. Truly an America the Free.
One last, very controversial, thought.
Is it such a far leap from Christians
banding together to prevent a woman from getting an abortion, even by
use of force, to a man strapping a bomb to his chest in the name of his
God and walking into a restaurant? Maybe or maybe not and I will explore
that question for myself but for now I plant the seed in your mind.
Think for yourself and decide.
References:
1 Larry Gonick, The Cartoon History of the Universe, 1990.
I highly recommend these books. They give a brief, very entertaining
overview of history and a wealth of excellent references to follow up
with for greater detail.
2
http://www.venganza.org/
This site is both lampooning the "movement" towards "Intelligent Design"
as well as advocating taking direct action to contact leaders who are in
the position to end "Intelligent design" as a scientific theory. There
are some entertaining aspects to it but in the end it fails to follow up
on its own assertions and confirm its "facts".
http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdaddr.html -
Kansas State Department of Education
This is one of the main targets of the above "spoof" site. Research into
their actual scientific curriculum, however, only slightly supports the
venganza.org assertions.
From
http://www.ksde.org/topics.html we find the
PDF file of the "Science Standards: Draft of August 9, 2005". This draft
specifically notes that "Intelligent Design" is not a part of the Kansas
educational curriculum, however, in the next paragraph it also states
"
these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this
[Intelligent Design] scientific disagreement." See, Science Education
Standards: Draft 2d - August 9, 2005 Page ii Paragraphs 3, 4 &5.
3 For a very intelligent and interesting take
on the 1925, Tennessee -v- John Scopes trial. Commonly know as the
"Monkey Trials". See:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm There are many takes on this pivotal point in
American history, however, so I highly recommend extensive research on
the subject. Interesting note: The driving force behind the abolition of
teaching evolution and Darwinism was the politician William Jennings
Bryan, a democrat. So not all fundamentalists are Republicans.
4
http://www.fcc.gov/
Read their guidelines carefully. Wording is
everything. Here are some key excerpts.
Obscene speech is not protected by the First
Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time.
To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
An average person, applying contemporary community standards,
must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.
These are very subjective criteria. Underlining
is my emphasis.
5
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws
are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003. This legal document is rough
reading but a good synopsis is available here
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm. Also
available is a map showing all of the states that still have the laws on
the books. Though good luck enforcing them given the Supreme Courts
decision.
NOTES:
1. The writing "I Don't Really Like My Friends"
is an excerpt from My Autobiography, still in progress. It is a
philosophical view of early man and the results today. Please read it as
simply a social theory about the nature of human social groups not a
concrete fact.
2. Statistics relating to the percentage of
Christians in the world and the USA are not true facts. These numbers
come from many sources including the population statistics from the UK
and the United States governments. Also used in these estimates are data
compiled from non-governmental sources each with their own methods of
data collection and, potentially, agendas. Any data based on extremely
large groups, in this case the entire world population, is inherently
very inaccurate. Again I stress, the data are truly only educated best
guesses based on representative populations and available data and
should not be construed as facts. I recommend searching out the
available data yourself and drawing your own conclusions.
Please remember to think for yourself and
verify supposed facts.
Thank you,
From just another
American
~Kid Kaos
|
