I don't suppose you'd condemn democracy, or perhaps socialism, not sure, no offense, I just don't know what you think, simply because it's a form of mass belief.
First; I don't condemn religion. I don't want any of it for myself, and it makes me more than a bit nervous, but I certainly don't contest the right of believers to practice their beliefs.
Second, I'm pretty sure I would oppose a movement that tried to approach a belief I hold as if it were a religion. Fo example, I am a great believer in free trade. But if someone declared the virtues of free trade to be absolute, revealed truth, and began preaching it as the sole remedy to all economic ills, applicable without revision to all throughout the world, I would jump ship pretty damned quick.
I find religious beliefs more threatening than secular ones, because they deny the possibility of debate. Reasonable people can reasonably discuss the relative merits of capitalism and socialism, democracy and oligarchy, dealing entirely with material and debatable parameters. The moment one introduces faith, one leaves the realm where debate is possible. Either you believe or you don't. The same situation all too often occurs with secular beliefs; it is inexcusable in either. The moment people cease to question, they surrender a fundamental part of their humanity, and become tools for others to manipulate.
I don't know if Christ was really so wonderful or not. I have often suspected that the Christ-figure of our mythology has little to do with any historical person, and is simply our own compendium of all that we think best in ourselves, as Satan is our compendium of all that we think worst in ourselves.
That is, of course, the perspective of a non-believer.
On the subject of not condemning a religion for the deeds of its followers, I have to wonder. We have two religions, Christianity and Islam, which demonstrate particular track records for inspiring violence. Whether or not that violence had anything to do with the actual precepts of those religions seems to me less than material: since these religions do seem easily manipulated to provoke violence, wouldn't we be better off, if we must have religion, with religions such as Buddhism, which seems very difficult to twist into an excuse for violence?
If religions that emphasize exclusivity and demand that followers seek to convert others - two qualities shared by Christianity and Islam - are observed to have a tendency to create strife, should we not switch to religions which emphasize tolerance? |
