Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Wiccan: None of the Above
Posted: November 5th, 2004, 12:30 am
Christian: One who believes the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce
Various “faiths” are flourishing these days in California. Whether they are fundamentalists or muslims, buddhists or jews, pagans or Catholics, these “faithful” people continually argue and bicker over their rights to worship whatever religion they care to, and continually assert that their particular religion should be represented and respected by public institutions. No one seems to argue, however, about the actual truth of these “faiths.” Are they all true and aiming for the same spiritual goal? Obviously the Christians—whether protestant or catholic--have the majority and the weight of tradition behind them, for better or worse. The multitudes of evangelicals that voted in Bush certainly believe they have some mandate due to their superior numbers; to more secular-minded types, the protestant victory brings up fears of mob rule and "the tyranny of the majority."
It seems not to have occurred to any of these “faithful” humans (whether they are Baptist bonehead sunday schoolers, muslim zealots aiming their prayers towards Mecca, or a small group of intoxicated feminists chanting to the Moon Goddess) that there is no rational explanation or justification for their beliefs. Faith is not a method of proof. And no miracles have ever been confirmed (notwithstanding regular reports of, say, the Virgin of Guadalupe), nor are there any grounds for believing in occult or mystical phenomena. ( Bayes' Theorem demonstrates that as decades and then centuries pass with no other verified reports of miracles--at least of the wizard-type such as water-walking, water into wine, raising the dead--then the likelihood of any miracles ever having occured steadily diminishes). Jesus walking on water OR an all-seeing prophet such as Mohammed OR a moon goddess OR the zodiac are all, I assert, equally false.
We might agree that there are noble ethical truths expressed in religious texts; the Sermon on the Mount, for example, provides some decent rules for human conduct, even if we don’t subscribe to the belief system. Many reasonable humans would agree the Ten Commandments are in principle correct, I think; we might also respect Buddha’s teachings that “life is suffering.” Yet these ethical rules are not usually what is being debated. What is debated is who or what we should worship, what is the proper theological authority, what is the appropriate spiritual King whom we should obey.
Obviously the Founding Fathers made sure that no particular faith would become the state religion, and no citizen is required to be a member of any church. We should recall that Founding Fathers such as Jefferson or Franklin or Washington did not subscribe to any organized form of Christianity; their ideas and thoughts being more molded by Enlightenment thought and Greek rationalism. That type of rationality is now, unfortunately, in short supply. Indeed, Bush and Cheney and their henchmen repeatedly claim theirs is the "right God", and the GOP success was due largely to the efforts of "conservative Christians" who have converted the Beatitudes and Christ's gospel of forgiveness--a message which has some merit considered from a purely materialist and atheistic perspective-- into a sort of redneck capitalist jihad......
Various “faiths” are flourishing these days in California. Whether they are fundamentalists or muslims, buddhists or jews, pagans or Catholics, these “faithful” people continually argue and bicker over their rights to worship whatever religion they care to, and continually assert that their particular religion should be represented and respected by public institutions. No one seems to argue, however, about the actual truth of these “faiths.” Are they all true and aiming for the same spiritual goal? Obviously the Christians—whether protestant or catholic--have the majority and the weight of tradition behind them, for better or worse. The multitudes of evangelicals that voted in Bush certainly believe they have some mandate due to their superior numbers; to more secular-minded types, the protestant victory brings up fears of mob rule and "the tyranny of the majority."
It seems not to have occurred to any of these “faithful” humans (whether they are Baptist bonehead sunday schoolers, muslim zealots aiming their prayers towards Mecca, or a small group of intoxicated feminists chanting to the Moon Goddess) that there is no rational explanation or justification for their beliefs. Faith is not a method of proof. And no miracles have ever been confirmed (notwithstanding regular reports of, say, the Virgin of Guadalupe), nor are there any grounds for believing in occult or mystical phenomena. ( Bayes' Theorem demonstrates that as decades and then centuries pass with no other verified reports of miracles--at least of the wizard-type such as water-walking, water into wine, raising the dead--then the likelihood of any miracles ever having occured steadily diminishes). Jesus walking on water OR an all-seeing prophet such as Mohammed OR a moon goddess OR the zodiac are all, I assert, equally false.
We might agree that there are noble ethical truths expressed in religious texts; the Sermon on the Mount, for example, provides some decent rules for human conduct, even if we don’t subscribe to the belief system. Many reasonable humans would agree the Ten Commandments are in principle correct, I think; we might also respect Buddha’s teachings that “life is suffering.” Yet these ethical rules are not usually what is being debated. What is debated is who or what we should worship, what is the proper theological authority, what is the appropriate spiritual King whom we should obey.
Obviously the Founding Fathers made sure that no particular faith would become the state religion, and no citizen is required to be a member of any church. We should recall that Founding Fathers such as Jefferson or Franklin or Washington did not subscribe to any organized form of Christianity; their ideas and thoughts being more molded by Enlightenment thought and Greek rationalism. That type of rationality is now, unfortunately, in short supply. Indeed, Bush and Cheney and their henchmen repeatedly claim theirs is the "right God", and the GOP success was due largely to the efforts of "conservative Christians" who have converted the Beatitudes and Christ's gospel of forgiveness--a message which has some merit considered from a purely materialist and atheistic perspective-- into a sort of redneck capitalist jihad......
laughing meditation 
