Thanks A. Your blog entry, Hell House . . . sincerity that freaks me out, got me thinking (and inevitably writing) about how crazy religion can be, and how it affects public policy.
I grew up a religious person, but I no longer consider myself so. I still believe in a higher power, but I don't think that God (or whatever you choose to call him/her) gets too caught up on the logistics. And more often than not, I find that people use religion as a veil to avoid things that they don't understand, and to foster an environment of discrimination and hatred based on their beliefs. It enables them to dismiss personal responsibility for their thoughts and actions, instead attributing everything to God.
Here's my God infomercial:
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Are you tired of having to think for yourself? Do you want a book that provides all of the answers you just don't have, but you're dying to know?
Do you need a reason to...
...discriminate against people with different beliefs?
...have another child conceived through incest, rape, or from an unhealthy relationship?
...start a war?
...blow up buildings that house businesses, such as Planned Parenthood?
...hate gay people?
...refuse to do parts of your job, such as dispense prescribed medications?
Then, the bible and religion are for you! Join this flock of sheep! Whenever you feel the need to think, just point to a sentence in the bible, and all of your fears will just fade away. You're not personally responsible for anything, anyway.
After all, God didn't write the bible himself, but instead left that important task up to a completely objective group of individuals (who I'm sure had no interest in spicing things up to further a religious cause). And, YOU (out of the other bazillion people on the planet) are most certainly right in all of your beliefs! Don't even consider that there may be another view point that you should at least respect even if you think it's a bunch of hooey. March onward, making your religious beliefs the tenets of public policy to rule over them all! Who cares if your beliefs restrict the beliefs and abilities of others - remember, you're right!
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
I wrote a blog entry a long time ago about how ridiculous it is to believe that you can read the bible literally: http://ar-kay-tee.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-reading-bible-literally-is.html. And I think that the problem is getting worse, because people don't want to spend the money on education. The end result is that their kids grow up without the ability to analyze, so instead we have this nation of idiots who will point to a couple of sentences in the bible to "prove" their point instead of looking at the whole meaning of something and using a little brain power.
I keep wondering how much worse this can get. And unfortunately, I think we still have a long distance to go. Why can't people understand that their personal beliefs are fine for them but should not dictate law for everyone else? I had an interesting conversation with a conservative friend awhile back. The one thing that we could both agree on is that laws at the federal level shouldn't dictate policy for moral issues. Such policy should be made at a local level, where like-minded people can get together, discuss the issues, and make policies that make sense for their lives. Now, if only we could get everyone on board with that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
My opinions, if you want 'em...
Why can't people understand that their personal beliefs are fine for them but should not dictate law for everyone else?
I think that, in monotheistic religions, admitting that you're beliefs aren't for everyone is a way of admitting that they aren't really true. Because if there was really one true God, then everyone should at least "ought" to believe.
laws at the federal level shouldn't dictate policy for moral issues. Such policy should be made at a local level,
Not sure I follow here. Are you just talking about political moral issues like abortion, etc?
where like-minded people can get together, discuss the issues, and make policies that make sense for their lives. Now, if only we could get everyone on board with that.
Therein lie the problems related to politics, greed and power. What you're talking about is actually something that almost all people in America (and Japan for that matter) want. But as a people, and as people who vote for one man/woman who has a variety of beleifs, it gets complicated. I like this movement for cleaning up funding lately. I think that's a good start.
I totally said You're instead of your. Dammit!
I'm glad you got something out of my Hell House post! This is such a tricky area, especially when it comes to politics and religion. I've yet to hear an argument that is not religion-based against gay marriage. Some say "tradition," but that tradition stems from religion, so that's much the same thing. When a law cannot be justified independently of religion, I think it's really hard to argue for it.
E.:
Yeah, but they don't have to believe that another religion is correct - they just need to accept that in our world today, no one religion can dictate laws and policy for all. I don't see that as something that means you can't believe that your own religion is the "correct" religion. Dunno if that makes any more sense.
And yes, I think that moral issues, such as abortion, etc. should be taken care of at a local level. Think about areas like Seattle or San Francisco, etc. - they tend to be more progressive, and people there tend to be more open-minded about issues, such as gay marriage or abortion. However, if you travel to eastern Washington, for example, it's very conservative. So, let people in Seattle have legal abortion, etc. and the other side of hte state can do what it wants with regard to those things.
I just don't think that making a federal law for moral issues makes sense. The country is too diverse, even within a particular state, to agree on moral issues.
A:
Yeah, I've never heard a non-religious argument against gay marriage, either. And tradition is totally based on religion, so that argument is out the door.
Yeah, but they don't have to believe that another religion is correct - they just need to accept that in our world today, no one religion can dictate laws and policy for all. I don't see that as something that means you can't believe that your own religion is the "correct" religion. Dunno if that makes any more sense.
I think that if you place your faith in a monotheistic religion, you're comitting yourself to both believing that your religion is right and that all others are wrong. So, if your religion says that everyone should believe what you believe in an "or else" sort of fashion, even if you're well-intentioned, eventually it's going to come down to conflict between these various monotheisms. Christianity and Islam are both really good examples of this problem. The way people have dealt with that is through religious moderation, which, as far I see it, is simply ignoring the parts of your hold book that you think/know are out of line with progressive society. If you go by the book, admitting what you're talking about--that no one religion can dictate laws and policy for all--is pretty problematic, considering what's written.
And yes, I think that moral issues, such as abortion, etc. should be taken care of at a local level. Think about areas like Seattle or San Francisco, etc. - they tend to be more progressive, and people there tend to be more open-minded about issues, such as gay marriage or abortion. However, if you travel to eastern Washington, for example, it's very conservative. So, let people in Seattle have legal abortion, etc. and the other side of hte state can do what it wants with regard to those things.
Eh. Why not just have reasonable laws that protect the welfare of all citizens no matter where they live, and the let the people who don't want to have an aboration not get an abortion? I think having the actual choice available to you is more important, and probably more effective, than just adjusting policy based on the local opinion. Especially considering the diversity of opinion even in areas that are refered to as conservative or liberal.
I just don't think that making a federal law for moral issues makes sense. The country is too diverse, even within a particular state, to agree on moral issues.
So, as above, I just take it a step further. We sort of agree in a way, I think.
Yeah, I agree. In a perfect world the choice should be there everywhere. I just don't know if that's feasible with the way the political climate is right now. There seems to be this sort of all-or-nothing attitude, and when that's paired with federal law, it makes a bad thing even worse.
I think that the choice should be there - at the federal level, at least, and optimally at the state level. The federal (and state) laws should be rather open and allow for a variety of options that the local levels can adopt. Kind of like a funnel - more conservative areas would be more funnel-like, and more progressive areas would be more cylindrical.
It's a tricky issue all around, but conservatives don't seem to be happy with the whole choice thing, because (coming back around to religion) it's against their beliefs. So, instead of forcing the entire country to live under religion-based policies (which is where a lot of things are headed), there would at least be the option to tailor the policies to your specific region and voting community.
It might entice people to get out and vote as well b/c they would feel that they were making an impact at a level that matters to them. Of course, there are all kinds of issues with voting in the US, such as the fallibility of the voting technologies themselves, the access to voting, and the little importance given to the actual voting day itself. But, I digress.
Anyway, I totally agree with you on a theoretical level. I'm just beginning to wonder how we're actually going to make that work so that we can get past some of this nonsense that's been going on since pres. shrub took office. It's really a sad state of affairs.
Post a Comment