Human beings are too much alike to be separated by the artificial boundaries and limits willingly or unwittingly placed upon them. The fact that language isolates communities from each other is a far more pressing problem than religion should be but unfortunately this is not the case.
While politicians of almost any stripe, in an effort to calm and control populations, fall upon religious belief as an a indication of their sincerity this profession of belief remains an evasion of, rather than a confrontation with, the problems which beset almost any society.
Regardless our social position, wealth, or education the fact is that we, as human beings, share most things together. The things we share are most easily seen by no closer observation than the likeness of our physical form and its’ obvious needs. One cannot reasonably argue that anyone on the planet physically needs much more or less than the next person in order to survive and prosper. Clearly physical infirmity demands more resources than a healthy body but beyond the special needs of those with infirmities there is little to separate the rest of us with regard to our physical needs. Differences therefore must be inventions residing in our minds.
What is the pressing need that forces us to separate ourselves as though we are strangers? How is it that we can seek and find acceptance within some social groupings and not others? Why do we invent and allude to the concept of the stranger? Why have we invented religions and gods who must be worshiped? What prevents us from acknowledging our mental similarities? Is the fear brought on by the acknowledgement of our mortality at the root of our social problems?
We have the ability to use our minds instead of allowing our minds to be used. It is necessary first of all to accept that as individuals we do have control. This is a very difficult step to take due to the fact that during the most formative part of our lives we are told what we can and cannot and in addition how to do it. Dependency is the nature of the warm-blooded beast, if for no other reason than the impossibility of raising any child as an independent entity. No creature survives infancy without being cared for in some fashion regardless the time period of the exposure. In humans the time period of this state of dependency is longer than any other animal and therefore the assistance is the greatest. This allows information to be repeatedly passed on not only by the parent but also by many others who come in contact with the child over this long period. The information gained and the manner in which it is delivered have a lasting effect throughout the life of the person. It is then necessary that we interact with other humans who express another and different philosophy in order that we expand beyond this parochial understanding.
The fact that groups of humans had been separated from other groups of humans over centuries by virtue of physical barriers allowed the development of any number of differences such as skin color, language, and culture all contributing to a mental isolation based on these characteristics, eventually revealed through the formation of nation states and their cultural symbols alluding to these differences. Foods, clothing, manners, religious belief and practices all appear to go hand in hand with language and skin color. People may be forced to move away from a culture if there is a shortage of food or shelter but there has to be a reason beyond this to explain movement from a culture with sufficient resources. As a result of an upheaval of this sort many customs and even language over a period of time would have to change as evidenced in the manner of life accepted and practiced by the moved peoples.
The utilization of religious belief takes away responsibility for the control we exercise over our actions and delivers this to another imaginary but politically useful so called higher power. As long as this so called higher power lies outside the realm of human judgment any actions resulting from a consultation with or an appeal to it allows an avoidance of responsibility while gaining justification for whatever action is taken. George Bush’s reasoning for the attack on Iraq was based on a religious belief expressed as political ideology and substantiated with false information. There was no appeal to logic beyond that allowed as a claim dictated and justified by religious faith. In any impartial analysis this incursion for all intents and purposes needed little more than that excuse to cover up the real reason behind this disaster, to assure a continued oil supply.
When responsibility for action is thus handed off to a higher power the human element of greed or need by our society can and often is effectively removed from judgment. This reasoning is hardly correct or justifiable beyond the narrow parameter offered and accepted through the reliance of unverifiable, but clearly in a country where some god has the last word, undeniable religious logic. So long as others within the societal context share or accept the belief system little more than a mild social criticism will be offered. When any person removes himself or herself from responsibility by virtue of an accepted religious belief that recusal is tolerated, applauded, accepted and followed. Religious belief has then become not only a reason for constructive but also and ominously, through this claim of objectivity, a pardon used to deflect the onus of destructive behavior toward unspoken subjective ends. Once again hundreds of thousands of human beings and their accomplishments can be destroyed in an economic war excused as a god’s will.
It is in this fashion that many if not all leaders have justified the most heinous effects of taking their nations to war. There is no logical reason offered that justifies the immense expenditures to any economy which supports a war machine of any sort. If if our nation’s people through our government were to exercise any real judgment we would stop paying lip service to the call for disarmament. The United States, as a haven for so called religious freedom, in practice promotes a mental enslavement to escape from the one reality of life. The denial of total and complete mortality is stopping the simple, reasonable idea of peace from achieving fruition. This flight from reason is what allows the world to continue on a path of assured destruction. The fact is that children who play with loaded guns almost invariably hurt and often kill themselves or others. Without any respect supposedly mature men and women who control armaments, steeped as they are in religious belief, indicate no more judgment than the children cited in the last sentence.
What would be the consequence if the manufacture and sale of all weapons by the United States were prohibited and we were to disband our armed forces unilaterally? Would we as a nation be attacked? Would Canadian or Mexican armed forces invade our country? Would Venezuela and Cuba send gun ships to Miami? Would China or Russia or North Korea drop bombs or send missiles to destroy us? It would not be too difficult to send a communication to Canada and Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba, China, Russia and North Korea and simply ask them what they would do. Do these questions seem naïve? If so, seek to answer them as easily as they are posed. Some leader of some nation has to take a step away from the posturing madness brought about by the fear of death. No world problem of any sort will ever be solved so long as the premise is a lie. Life after death is the lie denying any chance for peace on this only earth and in this only life we will ever know.