Constructive gadfly

The origin of religion is murky but there can be no doubt that primitives on awakening to a subhuman conscious world were inexplicably mystified. That they found themselves vulnerable to unpredictable phenomena soon drove them to surrendering to powerful elements over which they had no control, and ultimately worshiping thereof.

Injury and disease led to witch doctors; death led to witchcraft under whose imaginative rituals the spirit of the deceased would hopefully endure. Eventually witchcraft was supplanted by organizational beliefs by which the unexplainable was delineated through sophisticated myth hinging on the heroics of a superhuman past, and out of which emerged an omnipotent god demanding unswerving faith.

To maintain this faith, rewards — in life and death — were promised by the hierarchy of organized religion provided the faithful followed an elaborate system of rule leading to total authoritarianism. As modified reasoning began to take hold, fractious sects branched out to suit the rationale and imagination of the innovators. However, they dared not swerve from the prima facie of an all powerful deity to whom all would have to answer.

The history of religion has always been a process of muddling and meddling with respect to the oughtness of behaviors. The apparently beneficial edict of thou shalt not kill has offshoots in that human sacrifice, and in time of war killing is acceptable, on the other hand abortion is murder and the death penalty is a branch of an eye for an eye. Tribal longevity required incest, but today it is taboo. A man child is forever Adam in need of Eve, regardless of his deviant homosexual proclivity that must doom him to celibacy unless he overcomes his “abnormal” fixation. That family values are the bedrock of civilization is unquestioned, in spite of its dysfunctions, let alone the dysfunctions of civilization. To separate religion from politics is another aberration that isolates the soul of governance that should mirror the ideal of humankind’s marriage with the soul’s surrender to authoritarianism.

In addition, muddling and meddling have taken us to the prevailing view that the voter ought to be church-going if he or she is to cast a ballot wisely in accordance with divine will. That one has the audacity to utter the pledge without reference to God is heretical. With the absence of the Ten Commandments in a public building, one should at least bless himself upon entering a fabricated secular shrine. A young Catholic couple who opts out of a High Mass Nuptial is forever plagued by doubting the validity and sanctity of their marriage. An evangelist is encouraged to read the Bible but cannot question it. Notwithstanding the Islamist in a modern environment, he cannot partake modernity. The devout Hebrew must not “read into” the Sacred Scriptures. The volunteer armed services have oddly been elevated to the status of Christian soldiers — pure fighting machine, divinely patriotic and dedicated — implying a draftee could never rise to such titanic heights. Americans that do not endorse the right to arms, defy the wrath of God and are at high risk when terrorism rules the Judgment Day.

 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 10, 2004.


Comments
on Jul 10, 2004
What a bitter, empty, one-sided little monologue.

As long as people brush off religion with no more tact or respect than you do, they won't understand it, or understand what society would have been without it. I don't think you are even responsible enough with your biased opinions to understand what society will be like once it is legislated into the closet; when faithless intellectuals finally decide that it is more dangerous than the realities of "humanity" that have been kept in check by religious morality for thousands of years.

You live in its graces, regardless of its realistic "truth". How utterly "holier-than-thou" of you to cast such ugliness on something you obviously have no understanding of. Anyone who bothered to make religion a study, whether they believed or not, would at the very least admit its value.

Say what you want, but I don't think you deserve further debate.
on Jul 11, 2004
How Christian of you Bakerstreet...
on Jul 11, 2004
How predictable of you Abe. A snide remark with no content.... wow... would have never seen it coming.

I wasn't addressing steve as a Christian, nor do I care if he "believes" or not. The article was simply a one-sided emotional rant, and I feel sorry for him if he really can only see religion from that little pigeonhole he is looking through. That is the same destructive attitude shown throughout history when people don't even bother to see if there is a baby in the bathwater before they toss it out.

Like it or not, religion is a way of life for many people, of many faiths. To deal with it in such a disrespectful, slipshod manner doesn't deserve any reciprocal respect.

If he wants to write off thousands of years of human thought, bully for him, but he shouldn't expect the people he brushes off to nod acceptingly.

on Jul 11, 2004

You live in its graces, regardless of its realistic "truth". How utterly "holier-than-thou" of you to cast such ugliness on something you obviously have no understanding of. Anyone who bothered to make religion a study, whether they believed or not, would at the very least admit its value.

On the contrary, I indeed recognize its validity, but I think it is imperative to let go of the past superstitions even though they were utilitarian through the eras to help understand a questionable existence. I could also use your arguments to defend Islam's trend of intolerance as totally outdated. 

You are entitled to your beliefs--and admittedy the prevailing "emotion"--as I am to analyze the wave that besets us today.

on Jul 11, 2004
"I could also use your arguments to defend Islam's trend of intolerance as totally outdated. "


Only if you could make the argument that intolerance was somehow beneficial. I don't think killing Jews and lopping off heads has ever been beneficial, nor do I think any religion is without its sins.

You have no way to prove your hypothosis about religion. None at all. You are acting on faith just like the billions of religious people around the world.

I would add, though, that having faith that something doesn't exist is much shakier ground philosophically than assuming something does. With your piddly perspective on an infiniate universe, you'd have to admit boldly proclaiming religion to be "superstition" places a great deal of faith in your fallable intellect.

You can liken yourself to be one of the rational human minority that stated the earth revolves around the sun, but that was a fact that could be proven. You are endeavoring to proclaim the irrelevance of something that you have no possible way of judging empirically.

I would suggest a more diplomatic tone if you continue to stereotype people and make judgmental proclaimations on their faith, when faith is all you have to base your suppositions on.
on Jul 12, 2004

Diplomatic, eh? The kettle calling the pot black. I really don't understand why you are so aggressively defensive. My thrust is organizational religion, not the private faith of individuals, which I have always respected. It is the hierarchy of faiths that cannot let go the essentially private conscience of even its own followers.

on Jul 12, 2004
No, I don't see anything up there that indemnifies the individual, and frankly it is the individual religious voter I think you have more of a problem with.

As for diplomacy, as I said before, I met you with the same respect I felt you offered.
on Jul 12, 2004

Here are some secular practices I abhor:

NOW when it oversteps itself and insists that all women accept its premises.

Black groups that lobby for reparation.

Unions that make unrealistic demands, and when a strike becomes so widespread it interferes with the economic health of the nation.

Lobbying that becomes pure and simple bribery.

Self-interest above holistic value analysis.

Dogma over ethical value analysis.

Bureaucratic perpetuity for its own sake.

Trumped up manufacture’s pricing so as to deceptively offer discounts.

Televangelists — secular under the guise of religion — who profess to know it all.

Vouchers on behalf of parochial and private schools.

Industrial polluters.

Environmental extremism.

 

I do not deny any group’s day in court if it can legitimately challenge existing law. If a religionist wishes to argue his right to modify or change a law that does not interfere with the rights of others, he should be heard. An atheist, intensively emotional against “under God,” should be heard for its evidently unwarranted conjecture that God indisputably does not exist and the references to a deity such as “In God we trust” does not shake the foundations of a secular, constitutional government. As for the powerful lobbyists that are thus engaged for self-interest and ultimate gain, I detest.

I make no pretense that I am an idealist, simply an adherent of constitutional law that has no room for theocratic concepts.

Nor to I pretend to be an educator of your slant which in reality is expostulating “manifestoes” I’m simply expressing my private views to agree, modify or reject.

There has never been in any of my writing to persuade others to think as I do — that would be unforgivably egotistic — rather I tossed them out for those like you to ponder, not to react emotionally. Certainly not to disrupt the sanctity of self-imposed majority opinion.

And please allow me the blogging privilege to whistle in the wind without attributing some dark, sinister motive.

Nor should you accuse me of taking issue with the good graces of an overwhelming majority of worshipers who prefer to lead a private inofficious life; still, I insist it is the hiercharchy wherein lies the problem. 

on Jul 12, 2004
"If a religionist wishes to argue his right to modify or change a law that does not interfere with the rights of others, he should be heard"


And who decides what interferes with which rights? Any law is going to cause someone to feel that their rights have been infringed. Child molesters think they have the right to molest, muggers think they have the right to mug, pro-abortion folks think they have the right to kill unborn children.

You are gonna be the one to differentiate? If not you, then who? You can talk about "imposing" all you like, but in the end any law is an imposition, and only the people have the right to decide what is allowable in thier society. To say that a given belief is suddenly improper because it "interferes with the rights of others", just makes the assumption that there are some self-evident truths floating around somewhere that will make it easy to see which is just and which is abusive. On the contrary, these truths change with the will of the society, and they are the only ones that can make the decisions.

on Jul 13, 2004
Relative morality, eh?