.

RELIGION Should Support GOVERNMENT

Separate the Institutions but not the support.

RELIGION in support of GOVERNMENT

Social Science 1A

Religion has every right, even a duty, and an obligation to reinforce government, education, parentage, the economy, arts, recreation and amelioration.  These aforementioned institutions cannot grow and flourish without religious support.  The less unadulterated the religious behavior, the greater and more perfect is society.  Religion has to be intertwined, coupled and be an integral part of culture.  Religion is, “The universally acquired feelings, holding sacred the behavior, essential for the survival of the species.”  

However, religion cannot, and must not take over the duties of other institutions; even if a society had the full participation of its citizens in a non-supernatural and non-dogmatic belief system.  Nonetheless, we have a society which holds supernatural and dogmatic beliefs, throughout a number of sects.  We now find that the most dangerous of the sects is assuming power.

We are witnessing an incremental appropriation of power in the U.S. by the most diabolical, disastrous, and destructive type of religious zealots: Evangelical Fundamentalists.  If the U.S. is to survive, we have to expunge such poisonous behavior.  Religious superstition, supposition, and the belief in supernatural causality have no place in government. 

Believing in superstitions, and the supernatural, is almost harmless to the self and to society.  But, actually acting out such beliefs will yield disastrous results.  All of human behavior is cause>effect, cause>effect, cause>effect, ad infinitum.  Imagine a little child playing Super Man.  This immature being runs around with a towel tied around its neck, arms outstretched, pretending to fly.  This is harmless, unless said child has the faith that human flight is possible, and thereby jumps off of a roof.  Thus, this entertaining, cute, and harmless play becomes a catastrophe.  This child had a supernatural belief.  The word, “supernatural,” is defined as beyond science, not of the laws of nature.  There is no harm to think, talk, or write about science-fiction, or even act it out.  But, if this science-fiction becomes causal faith, then the child dies.  This imagined scenario is extreme.  Even for such a young, and immature child, some thought given to the immediate and unfavorable consequences, would prevent such a tragedy.

Now into the adult world; if you want to believe that Minerva was born from the head of Jupiter (Athena from Zeus), or any of the other traditional and invented beliefs, which are contrary to the laws of nature, go ahead. This is not as cute as playing Super Man, but fairly harmless.  However, turn these thoughts into an explanation of causality, which defies scientific principles, and we have global malfeasance.

Keep in mind, the State should never pass person-hood laws (a dress code), but only group laws (traffic regulations).  When all the differences are removed from all the lasting religions, there is a common thread.  Behavior for the survival, growth, and flourishing of the Society, and holding such behavior sacred, is an integral part of every religion.  Every successful community, culture, and society has this religious element.  The various methods of instilling this sacredness are many.  The government has a duty to protect religion, so religion can accomplish the goal of holding sacred the good life.  Government also has the duty to protect itself, and other institutions, from the effects of a systematic belief in supernatural causality.  When the latter happens, government should intervene to stop the encroachment. 

  However government should stay out of regulation of spirituality.  Expressed differently, do not interfere with how a person motivates itself to hold sacred his religion.  If a person wants to believe in a god, or whatever dogma he chooses, it is no one else’s business, except the person who so chooses.  And to the contrary, if a person doesn’t believe in God, or gods, then what is the problem?  There is none.  As a liberal, I would never under any circumstance try to change a person’s religious beliefs, nor would I criticize the method a person chooses to be moral, in a collective.  If one is comfortable with how one believes, then I am happy for that one.  Behavior is the ultimate morality, not the path taken to moral behavior.

To reiterate: One’s belief in God, and particular sacred methods, is a personal choice, and best kept private.  Government has no right to attempt to change said belief.  But openly, preach your Godism, badger people in public about your Godism, do so at your social peril.  Try to pass laws that reflect your religious views, then government has the duty to intervene and stop it.  The government has the duty to protect the rest of the institutions, and itself, from religions’ harmful parochial methods.  One example: Creation is one such harmful causality.  It is one of those particular sacred dogmas.  It is completely outside the realm of science and logic to believe Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs 10,000 years ago.  Earth is a little more than 4.5 billion years old.  Any laws for, or against, evolution are group-way laws, and therefore it is legitimate for government to actively take interest and regulate such laws.  Another harmful causality religious belief is any Anti-abortion law.  These are religious laws, existing without any scientific merit for society. 

We should be aware when a political candidate aims to implement his sacred and imaginary objects of his faith into law.  What is relatively harmless, in private affairs, will now have dire consequence to the entire social group.  Even if a lawmaker does not try to pass laws reflecting their religious beliefs, there could be a problem.  This lawmaker has legitimized, and embedded into his subconscious that imagined behavior is reality.  Laws are then passed for a species that does not exist. 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

keith a dewey July 07, 2012 at 03:32 AM
This blog has been up for 4 days without a comment and yet it is harsher on the stupids then my previous ones. I also wrote a blog on group laws and got some person complaining about pit-bull regulations. My conclusion is that if a blog is non academic, perceived to be name calling and uses simple reasoning then the conservatives come out in droves. But be as scholarly as one can in 1 ½ pages with multiple layered concepts and the conservatives are left in the dust. The same went for my structure blog. At least there I got a comment: “Huh?”

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »