The Golden Rule

To me, most religions are just too complicated for their own good. Believers will often say that the basic principles of their religion are simple; but then nobody can even agree on what the basic principles are, let alone agree on how to follow them.

I'd suggest that if Judaism, Christianity and Islam had never existed and instead we had only been attempting to follow something simple like The Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", that it probably would've been more effective than all the religions have been at making the world a better place. I'm not saying it would be easier though. I mean, it's pretty easy to justify owning slaves if you know where to look in the Christian Bible. But, trying to justify slave ownership using The Golden Rule? Not so much.

Am I suggesting that we should get together and form a religion called "The Golden Rule"? For heaven's sake, no. The last thing the world needs is another religion. I'm merely suggesting that it's much more difficult to abuse something simple like The Golden Rule than it is to abuse the main religions being practiced in the world today. Who knows, maybe we could spend our time actually trying to live by our convictions (oh, no!) rather than just arguing (or in many cases, literally killing each other) over who's going to hell and who's not and who's interpretation is the correct one. Maybe Jesus wouldn't have even been crucified back in the day. Oh, wait... Christians needed him to die, right?

Although many Christians would claim The Golden Rule as their own, most religions share it as one of their core principles. Probably the main reason it hasn't been more effective so far is that people keep letting their religion get in the way of actually living by it. More on that in a moment.

But seriously, just think about it. Even if we'd only been remotely successful at following The Golden Rule, do you really think we'd be worse off than we are now? Would the holocaust have happened? The genocide in Rwanda? September 11th? How about slavery? Christianity certainly didn't stop slavery. I'd be surprised if most of the slave owners in the United States weren't Christians. And as I alluded to before, I bet many of them could even quote scripture that they interpreted as backing slavery up.

Still, many Christians reading this are probably thinking that those slave owners were exceptions and that most Christians do follow The Golden Rule. However, I would counter than many, if not most of you, do not.

Here's the kicker:

Many Christians attach a bunch of assumptions and exceptions to The Golden Rule. For example, many Christians believe that deep in their hearts all people want to be "saved" whether they know it or not. So, therefore they often justify their judgments of others and efforts to "save" others by thinking that they would want someone to do the same for them if they hadn't found Christ yet. However, I can assure you that most religious people who are NOT Christians feel the EXACT same way about spreading their own religion. But, most Christians would be rather offended (or at least slightly put off) if a Muslim tried to convert them to Islam. Therefore, I'm sorry to say, since they would not like a Muslim doing the same to them, they are not really following The Golden Rule. Or how would Christians (at least the straight ones) like it if all the homosexuals kept trying to get them to give up their heterosexual ways and live like a homosexual? How do you think that would go over? Many Christians keep looking at it the convenient way, by saying once again, "Well, if I was gay, I'd want someone to set me (forgive the pun) straight". But once again, they're not really following The Golden Rule.

To put it plainly, it's not enough to simply imagine how YOU would feel walking in another person's shoes; you must actually try to imagine how THEY would feel walking in those shoes.

And that's not so easy to do.

Opinionated about Opinions

I've gotten into many arguments where I've been accused of being too open-minded, too wishy-washy for my own good. People want me to pick a side and then stick to it.

So, for those people who think I need to be more opinionated, I offer the following opinions:

• My opinion is that if you don't know what you're talking about, don't act like you do.
  
  
• My opinion is that most people don't know what they're talking about.
  
  
• My opinion is that people should spend more time trying to challenge and improve their opinions, rather than just finding ammunition to defend the ones they already have.
  
  
• My opinion is that opinions should grow and modify over time as you gain more knowledge and that this is NOT waffling; it is strong, realistic and smart.
  
  
• My opinion is that words like "perhaps" and "possibly" should be used more often.
  
  
• My opinion is that people who base their opinions merely on what they have been told are the weakest of people.
  
  
• My opinion is that an eye for an eye doesn't work and never has.
  
  
• My opinion is that most people have real reasons for what they do (whether they are wrong or right is another matter).
  
  
• My opinion is that you should always try to understand and empathize with the people you disagree with, ESPECIALLY if you consider them your enemy.
  
  
• My opinion is that most people actually enjoy having enemies because it gives them a sense of purpose, makes them feel important and gives them something to do and talk about.
  
  
• My opinion is that people often dislike and are scared by things that are unfamiliar.
  
  
• My opinion is that perhaps nothing is more courageous than the willingness to face the unknown with an open mind.
  
  

The truth is, no matter how unsatisfying this may sound, everything has many sides to it. There are often many truths, depending on the perspective from where you are standing. Trying to simplify things just to justify your own pre-conceived views is just a denial of the complexities of life. And although it may help you to sleep easy at night and make you feel strong, it is really just living in a fantasy world.

And yes, my opinion could change tomorrow...

Blind Allegiance

We should always be suspicious of any faith, leader, or organization that labels anyone who disagrees with them as a heretic. It allows their leaders complete freedom to use them as they see fit and without fear. Why aren't more fundamentalists more suspicious of this? Why are their leaders somehow always exempt? Can't they see how dangerous this is? It is an open invitation for abuse, and it is the one common element that all the world's most dangerous leaders have continually used to brainwash their followers and convince them to willingly and without question do their bidding.

September 11th is a perfect example. I know that many of the fundamentalist Christians out there will severely disagree with me on this, but the blind allegiance many of you are offering your various leaders and ministers is the exact same blind allegiance that Osama bin Laden used to get those hijackers to fly those planes into the World Trade Center.

Be honest, all you gun owning, fundamentalist Christians out there... if, instead of the United States, the most powerful country in the world was a Muslim country and you had been brought up to believe (perhaps in drastic error) that that country was trying to infiltrate, influence and eventually take over the United States with its Islamic principles... AND you had seen that very same government bomb and kill many Christians just like you around the world, tell me that at least some of you wouldn't be out there with all your guns throwing everything you had at them.

Now, I'm not saying that many of you would be willing to fly planes full of innocent civilians into buildings filled with innocent civilians. But I'd be willing to bet at least a few of you would. And as we all now know, a few is all it takes.

Enough Mindless Banter Already

People enjoy talking about stuff. Any stuff will do. They enjoy forming opinions based upon something they heard someone say somewhere or from something they read while waiting in the check out line two years ago. Basically just spouting stuff out their arse, all in an effort to feel included and keep their minds busy.

Does this mean that we should just refrain from talking? Well, I guess the quick answer would be yes. At least refrain from talking so much. Or, if you do decide to talk, maybe try talking about something you have at least some first-hand knowledge of, or perhaps something that actually effects your life in some direct way. At least that would be a start.

Be prepared though, your friends may not like your sudden transformation. It's much more fun to say things like "Yeah, I don't like (enter an actress' name here), she annoys me. She was such a bitch in that one movie...what was it called...the one with what's his name, (enter an actors name here)?". And that will often be followed by someone else saying something like "and didn't she have surgery on her nose or something? I heard that she trashed some guys camera after he took a picture of her left profile instead of her right."

And the sad thing is that I'm not just talking about teenagers here, I hear older people having conversations like this all the time. And what's even more sad, is that if they actually looked into what they were saying, they would find out that the actress they've been bashing wasn't even in the movie that the first person was talking about. They were confusing her with somebody else. She did have surgery on her nose, but she has actually always liked her left profile and she never destroyed anyone's camera. Plus, the character the actress was playing in the movie was SUPPOSED to be annoying. It's called ACTING!

But, probably the saddest part of all is that the people taking part in this conversation will probably carry that feeling about that actress around for years to come, disliking anything she's in and discrediting it. Years later they probably won't even remember the conversation, they'll just know that they don't like that actress.

A More Dangerous Fear

In the year that I write this, 2005, one of the main buzz words out there for all the Democrats after their recent presidential election defeat is "fear". The idea is that George W. Bush won because he capitalized on fear; fear of more terrorist attacks and fear that "the liberals" are destroying the moral values of our country.

However, even though I'd agree that Bush probably did win by using fear, I would suggest that there is a much more dangerous fear being used out there. Even though this may sound rather extreme, I would offer that one of the biggest threats we face is the fear many religious fundamentalists feel about either going to hell or becoming alienated from their "brethren". Too many are frozen in fear that if they question, challenge or (God forbid) abandon their beliefs, that they would be estranged from their family, loose their circle of friends and face "the eternal fire" after they die.

Why is this so dangerous? It is this fear that keeps many fundamentalists from truly listening to anyone except people they already agree with. It is this fear that keeps them from thinking for themselves and instead, let their leaders do their thinking for them. It is this fear that allows corruption to flourish. It is this fear that keeps them in judgment over the "non-believers", which in turn keeps them from being able to truly empathize with many people all over the world. They are too afraid that if they even slightly agreed with a "non-believer" on any level, then they would be letting Satan corrupt them.

As long as many religious fundamentalists let this fear rule them, we will never really be able to heal the rift that currently has such a stronghold on our world, both politically and religiously. Most fundamentalists will simply wait for the other side to see their light, and will never even allow themselves to imagine, let alone see the light that the other side may be holding. They are too afraid it will light their way to hell.

Fast Food Faith

Fast food can be based upon convenience, but faith shouldn't be.

Throughout history people have used religion to justify almost any act, often following only the principles which are convenient to them at the time. To an absurd level this continues today. And no one does it better than the Christians.

But, lest some of you brand me a heretic too quickly, I offer the following caveats. I believe that most people of faith, whatever religion they belong to, are basically good people with good intentions trying to live good lives. Most of my family and many of my friends are Christians and are very good people. It should also be said that I am mostly targeting fundamentalists with this blog, although not entirely. I also readily acknowledge that many religions have done and continue to do much good in this world.

That being said however, it could easily be said that religion has done far more harm than good. By nature it divides rather than unites and facilitates judgment upon those who are on the outside of the "organization". It has been used to justify more killing and more atrocities than any other force in human history. To put it bluntly, most religions are just too easy to abuse. If someone wants to do something bad enough, they almost never let their religion stand in their way. They always seem to find a loophole. There are just too many verses and interpretations of those verses to choose from.

Because the Bible claims to be the word of God, many use this as all the authority they need to use any verse or chapter they want in order to support their cause. It's all the word of God right?

But, what they choose to ignore is that just because something claims to be the word of God, that doesn't mean that the statements contained therein don't need to be prioritized and kept in context. When this is forgotten, many people tend to, whenever it is convenient to them, use the meaning of any verse to override the overall meaning of the chapter, and use any verse or chapter to override the overall meaning of the Bible. It allows the most important principles like "Love your enemy" and "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" to be of no greater significance than statements claiming, for example, that homosexuality is a sin.

But, let's quickly take a look at homosexuality being considered a sin. In the same part of Romans that mentions that homosexuality is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), we are told that adultery is also a sin of equal consequence. Now, that probably won't surprise many of you until you realize that in Luke 16:18 Jesus defined a man or woman who has divorced and remarried as also being an adulterer.

So, obviously fundamentalist Christian ministers aren't performing marriages in their churches for anyone who has been divorced, right? Oh, many do? Hmmm, ok, well then if they are allowing sinners to get married in their churches, surely they must be allowing homosexuals to get married in their churches too, right? No? Well, then that would seem to be a little bit hypocritical now wouldn't it?

And if you think I'm implying that I believe that churches shouldn't be performing marriages for people who have been married before, you are completely missing my point.

And I could very easily find many other verses in the Bible that would poke holes in most of the fundamentalist's main social agendas, or at least their consistency in following them. And people who disagree with me could do the same thing back. That is why it is the wrong way to read the Bible, or for that matter, the wrong way to read anything.

Actually, I would wager that one of the main reasons that Christianity and Islam have become so powerful is that both the Bible and the Koran are particularly easy to abuse.

As I write this, I can just see many Christians out there reading this frantically thumbing through their Bibles to find verses to throw at me. It is really very sad. People start throwing verses around like insults, "Oh yeah, well what about when it says here in chapter such and such, verse such and such that (insert here whatever verse supports their point)?" And running to grab that single Bible verse, which ever so conveniently reinforces your current argument, may just be the same thing as you running to grab a Big Mac at McDonalds, very convenient, but in the end, bad for you.

Introduction to Meblogger

As if the world needs another personal blog, I'm here to contribute yet another self indulgent diatribe.

For the past several years, I've found myself more and more feeling the need to write. So, I guess this blog just gives me a friendly place to try my hand at it. Whether or not this will elevate to anyone's reading list, let alone anyone's must read list is another matter altogether.

Mostly, as with many other bloggers, I just want a place to vent. And although at this particular moment I feel myself mostly wanting to vent about political and religious topics, it is very possible that after getting some of the more "rantish" ideas out of my system, that some of my future posts may end up being more personal in nature. That being said however, my intention is not to make this a personal diary of my oftentimes mundane daily life, but merely a record of my broader observations (which admittedly may be a bit much sometimes).

So, in a nutshell, this is really just an effort to purge my mind of some of these persistent thoughts that crawl around in my head crying out in their little mischievous voices, "write me down, write me down you fool!" Of course whether or not me hearing these voices means I belong in the looney bin, well I guess after you've read a few of my blog entries, you'll just have to make up your own mind on that one.

So, now that I've got this little introduction out of the way...where to start, where to start...