A Critique on the Values and Effects of the Family of Religions - Part 2


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
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