Religion And Those Who Practice It

A confluence of recent headlines has pushed religion to the forefront of politics yet again. The passing of Pope John Paul II has caused millions to collectively bow their heads, and, it can be hoped, engage in a few minutes of introspection and prayer. Any time people have their heads bowed and are praying is good because they at least won't be out in the streets running checkpoints in vehicles weighed down with explosives, or getting on buses with dynamite under their robes, or taking shots at security guards and receptionists at women's health centers, or attempting to storm into hospices to thwart the wishes of a very gravely injured woman and her husband. Religion is best when practiced quietly.

For the reported "1 billion" people who look to the Pope for guidance (according to a news story I heard last night), the death of God's emissary on earth must be a trying and unsettling time. I'm no Catholic, nor fan of organized religion, and so by extension I view the entire Catholic apparatus as a curiousity held over from the Dark Ages (note: not Middle Ages, I mean dark ages). While it is no doubt true that certain monks in the 10th through 14th centuries (nontably in Ireland) saved a large part of philosophical thought by hoarding books then being burned like logpiles on the Continent, in the modern world the need for such a monolithic entity escapes me. In addition to saving the works of Aristotle, Petrarch, Thucydides and others, the Catholic church also gave us 300 years of absolute terror and retrogression of the advancement of mankind with their Spanish Inquisition. It is hard to imagine now how a church could have so much power that anyone outside of it could be deprived of not only their property but also their lives. The Church even anointed rulers, holding commoner and king in its "tender" grip.

Current events in the Terri Schiavo circus would have one thinking that a certain white, Protestant swath of America wants us to return to the fond embrace of a church that dictates all manner of life. Tom DeLay recently threatened that Congress is "contemplating impeaching" the judges involved with keeping Jeb Bush from declaring himself Terri Schiavo's guardian, among other atrocities. These same folks want what they call "prayer in schools," which is a slightly disingenuous way of saying they want Jesus prayed to at recess. They cover this up by saying the child will be free to "worship" whomever they choose. But we all don't worship in the same way, do we? There is no such thing as a non-denominational group lead prayer. Forget about Muslims and Jews and Buddhists for a moment, and consider Mormons, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, and Raelians (to prove a point). What do they propose, a rotating day by day switch in which type of worship? Okay, kids, it's Mormon Monday so we're all going to put on our sacred underwear and pray to the Angel Moroni. (Or something, not being a Mormon, I'm using broad strokes.) The point is, these same WWJD people would be outraged. Imagine if we gave equal treatment to all religions at elementary schools. I personally would love the week where we psychically contact our space alien brothers, a la French racecar driver Claude Vorhillon (aka "Rael").

For President Bush to issue such a dimbulb statement as, "we should always seek to err on the side of life" is an insult to any thinking American, religious or not. If there was a concerted effort to prevent the real issue here, abortion, the church groups would embrace birth control. The easiest, surest, simplest way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There is a ridiculous program in many churches that lines up their vestal virgins and has them take a pledge to remain chaste and pure until marriage, often culminating in a promise ring type of ceremony. Of course, studies have revealed that the girls who do take these promises are 6 times more likely to give blow jobs and 4 times more likely to have anal sex than their classmates who do not take the pledge. That is one of those facts that the religious politicos find so discomforting, and so they choose to ignore it.

The other event that has religion on many radars is the release of the new album by Beck. Beck is a Scientologist. Apparently this is not a religion that one can be a total slacker in, which could be considered a saving grace of Protestant and Catholic churches. I don't know much about Scientology but it, like all other organized efforts at indoctrination and dogmatic thought, I don't particularly like. I've heard it said that Scientology is not even a religion per se, it's a philosophical technique. And this from a friend of mine, Megan, who is a Scientologist. I don't think Beck has any sort of Scientological messages in his music and he's a musician I greatly admire, but the fact that he's so popular will inevitably draw his fans to the "church" of Scientology (again, another disingenous bit of semantics.) But in America, is not that his right? To attack Beck on his religious beliefs, no matter what we think of them, is no better than attacking him on his selection of a mate. Which many people find no problem doing, always sticking their noses in other people's bedrooms when there are "mixed" couples, be it color, gender, religious preference, whatever. If Beck actually sang any songs about L. Ron Hubbard, then perhaps a warning bulletin might be in order. But how many people get their panties in a twist when Bono says something about Catholicism? At least the Scientologists didn't terrorize free thought for centuries and burn dissenters at the stake.

So which is worse? Bono the devout Catholic must therefore support the fondling of little boys by priests, must tacitly agree to the draconian tactics of the Inquisition, must really believe that you can be "voted" into being a holy being incapable of doing wrong, must accept all the dogma about saints and purgatory and communion and transubstantiation, etcetera ad infinitum. Who is attacking Bono? Or Ben Stiller must really believe that only his fellow Jews are chosen by God, everyone else is "goyim" which means, "cattle." Get those placards ready! So maybe Beck and Travolta and Anne Archer and Kirstie Alley believe in a space being named Xenu and that all illnesses can be prevented with mental concentration - the point is, all of it sounds ridiculous. But this is America and we have to let people believe whatever they want to believe. When the Tom DeLays and Bill Frists and Jeb Bushes get together and try to muscle their form of religion into our private lives, every single American, of any religious faith or creed, even Atheists, should be outraged. It's a fundamental principle of this nation that the government does not have the right to dictate religion.

There has been lame efforts to ally the Founding Fathers with some sort of Christian Identity movement, claiming them as forefathers to a theory that white, gun-loving Protestants seem to favor. The argument is that the Founding Fathers came over to practice a form of Christianity that is exclusive, evangelical, and more and more intolerant. These arguments are great for anyone who has no knowledge of history and who has no interest in learning any. The Puritans, who are being lauded as a righteous group who lead us from darkness, were in fact more in line with what we'd consider a David Koresh type of cult. They believed, along with Barkers and Levellers, that the world was coming to an end in 1666 and that they alone would be saved. The Puritans were an incredibly backwards sect, mocked and ridiculed by not only the English but also the French and Dutch. They're like a group that doesn't believe in electricity. Any person who tries to wed the Puritans to the Founding Fathers, is guilty of a heinous crime against logic, reason, history and the truth. The Puritan way may have been preferrable to being Catholic, or to belonging to the Church of England (and it's influence) but the Founding Fathers were desperately trying to establish an almost secular form of Christianity, one that would allow them to be slackers if they wanted and that would be forever protected from small-minded efforts to impose consensus through governmental apparati.

Yes, the Constitution can be amended, and yes, it is a "living" document that has been bent and shaped to follow the thinking of the times, with many obvious improvements like outlawing slavery and extending the right to vote to women, among other actions. The Founding Fathers wanted this to be the case but were under no illusion that every effort to amend the Constitution would be a greater good. In essence, they enabled us to play out as much rope as we like, and we are free to collectively hang ourselves, if that is our desire. Many GOP-ers seem to think that because it is possible, it proves it is right. They want their beliefs cast in iron, whether it is mandating prayer in schools, or forcing the 10 Commandments to be displayed in court rooms, or outlawing medical practices because they don't like them, and more. Imagine if instead of DeLay and Frist, if some Christian Scientists were at the helm of this SS Crazy Ship. They would seek to outlaw all medical intervention, and we'd be left with buildings specialising in laying of hands, not medicine. Imagine having your case decided in a court, where you are fighting for your life, and as you walk in the front doors there is a giant marble depiction of Mohammed dictating the Koran to the masses, and you yourself are "guilty" of something that is forbidden in the Koran, yet you are a Christian. Would you feel you were going to get a fair trial, and more importantly, would it even be possible to get a fair trial under those circumstances? These same politicians are moved by a religious zeal that clouds their minds to the possibility of a world they have made but dominated by a religious faction they disagree with. That is why we need walls keeping church and state forever separate.

Countries that live under religious law, which is termed Sharia in Islam, are places like Iran, Yemen, and other countries which we are busy invading and bombing. So which is it? Do we want freedom or religious law? The fact that the Bush people are the same ones pushing their rabid Christianity at home and denying people in other countries their right to live under a Spanish Inquisition type of government, is rich with comedic inconsistencies. It would be funny, but we are living under a government that has repeatedly sought to extend their influence into religion, one of the most personal areas, and they want you to believe what they believe. That is un-American, and everyone should vigorously oppose such efforts, especially conservative Christians because you have the most to lose.