In Part 1 I proposed the basic idea that the world's religions possess similar traits and that we should closely examine their behavior and its effects. In Part 2, I continue shining a spotlight on those aspects of religious institutions and traditions that we should find troubling, and also continue to make the case that they can indeed be thought of as a "family." The third installment will wrap all of this together.
Part 2
Because the primary binding agent of religious traditions is based on
affective and not cognitive experience, there is little to be
discovered in common by way of moral foundation between those of us
who subscribe to religion and those of us that reject it; we in the
latter group find a more appropriate, concrete, and truly universal
authority in reason and shared humanity. I have argued elsewhere1
that the religious are unable to ground moral precepts in a
conceptual framework that is coherent to, and apprehensible by,
persons that are not members of the particular religion in question.
One has to “drink the Kool-Aid” in order to buy-into the moral
framework that they propose. Most religious traditions express pride
in the fact that one cannot fully understand their system except by
subscribing and adhering fully to their beliefs2,
which makes the ground of their precepts not apprehensible to
outsiders by definition. While it is almost certainly true
that a key element underlying morality is our empathy with one
another, this emphatically does not imply that every (or any) system
that attracts and retains followers primarily by using the leverage
of emotion provides an acceptable means for proscribing moral
behavior, and this is especially true of a system that specifically
exploits emotive bonds at the expense of reason.
One particularly offensive feature which overtly targets the
emotional side of the human mind is the perversion of one's feelings
of self-worth. Constant comparison of oneself with a being whose
every attribute is perfection tends to give one the absolute lowest
possible sense of self esteem, which is mitigated only by the
counterbalancing proposition that this being of unassailable
perfection loves and cares for oneself. This type of emotional
tug-of-war is cognate to indicators of, among other psychological
problems, Borderline Personality Disorder; people with BPD engage
others in a roller-coaster-ride of emotions, first drawing intimately
close, then suddenly throwing up a cold, impenetrable, emotional
brick wall. The effect on those who interact with such persons can
be devastating; individuals under this spell often exhibit
self-destructive codependent behavior, like a ship repeatedly dashing
itself against the rocks in a futile attempt to reach the shore. It
is without doubt a severe form of mental abuse, and on reflection it
is disturbing how eerily similar it is to the way in which religious
traditions foster an uneasy balance between the deity's revulsion to
what are put forth as our baser natures and its attraction to our
nobler attributes. Many military systems have used a push-pull
methodology not unlike this, wherein recruits are “torn-down”
before they are “built-up” again. The religious 'tear-down'
consists largely of a humiliating dredging and exposure of one's
'ungodly' properties, where humiliation is the key operative
descriptor. Note that the utilization of shaming makes masterful use
of the persistent association between a concept or act and an emotive
response. The guilt thus imparted is deep and long lasting, and is
made especially so by the insistence that the causes for said guilt
are an indelible stain3
– we are warned that we can in no way remove or ameliorate the
causes of our guilt. The end result of such conditioning, should it
fully succeed, is an individual with a sense of self-worth that is
inseparable from the need to please the deity or conform to its
perceived wishes; this individual is made to believe that he or she
is fundamentally flawed and inherently unable to self-correct. The
extreme dualism on display here is obvious: so very many facets of
the individual's nature are repulsive to the deity, yet the deity
loves the individual; the individual is unworthy in every respect to
even ask for assistance, yet is absolutely dependent on the deity.
One is reminded of the cruelty in many domestic cases, where the wife
is kept dependent on (and in fact by) a domineering husband
who spontaneously jumps from bouts of severe mental and physical
abuse, to professions of love, mercy, regret, and kindness.
The social pressure to conform with the practices and rituals of a
larger group is akin to shaming; it plays on deep emotional fears of
rejection and our innate aversion to embarrassment. Few among us do
not feel trepidation at standing against a crowd, especially when the
crowd appears so obviously motivated by a sincere belief. A friend
of mine once recounted the overpowering anxiety he felt, when he was
younger and a member of a small country church in the North Carolina
mountains, to even contemplate not joining the throng of worshipers
as they hastened to the front of the church when the preacher made
the alter-call. It is extremely difficult for an adult to resist
such an urge to conform; for a child it is nigh impossible. One can
tangibly feel the peevish, sideways looks of disapproval, and one
also knows that one's guilt for refusing to participate would not be
allowed to assuage itself. It is interesting to note that in so many
cases we issue stern warnings to children and young adults about the
dangers of succumbing to peer pressure, while this same technique is
such an indispensable tool in the production-lines churning out
religious followers. Clearly the development of human social order
and social grouping depends to some extent on this class of cultural
pressure, but it certainly does not follow that we should hesitate to
raise awareness of its deliberate use in such cases where that use
may take unfair advantage of reflexive emotional postures. We should
strive to eschew emotional subterfuge for the same reason we
naturally reject propaganda and false advertising.
The insistence that one is unable to sufficiently improve oneself
solely through one's own will and actions is ubiquitous and also has
very some troubling consequences. There is, according to the major
religious traditions, only a single action that can serve to make one
worthy, and it consists of some form of submission. Submitting one's
will to that of a deity is posited as the sole means of dealing with
the so-called indecent facets of one's nature. At its core such a
posture of submission is manifestly an abdication of responsibility
for one's actions, but this abdication is cleverly hidden beneath the
weighty assignment of additional, gratuitous blame for acts in which
the individual took no part, or for aspects of the individual's self
over which neither control nor choice is possible. This faux blame
is then magically and magnanimously removed by the deity, but, of
course, only upon the individual's acceptance of the submissive
posture. The Christian traditions make this very explicit and take
it one giant step further by teaching that one's culpability for all
so-called sins, not just the ones over which we have no control, is
taken away in this fashion; this is clearly nothing more than the
Bronze Age practice of scapegoating, but in the Christians'
case we must remember that it is based upon a single human sacrifice.
A few moments of sober reflection makes it plain to see that
religions which practice in this way are built upon layered
deceptions: fabricated incriminations; nonexistent or blameless
personal shortcomings; claims of one's inability to initiate and
carry out self-corrective actions, even for defects over which one
has some measure of control; transference of responsibility for one's
actions; the list could go on. I wonder at these needless rotations
of blame and guilt: persons are held-to-task for things utterly
beyond their control (here I am thinking of “original sin” and
the like), yet responsibility for the things for which they can and
should be accountable is transferred to another who, apparently, in
turn has no control over the actions for which he is being held
responsible. It is nothing but a meaningless circle of innocence and
guilt, a vapid game of hide-and-seek with our ethical and moral
sensibilities. Clarity is difficult if not impossible to achieve
under the auspices of such a deranged scheme.
As concerning as the arrangement and priorities of a
religiously-oriented mind may be, the ever-present desire for
everyone to buy into the same mindset is also cause for
consternation. Proselytization and evangelism are defining features
of all religions. It is never enough that they indoctrinate their
own children but they must strive to inculcate the rest of us as
well; enormous amounts of energy are put forth in this regard.
Nonbelievers and those who subscribe to a “different” or minority
faith have always suffered persecutions, often of the most vicious
sort, at the hands of the dominant religion; see, for example, the
many forms of oppression visited upon the Jews, witch-hunts,
religious violence in Rwanda, the conflict in Northern Ireland, the
division of Sudan into two countries, and the punishment of apostasy
by death even in modern states. Any look at systems of government
though history and across the world today shows that religions
everywhere have long enjoyed a status that affords them special
protections from sharp criticism and indeed from any but the most
cursory examination; consequently, most have never undergone thorough
and transparent investigations into their practices except when they
commit the most egregious offenses (and such investigations are all
of quite recent occurrence). They therefore have been free to spread
their influence in nearly any way they desire to the most vulnerable
among us without any fear of backlash or even opposition, as the
legal and social systems have been bent in their favor.
In the United States it is common to see news stories covering the
histrionic outrages of the faithful in response to even the slightest
attempt to limit religious displays on public property, preachments
by public officials (such as school teachers), or prayers as part of
public meetings – such attempts are invariably decried as baseless
attacks on religious freedom when in most cases they are just meant
to maintain the balance enshrined in the Establishment clause of the
First Amendment. Consider for a moment what the United States would
truly be like if the religious won every case they pressed: our
public schools would hold prayer sessions (these would most likely be
christian) and those who failed to participate would undoubtedly be
ostracized, our children would be taught pseudo-science, the ten
commandments (a third of which are overtly religious edicts) would be
enshrined in every courtroom, citizens who are LGBT would hold status
little better than slaves in the early 1800's – who knows where the
craziness would end? Many other countries have enshrined much more
repressive means at their disposal including social isolation,
physical imprisonment, and capital punishment4.
One is puzzled by society's continued high tolerance to such
efforts. I am reminded of a science fiction story in which one of
its characters had the ability to make himself invisible to others;
he accomplished this using a psychic ability to inhibit that on which
people in the immediate vicinity were able to direct and focus their
eyes – when he wished to remain incognito his ability would simply
ensure that no one was able to notice him: he would hide in plain
sight! Religious institutions exploit a similar mechanism, which is
the fact that we have been socially programmed to 'avert our eyes'
whenever we are tempted by the desire to put a religion or a
religious institution under the microscope of reason – we look away
without even realizing that we are missing something. This aversion
to close examination of anything religious is a nearly universal
social phenomenon of which all religious systems take distinct
advantage.
The three major middle-eastern/western religions are categorized as
the Abrahamic faiths since they all trace their origins to the
mythical figure of Abraham – the Jewish religion is the first
derivative, followed by Christianity, then Islam. Modern Jewish
observance, although it hearkens to traditions that are indeed very
old, is also very unlike what is detailed in many parts of the
Pentateuch. It is very clear that the Christians have obtained large
swaths of their belief system from the Jews, and no one can deny that
Islam shares much in common with the Old Testament5.
Islamic writings contain more than ninety passages regarding the
figure of Jesus. Even ancient Judaism shows evidence of origins in
the polytheistic traditions that came before. In this they all
possess the common trait of having borrowed from previously-existing
religious traditions. The idea of a prophet being born of a virgin
or in some other very miraculous way is as old as religion itself; so
is the story of a special messenger being lifted up to the realm of
god in a fantastical manner. Most christian holidays are celebrated
on days that so-called pagan religions had long held rituals (e.g.
Christmas on the winter solstice and Easter on the vernal equinox).
There are a number of instances within Islamic writings containing
strong reminders of Mohammed's pagan roots (belief in Jinn, for
example). It is clearly advantageous to maintain some sort of
continuity or familiarity when attempting to root a new religion
which may explain this phenomenon to a large extent, but subsuming
the cultural rhythms of the faith being supplanted is also, I
suspect, a surreptitious way to help dim the memory of that prior
religion, whether or not intended as such.
Go to Part 3
Go to Part 3
1“Towards
an Understanding of Moral Underpinnings,” Essays In The Philosophy
of Humanism, vol. 21, No. 2
2Besides
reinforcing an air of exclusivity, this is a defensive action
serving to deflect the possibility of criticism from without as well
as within.
3It
is interesting to wonder, if our ignoble natures are indeed
permanently “tattooed” onto our souls, who is the tattoo artist?
4Note
that every single government that utilizes these practices uses them
to foist an otherwise unpalatable ideology of some sort on the
people under their power. Some of these ideologies are or have been
religious and some have not.
5It
has been shown that portions of the Koran are either direct
plagiarisms or thin paraphrases of the Old Testament – for
example, the story of Yunus in Chapter 37.
No comments:
Post a Comment