It’s National Prayer Day. Also, the president signed an
executive order to remove the threat over churches the last several decades (since
1954) monitoring their speech on penalty of removing their tax exempt status.
So, for today’s post I’m repeating a part of the Spherical
Model website, under the Civilization section.
Religious Freedom Is Necessary to Civilization
No one can be forced to believe something. It isn’t how our
human minds work. We can be persuaded, shown overwhelming evidence, encouraged
to believe, but we cannot be forced. The problem is, in an oppressive society (as
most historical societies have been, and many are today) we can be forced to
appear to believe.
There was an article in the Religion section of the local
paper some time ago, in which several different religious leaders were asked
what they thought were the most dangerous religious beliefs. The common answer
was, “that you belong to the one true church.” And I thought, what’s dangerous
about that? If you’re a pastor who makes your money by how many generous
believers you have, then you, personally, might feel threatened that some
people out there with different beliefs actually think they have the truth. But
what would be the purpose of choosing a religion if you didn’t believe you were
finding the truth? Wouldn’t you just keep looking until you found one you could
believe held the truth about how we should worship God and how we should behave
toward one another?
One clergyman, from a place where no proselytizing among
members of his religion is allowed, said he thought proselytizing was the most
dangerous threat. And I thought, in his country, it’s only a threat to those
few who dare to believe something other than the state religion, who if they
answer simple questions about their beliefs might be seen as breaking the law,
which could be life-threatening to them. But a threat to his religion? I don’t
see how.
I am still a little surprised they didn’t all offer the
obvious answer: the belief that it is righteous to kill people for believing
something different from you. That is clearly a lot more dangerous to religious
people than people who believe they have found a true church or people who
share their beliefs.
In religious thought there is nothing so dangerous—and
illogical—as killing because of religious beliefs. If someone believes
differently from you, it means that, based on what they know so far, in the
context of their life experiences and interests, they haven’t been persuaded to
believe what you believe. You can’t persuade them that you have found the truth
by threatening to kill them; you can only persuade them, if you’re in that
oppressive power position, that if they value their life they’d better pretend
to have been persuaded, and better give every outward sign of belief.
Oppression is uncivilized. Always. It’s untenable that a
religion intended to improve people’s hearts and minds accepts summarily mowing
people down because they were born into a different culture and taught a
different belief. I don’t think this can accurately be considered religious
thought; it is politically tyrannical thought. It is the thought of people who
want to increase their power over others by eliminating their enemy, and they
happen to choose the name of a religion as their excuse for power lust.
A religion’s strongest rightful punishment is
excommunication, a declaration that an individual’s beliefs or behaviors are so
far out of line with the religion that the church does not acknowledge that
person’s claim of membership.
Wherever you see a religion claiming it has the right to
execute people, not even for evil acts but simply for their beliefs, you can be
absolutely certain you are not looking at people seeking closeness to God.
You’re looking at the same run-of-the-mill tyrant types that have thirsted for
power throughout history.
Likewise, there is no circumstance in which having a
state-sponsored religion is actually intended to increase the faith of the
people; it is always to eliminate dissent. The state—the governing entity that
the people have ceded power to—has no moral sense in and of itself. So ceding
to the state the decision of what religious beliefs to hold is more foolhardy
than ceding just about any other personal responsibility related to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Belief that the state knows best is a
weak populace’s excuse for giving in to oppressors.
[A smaller, non-political, unit of society, such as a family
or a church community, can have a preferred religion. That belief can be a
civilizing influence and philosophical bond. But that happens when the members
choose the belief, and choose to associate, not because the governmental entity
has prescribed it. At the time of the founding, only the federal government was
constitutionally prohibited from establishing a state religion; the separate
states were allowed. Several colonies had state religions. Connecticut
continued for some time after the founding; Massachusetts continued to levy a
religious tax so every man would support a church of his choice. I think we
agree now, though, that any government entity at any level prescribing religion
is taking from the individual’s freedom to choose. And it is only in the
choosing that religion has power to improve the human heart.]
In ancient history, it was nearly always the practice of a
tyrant taking over a people to force them to bow down and worship whatever idol
the tyrant insisted on (quite often himself as deity). Religious uniformity was
a unifying dictatorial force. And tyrants claiming religious reasons will use
the very same methods for gaining power that atheist tyrants use.
In a number of countries in the world today, it is illegal to
say anything against a particular religion with many violent adherents
(adherents being a relative term, but they describe themselves as believers). I
trust that 90% or more of the adherents of this religion are peace loving and
live their religion because they are seeking to be closer to God. But a
surprising majority in some countries believe that there are circumstances in
which terrorism—purposefully killing innocents in as large numbers as can be
accomplished (and not as part of a defensive war)—is an acceptable practice.
That is mental derangement on a grand scale. There are no
such circumstances. Terrorism is a savage act. And it is a tyrannical act; the
purpose is to create chaos to persuade the innocent to succumb to the rule of
the tyrant. It is never a civilizing religious act. Never. Its perpetrators
cannot have a civilized reason for committing the terrorist act. The only
reason is savage desire for tyranny.
That terrorism increases in horror is purposeful—to instill
greater fear. If there is enough chaotic fear, a sense of danger, that the
oppressor can persuade people he is capable of curing, then the oppressor gains
power, and that is his goal. That there are hundreds of millions of people in
the world who are willing to accept such horror does not bode well for the
planet. It was horrifying to find that the savages recruited suicide bombers,
persuading them they were giving their lives in the pursuit of horror. In
spring 2008 the horror level was raised when these tyrannists recruited two
mentally deficient women to be suicide bombers, presumably without their
understanding or consent. And the terrorists did this despicable act on purpose
to increase the horror, since the run-of-the-mill suicide bomber no longer
causes the same gut-wrenching reaction around the world.
Using the spherical model allows us to see that an act as
uncivilized as terrorism against innocents is both savage and tyrannical; the
behavior is polar opposite of civilization and freedom. There is no possible
outcome for civilization to continue except to prevent, by every means
necessary, any terrorist act, and in addition to persuade the world to choose
civilization and be willing to sacrifice and fight for it, with absolutely no
sympathy for terrorism.
I don’t know what means the peaceful, actual followers of
this religion should use to root out the evil terrorist fringe. But they must
condemn the terrorism—including any rationale the terrorists use to claim it is
their right. Many have done so. But unless virtually all adherents condemn
terrorism, and find a way to make that belief public, the overall religion will
be rightly condemned for condoning savagery, which makes it by definition a
false religion unworthy of society’s respect. I hope they find a way to bring forward
the civilized sectors and expel the savagery from among them, so that their
real religion can do good for society as a whole.
Just adding this video here, about
freedom of religion—our first, God-given right.
No comments:
Post a Comment