Religion--A Long Way From Its Spiritual Roots

Here in the West we must find ways to take the next step beyond the separation of church and state and encourage not freedom of religion, but freedom from religion.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - After the Danish cartoon fiasco of 2005, French President Jacques Chirac said that “anything liable to offend the beliefs of others, particularly religious beliefs, must be avoided.” Self-censorship is not a positive social direction. Religion, contrary to conventional thought, is not a benign social institution.

Today’s French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, sees the public flaunting of religion in a different light. "The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women's dignity," Sarkozy told a joint session of both houses of parliament, held at the Palace of Versailles last week. "The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory." The wearing of Muslim headscarves is already forbidden in French public schools.

You can see this for yourself when you see some Muslim couples just walking down the street. The woman can be in a basic headscarf or completely covered with a burqa or anything in between. The man, you’ll notice, is usually completely westernized in his clothing, often including jeans.

The root cause of religious volatility is personal or group psychological insecurity. The Economist quoted the headmaster of a Cairo school on relations between Islam and the West who said: “What it shows is that we lack confidence. If we were confident about our faith we wouldn’t have to react so hysterically.”

But it goes deeper. How can they, or we, possibly have “confidence” in any particular religion when, over the millennia, there have been thousands from which to choose? We learned from Einstein in 1905 that there are no absolutes. But we still pretend there are psychological absolutes and therein lies the toxic heart of religion. With psychological absolutes, one person is absolutely right and everyone else is wrong or mislead. Think Pope.

In order to believe in a religion, you must accept it on faith as being absolutely true. Conversely, you must then believe that all other religions are absolutely false. This belief in absolutes—a black and white world—is the source of virtually all of man’s troubles, with religion at the centre of that web. Consider: Muslim extremists think we are as crazy, as we think they are crazy—crazy being defined as: “they” don’t live in the same reality as we do.

Insecurity is assuaged by outside support. The more other people agree with you, the more secure you feel. This is the drive behind proselytizing. Conversely, any other belief system that, just by existing, casts the slightest shadow of doubt on your beliefs, cannot be tolerated. Its adherents must be converted or killed. There is no middle ground.

The European 30 Years War (1618-1648) stopped the ancient push for a Roman Catholic empire of Europe, headed spiritually by a pope and secularly by an emperor. The essential structure of modern Europe as a community of sovereign states was established, but it came at a great cost. Historians estimate that as a result, directly and indirectly, of this inter-Christian series of wars, 40% of the European population perished.

Muslims, in a very rough parallel, are today in a similar situation. Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble With Islam, notes that “in the past 50 years, more Muslims have been raped, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by other Muslims than by any foreign imperial power.” The difference, however, is that the Christians of the 17th century only fought among themselves. Muslims are putting the entire human race at risk as it has never been before. There are hundreds of millions of believers in martyrdom, their leaders armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It’s not about geography, but about souls—and they have no interest in taking prisoners.

An essential way of demonstrating religious security is to flaunt it. Whether it is a cross on a chain around the neck, earlocks, Sikh headwear, or a Muslim beard, adherents are saying to the world that they have the true religion and all other people, non-believers, are inferior and damned. Both sides of this insecurity/superiority coin encourage intolerance and violence to maintain their precarious psychological positions. The cycle of violence within the religious worldview is self-sustaining.

Throughout history, more innocent men, women and children have been persecuted, arrested, maimed, raped, sodomized, imprisoned, tried in secret, tortured, flayed, hanged, and burned at the stake in the name of religion, than any other single cause. As George Carlin said in one of his monologues: “God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, all taking turns killing each other because God told them it was a good idea.”

A solution to the world’s religion-based problems lies not in “tolerating” religious differences, but in discouraging public religion of all stripes, period. Here in the West we must find ways to take the next step beyond the separation of church and state and encourage not freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. After all, it’s the 21st century and five plus millennia of all sorts of religious oppression is enough.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Daniel June 24, 2009 11:18 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel J we just elected a mixed race man with an arabic name leader of the country . Look into California politics you will find plenty of non religious politicians . To look at non diversity one really should look at Canadian politics ! When will we see a president from newfoundland ?

Daniel Johnson June 24, 2009 8:25 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel: I believe completely in freedom OF religion, as long as people keep it to themselves. Separation of church and state? That's a fantasy that Americans don't seem to understand. Look at your political system. Could an atheist, agnostic or Buddhist get very high in your political system. They could barely get elected to low levels as they would be vilified by the "in god we trust" Christians. Look at Romney last year. And he is "sort of" a Christian, depending on how you look at Mormonism.

Daniel June 24, 2009 1:10 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel J science causes war by developing superior weapons , this emboldens the aggressor . Religion is just an excuse , science is just a tool , the root is greed and power . Getting back to the focus of your article , i believe a free and open society needs both freedom of religion and freedom of scientific thought . There is strong separation of church and state . There should be strong separation between BIG BUSINESS and state . This is the source of the problem not religion !

Daniel Johnson June 23, 2009 2:21 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel: I give the emphasis on religion because that was the theme of the piece. Science has never caused a war; only its products have been misused--Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the pre-eminent examples. Even Hitler believed he was doing God’s work. In the last paragraph of chapter two of Mein Kampf, (1924) he wrote: “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” The Crusades were inspired by religion, although many individuals joined, no doubt, with the prospect of booty at the forefront. But you raise the larger point. I suggest that most wars are started by an IDEOLOGY, religion being just one of a whole variety of ideologies--patriotism being the pre-eminent example. But there is another factor. I just finished a book "Overthrow" by Stephen Kinzer. He recounts how the U.S. government, unbeknownst to the people, or through misleading and duping the people, started or participated in about ten wars in the last century. Iraq was not the first. See my piece "Iran, 1953" for more detail: www.salem-news.com/articles/june182009/iran_1953_6-18-09.php

Daniel June 23, 2009 12:52 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel J you give too much emphasis to religion in the creation of war . The main motivators are economics , i want what you got , and science , i have the technology to take it . It was science that gave us the stronger sword , the poison gas , the atomic bomb , not religion . It was science that convinced Hitler of the superiority of the Arian race and give him advanced weapon to crush his neighbors. The crusades were inspired by greed for plunder not religious conversion . The wars of the last century were started because the aggressors had better science and technology not because of religion . Science is more misused than religion , should we restrict its practice as you propose we do with religion ? Thru out history it has been religion that has inspired artist , musicians ,scientist , mathematicians and social reformers . Much of our culture was created by religion and spiritual belief , much of our culture has been destroyed by science . Today it's not religion that poisons the air, water, and land its greed and misuse of science !

Daniel June 22, 2009 11:01 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks Daniel J I enjoy your perspective and writing , but do not agree with it on this issue .

Daniel Johnson June 22, 2009 7:41 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel: Yes, science is limited and constantly growing and changing, but I'll have another piece running in the next day or two which will explain my viewpoint. I'm doing it partly for you and all the other readers but mostly because it's fun for me. Wait until you can comment on that.

Daniel June 22, 2009 6:46 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel J i am sorry you still do not understand , Einstein's work did not demonstrate there is no absolutes , the concept is beyond human comprehension . To claim such you must think yourself able to see beyond time and space . Can you prove what can not be understood by the finite mind ? You ask me to believe what you can not demonstrate . If you are killed by some one over religious or politics you still are dead , thats an absolute . Science is not rock solid it is based upon limited human understanding and continually changes .

Daniel Johnson June 22, 2009 5:31 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin: GPS is the practical proof. Only works with relativity. Time is a variable, not an absolute.

Kevin June 22, 2009 3:59 pm (Pacific time)

Are you absolutely sure that what you write is true?

Daniel Johnson June 22, 2009 3:52 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel: You're right about different ISMs being used as absolutes to justify inhuman behavior--communism, naziism, patriotism, etc. But they are ideas treated as psychological absolutes. There are no absolutes. It's rock solid science. I challenge you to demonstrate an absolute anywhere in space and time. If you can't then, quit bringing up that irrelevant bagatelle. The simplest demonstration of Einstein's original idea is found in our GPS system. They could not work if it weren't for the application of both of Einstein's theories--General and Special Relativity. Time flows at different rates depending on the relative speeds between two locations (special relativity) and flows at different rates according to the gravitational field. (general relativity) A satellite is in a weaker gravitational field compared to us on the surface of the earth, so time for an orbiting satellite flows slower compared to us. The difference is small, but measureable. If the two theories were not used, the GPS earth position would be off by ten kilometers after just one day and become farther and farther off every day.

Daniel June 22, 2009 3:17 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel J you make a religion out of being against religion . Again you make claims about Einstein declaring he proved there are no absolutes . That is like claiming there is no infinity because you can not comprehend it . There is no human that can comprehend an absolute because of the finite nature of the human form . Perhaps for you mathematics is your God, there have been many who tried to find god thru numbers , and in the process help create our modern mathematical system . If people of a lower nature did not use religious dogma to starts war they will and have used patriotism , or nationalism or racism to justify . Making some one conform to the society they live in with dress , culture and religion or non religion is extreme nationalism and racism .

[Return to Top]

Religion--A Long Way From Its Spiritual Roots

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News