3…
There are three main factors that make life hard to live in the world, economics, politics and religion.
Now, in ancient history wars were mostly fought because of politics or economics but after 400 AD religion became the primary motivation for conflict as the intolerance of Abrahamic monotheism replaced the relatively relaxed polytheistic mindset of nations and empires. So many wars, revolts and genocide’s were about faith that it’s quite a task to categorise them, 20 million dead here, 40 million there, not only the deaths themselves but the methods was inspired or dictated by quotes from the OT, Jesus or the apostles. Then Islam began to lose its benign influence, and became reactionary, just as the Enlightenment began in Europe they started torturing woman to death for not wearing a veil in public. Then finally the motives shifted again away from pure faith, back to economics, and the dream of empire. After that, the political ideologies of the far left and right took over.
The 20th century saw the worst wars yet, more dead then ever before, but only because the technology to kill was so drastically improved. It is tempting to blame science at this point, but that is losing site of the true nature of the relationship between it and humanity. Science is the study of reality, and the application of that knowledge. The reason so much of this application is often directed to weapons of war is due to the fact that wars are continuously fought, and still for the same reasons. This time the other two motives took over again, economics and politics, but recently we have seen the swing in favour of religion again.
The conclusion to be reached from this is not just that religion is a terrible thing and should be blamed for all the suffering it caused, but that humanity always finds it’s reasons when it wants to do evil. However, it appears that religion, only when it gets powerful enough, becomes the motive, and when weaker the other two kick in. It seems the amount of wars fought throughout history is about the same, only the excuses change, and we shouldn’t mistake the latest pattern for a permanent change, religion didn’t get bad and stay that way, it all depends on what the dominant factor of society is at any given time.
In other words faith is the harbinger of horror when it is in charge, otherwise other reasons will be found, they all take turns. The theist must realise that their religions are just a factor at the mercy of men’s whims. If a nation or leader wishes war, whatever reason is at hand will be used. If the religious right in America or fundamentalist in the Middle East succeed in dominated their respective cultures, all they will be providing is a 3rd spoke in the wheel of misery. The harder they work at getting their beliefs centre stage, the greater the chances it will become the motive of choice. The amount of conflict is, in this way, constant. The degree in which faith is the main factor for war is in proportion to its strength. Religion does not improve matters, it has no right to claim moral superiority, the only way it can avoid once more taking its place in the arena of death its to stay out of power and influence. If the 21st century isn’t to become about war between Christian and Muslim again then both ideologies need to moderate themselves, or it may be necessary for the forces of reason the take a stand.
Politics can be improved though democracy, transparency and diplomacy, economics though sound planning and fairness, but religion can only make things better though its absence. It is the only one of the three mankind can live without, by its removal one less factor will be there to threaten humanity. Theist can’t just keep looking at the twentieth century, point to communism and nazism and say, "look, here were two terrible evils and they weren’t religious!", because that is just ignoring not just what went before but what is happening as we speak and what will happen in the future. They, indeed all of us must take the broad view, I have often found looking at things from the largest possible context, taking as much in to account as is possible, makes things clearer. That is why I am a generalist instead of a specialist. I find focusing too much and what you like or dislike, as theists do on communism and atheists do on medieval religious persecution, misses the big picture. Humanity is a wonderful and a terrible thing, it only takes one ego, one person to kill millions, Alexander, Hitler, Stalin, Cortez, so many killed because of just one human, one will, one persons goals. I found that every human on earth has the potential, in theory to kill every other human, it is a terrifying thought, but an inevitable conclusion. That is why I issue this warning to the religious out there, your faith is but a tool for mankind, for the sake of humanity, don’t let it become one powerful enough to kill us all.
Because given the chance, it will, and I for one think it’s has enough chances.
In a sense I should thank you, the faithful who contribute to these many forums. In my study of history I fixated on religion, whenever I can across another pogrom against the Jews started by a bishop or priest, I would add it to my list of things to hold against religion. You know, the one atheists bring out whenever we argue against theists. I all but ignored the atrocities begun for other reasons, however in observing the arguments between atheist and believer, I was forced to recognise the part other factors had to play in history, and the relationship they had with each other. The times the atheist would say, "Crusade!", or "Inquisition!" and the theist would say, "Holocaust!", "Communism!" I realised both sides were only seeing what they wanted to, that in a sense the tunnel vision was as true for us thinkers as well as followers.
In pointing out the flaws of our opponents we should make sure we have removed them from ourselves. I have now done this in my study of history, from now on my argument is not just that religion, through its very nature is inhumane, but also, because it is just as susceptible to the flaws in human nature as everything else. It is not in any way special or exempt. To suggest so is to dishonour the memories of all those millions who have already died, directly as a result of faith. If any of you truly value humanity and not just your god, you should be attempting to tackle the flaws themselves, but not with the tool that is all too susceptible to them.
It is extremism at the end of the day that is the enemy to the humanist or humanitarian, it has to be spotted in time in whatever form it takes, religious or otherwise. The truth of the matter is that as humans we can’t afford to argue about which is the best way to live, secular or otherwise, but ask ourselves, "are we good people, is compassion, empathy and tolerance the creeds we live by?" That is more important than whether god exist, or whether Noah really did get all those animals into the ark. This needs to be sorted out first, our species into the humane and inhumane, were do you stand? I invite the theist to look at history and see the pattern for yourself and still say "religion is the best means" and not just part of the problem. But before you do, look hard at yourselves and ask, "am I, with my beliefs a positive influence on mankind?" Then ask again after you have looked at what your faith has done to every nation it had touched. Would it not be better to simply be a positive influence without the faith that you cannot answer for, or guarantee what it part in the future will be? The first and second world wars were for reasons other than faith but that doesn’t mean the third won’t be over the name of a god.
I still think that religion and respect for human life are incompatible, at the end of the day you have to choose which is more important to you, humanity or obeying your god. If you choose god then you have no right to consider yourselves a part of civilised society, anymore than a pitiless psychopath incapable of empathy. I am irreligious not because I have a bigotry towards xtianity, or was hurt by a xtian, but because I am a humanitarian, first and foremost. I care more about humanity than ANYTHING, and I will not accept anything as more important, because the moment I do, is when life on earth becomes of no importance at all.
Every ideology has a tendency to be pushed to its logical conclusion, it is not inevitable but a recurrent phenomena, everyone should visualise whatever they have dedicated there lives to as been taken to the extreme, is it still good? Is it still benefiting mankind? If so then your either a humanist or a humanitarian, for they are the only creeds that are, by their nature incapable of becoming self serving, or putting themselves before mankind, can you honestly say the same about any religion or political ideology?
A. Uiet Bhor
------: back 2 essays :------
-----------------: homepage :-----------------