In recent years, America has seen a tremendous increase in religious ideas permeating politics and the public sphere. Faith based initiatives supported with tax payer dollars, foreign policy driven by apocalyptic motives, government sanctioned discrimination of homosexuals, supreme court judicial nominees from inferior yet religious law schools, the introduction of Sunday school materials in public classrooms, attempts to display the Ten Commandments in courts of law, and a host of state sponsored thought policing under the heading of community values. Even our politicians feel the need to flaunt (or exaggerate) their religious beliefs to gain voter attention.
Such a religious push is utter madness. If nothing else, it is undemocratic to expect a pluralist (including secular humanist) nation to align itself under Judeo-Christian values. But I’m trying to see the whole thing in a positive light. We’ve been afforded a frightening glimpse of what it’s like to have a bible thumper at the helm. King George is an excellent example of how religious people do not have in mind the best interests of others.
Unfortunately, the whole concept of morality has been tainted by religion. Merriam-Webster’s definition of morality includes anything relating to principles of right and wrong behavior, and an individual’s conforming to standards of what is deemed right. This definition excludes mentioning religion, and with good reason.
We do NOT get our most fundamental morals from any sort of religion. If we did, we would still be stoning people for heresy, clinching real estate deals using our women as collateral, bartering in the slave trade, and offering sacrifices so the universe might spin in our favor. The basics of moral behavior (no killing, no stealing, no raping) came about long before the rise of the Church. They appeared SLOWLY as people witnessed the benefits of banning together in societies. Religions may include the moral basics in their dogma, but they have no right to claim people are moral because of religiosity.
With that said, there ARE frivolous morals out there which religious institutions have a heavy hand in. These include subjecting females to males, condemnation of homosexuality, honoring a day of rest from work, dietary restrictions, defining ideas and words as blasphemous, and taboos on masturbation. Especially in today’s world, these concepts make no sense.
Special moral precepts came about by the superstitions of ancient people. They are enforced today by the same sort of thinking, reached using inferior reason based on the teachings of ill-conceived literature. Religious leaders justify this by convincing us they are in touch with cosmic powers. In essence, they are telling us they know what’s best for everyone (when really they only champion what justifies their own beliefs).
Not only do I question their morality, I question their claim to majority status. Tendencies toward social desirability, or a need for approval in social situations, are well understood as a part of being human. Religious leaders capitalize on this, using concepts of guilt and fear to align us under their agenda. They threaten us with eternal torment, just to keep us convinced they are right. No accurate model of morality on frivolous issues can be determined as long as the Church holds so much sway over us.
So what’s a rational person to do? Well, the most educated of our species today do not believe in the theory of a god that is both outside of human understanding and extremely personal to us. It is time we start supporting the views of people who move our society forward, not those who hold it in age old traditions.
We must begin to speak out. We must show that Judeo-Christian values can be harmful when enforced on a free society. We cannot tell people what to believe, but we CAN and we MUST begin to protest when religious values are foisted upon us. In short, we must grow some balls.
And to help with this task, I’ve compiled a short (?) list of church born ethical issues and how they might be argued against. Enjoy.
DEMOCRACY: Is it moral to govern every member of a collective society with special values that not everyone believes in or supports? If so, we’ve forgotten our American history. Early settlers pulled themselves out of state sponsored religion in England. They disliked the idea of theocracy so much that they enacted a division between church and state.
BELIEF: Is it moral to continue believing in the face of outrageous rational opposition to what you believe in? This is the mental equivalent of placing fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalala I can’t hear you lalala”. Believing may only hold individuals back in the short term, but those individuals VOTE, and that affects us all. Accept that we are all human, and that what we believe might eventually be challenged.
HELL: Is it moral to use fear tactics such as the threat of eternal damnation to convince people you are right? If so, you support terrorism. Not only does scaring people to your side threaten free will and expression, it shows a terrible lack of faith in what you say you believe.
CHILDREN: Is it moral to indoctrinate children, the most malleable and vulnerable of minds, into a set of beliefs that are entirely man made and without proof? No child is ever born religious, or much of anything for that matter. Indoctrinating kids into religious ideologies lessens their potential as human beings. Your job as a parent is to help foster functional people, not tiny representations of your ego.
SEX: Is it moral to place so many restrictions and taboos on something as paramount to human existence as our sexuality? If so, you want to control the feelings which occur in people naturally. Get a life! Prohibition has a nasty way of driving people to dysfunctional means to get what is being denied them.
Such a religious push is utter madness. If nothing else, it is undemocratic to expect a pluralist (including secular humanist) nation to align itself under Judeo-Christian values. But I’m trying to see the whole thing in a positive light. We’ve been afforded a frightening glimpse of what it’s like to have a bible thumper at the helm. King George is an excellent example of how religious people do not have in mind the best interests of others.
Unfortunately, the whole concept of morality has been tainted by religion. Merriam-Webster’s definition of morality includes anything relating to principles of right and wrong behavior, and an individual’s conforming to standards of what is deemed right. This definition excludes mentioning religion, and with good reason.
We do NOT get our most fundamental morals from any sort of religion. If we did, we would still be stoning people for heresy, clinching real estate deals using our women as collateral, bartering in the slave trade, and offering sacrifices so the universe might spin in our favor. The basics of moral behavior (no killing, no stealing, no raping) came about long before the rise of the Church. They appeared SLOWLY as people witnessed the benefits of banning together in societies. Religions may include the moral basics in their dogma, but they have no right to claim people are moral because of religiosity.
With that said, there ARE frivolous morals out there which religious institutions have a heavy hand in. These include subjecting females to males, condemnation of homosexuality, honoring a day of rest from work, dietary restrictions, defining ideas and words as blasphemous, and taboos on masturbation. Especially in today’s world, these concepts make no sense.
Special moral precepts came about by the superstitions of ancient people. They are enforced today by the same sort of thinking, reached using inferior reason based on the teachings of ill-conceived literature. Religious leaders justify this by convincing us they are in touch with cosmic powers. In essence, they are telling us they know what’s best for everyone (when really they only champion what justifies their own beliefs).
Not only do I question their morality, I question their claim to majority status. Tendencies toward social desirability, or a need for approval in social situations, are well understood as a part of being human. Religious leaders capitalize on this, using concepts of guilt and fear to align us under their agenda. They threaten us with eternal torment, just to keep us convinced they are right. No accurate model of morality on frivolous issues can be determined as long as the Church holds so much sway over us.
So what’s a rational person to do? Well, the most educated of our species today do not believe in the theory of a god that is both outside of human understanding and extremely personal to us. It is time we start supporting the views of people who move our society forward, not those who hold it in age old traditions.
We must begin to speak out. We must show that Judeo-Christian values can be harmful when enforced on a free society. We cannot tell people what to believe, but we CAN and we MUST begin to protest when religious values are foisted upon us. In short, we must grow some balls.
And to help with this task, I’ve compiled a short (?) list of church born ethical issues and how they might be argued against. Enjoy.
DEMOCRACY: Is it moral to govern every member of a collective society with special values that not everyone believes in or supports? If so, we’ve forgotten our American history. Early settlers pulled themselves out of state sponsored religion in England. They disliked the idea of theocracy so much that they enacted a division between church and state.
BELIEF: Is it moral to continue believing in the face of outrageous rational opposition to what you believe in? This is the mental equivalent of placing fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalala I can’t hear you lalala”. Believing may only hold individuals back in the short term, but those individuals VOTE, and that affects us all. Accept that we are all human, and that what we believe might eventually be challenged.
HELL: Is it moral to use fear tactics such as the threat of eternal damnation to convince people you are right? If so, you support terrorism. Not only does scaring people to your side threaten free will and expression, it shows a terrible lack of faith in what you say you believe.
CHILDREN: Is it moral to indoctrinate children, the most malleable and vulnerable of minds, into a set of beliefs that are entirely man made and without proof? No child is ever born religious, or much of anything for that matter. Indoctrinating kids into religious ideologies lessens their potential as human beings. Your job as a parent is to help foster functional people, not tiny representations of your ego.
SEX: Is it moral to place so many restrictions and taboos on something as paramount to human existence as our sexuality? If so, you want to control the feelings which occur in people naturally. Get a life! Prohibition has a nasty way of driving people to dysfunctional means to get what is being denied them.
No comments:
Post a Comment