"Rejecting the Perverted Language of Monotheism" by GrandaddyBonegrinder
| DarkPoet |
| Rachel |
| asailorsangel |
| MercyRain |
| manywalks |
| Jonas |
| Litteratus |
| Sharon Rose |
| Deeter |
| Anaelle |
| TropicalSnowstorm |
| cre |
| Lady_Ahz |
| profligez |
| worm |
| Solace |
| MEATGRINDER MAN |
|
Rejecting the Perverted Language of Monotheism
Introduction Many people believe American society is caught in a downward spiral of self-indulgent immorality. In the name of "civil liberties" and "civil rights", support groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have advocated the principle of maximum individual freedom. The result of this excessive individualism, many conservatives argue, is that traditional Judeo-Christian morality has been undermined as never before. The traditionalists claim that this once proud nation has been reduced to one of uncontrolled criminal violence, civil disorders, gang wars, and a drug fed morality crisis that knows no solution, other than a return to the time honored traditional values of the church (Bellah, 1984). Other social critics are quick to point out, however, that when discussing the moral history of this great country, conservatives often seem to overlook the fact that the United States was built upon the genocide of Native Americans, together with the theft of their lands, and upon the bloody backs of African and Caribbean slaves (Armstrong, 1993). Based on his observations of American society, Alexis de Tocqueville published his views on American democracy in his classic work De la démocratie en Amérique. His observations of American culture led him to the conclusion that the foundation of American society lies in the many varied communal associations. "Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations...In democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others" (de Tocqueville, 1835). Tocqueville believed that political democracy and social equality would, inevitably, replace the aristocratic institutions of Europe (Bellah, 1984). However, de Tocqueville was concerned that excessive individualism was undermining the strength of the American community and their positive associations. He worried about the dangers of despotism should the trend of individualism continue to weaken all types of positive associations, such as the church and the family. Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, along with Robert Bellah and the authors of Habits of the Heart, agree with de Tocqueville’s assessment of American culture. They contend that selfish individualism has indeed weakened the moral fabric of society and has undermined the traditional values of the community. To answer the question “What is needed to restore a healthy community?”, one of the solutions offered by these de Tocquevillian sociologists “is a return to the traditional moral values of the church” (Bellah, 1984). However, Derek Phillips, author of Looking Backward, A Critical Appraisal of Communal Thought, disagrees with both Putnam and Bella. Phillips contends “the consequence of the salience of religion is that those who are different will be designated as substandard and excluded from membership”. In reference to religious elitism, Phillips states “a collectivity that sees itself as a chosen people or its land, as the Promised Land, will attempt to exclude those who are different and those who are excluded are always viewed as inferior”. The monolithic community creates an “us against them” mentality with the privileged elite justifying an ideological rhetoric of dominance and inequality, thus alienating those with different beliefs (Phillips, 1999). For centuries moral philosophers such as John Locke have supported Philip’s theorem. More than three hundred years ago Locke was condemning the irrationally of organized religion. “So that, in effect, religion, which should most distinguish us from beasts, and ought most peculiarly to elevate us, as rational creatures, above brutes, is that wherein men most often appear most irrationality, and more senseless than beasts themselves” (1690). History tends to agree with Locke’s appraisal of Monotheism, in opposition to those romantics who propose a return to the traditional values of the church. Rather than being answer to many social problems that plague modern society, history shows the corrupted language of Monotheism has been the cause. Although preaching brotherly love and high moral values, the Church has incessantly championed genocide, slavery, human sacrifice, never ending warfare and other horrific, immoral crimes against humanity for thousands of years, in the name of God (Russell, 1957). Morality – A Combination of Nature and Nurture Many moral beliefs reflect the culture in which one grew up. For example, if one was raised in India, one may believe that it's morally permissible for wives to be burned alive along with their dead husbands on a funeral pyre. If one were raised a Mormon or grew up in Syria, one may believe that it's morally permissible to have more than one wife. If one grew up in the United States, one might likely believe that it is morally acceptable to kill off indigenous peoples and take their land for profit. Many sociologists believe that all morals are learned and cultural. In fact, Emile Durkheim, the father of modern sociology wrote that human nature is “merely the indeterminate material that the social factor molds and transforms” (1897). Even most early psychologists, who might be expected to argue on behalf of the human mind, have often depicted the mind as little more than a blank slate. However, recent research in the field of Darwinian Sociology and Evolutionary Psychology provides evidence contrary to Durkheim’s beliefs, and supports the hypothesis that human beings do indeed come pre-loaded with the instinctual moral patterns needed for survival of the species. Human social systems have been shaped by evolutionary processes for millions of years. Human societies exist in their present form because they work, or at least have worked in the past, not because they are based on any kind of revelation. Species survival is the ultimate goal. Instinctual moral systems evolved because they ultimately promoted human survival and reproduction. In the course of human evolution, intellectual controls developed as modifiers to primitive instinct because they provided more optimum survival behavior than available with the primitive instincts. Human intelligence allows the human to substitute intellectual control for instinct, when determining proper action (behavior). That substitution is called 'self-discipline' or 'self-control'. Many anthologists argue that intellectual "self-control over instincts" is what distinguishes primates from lower forms of animals. Yet, instincts developed over millions of years always remain available just below conscious threshold of intelligence. Highly emotional circumstances always call up instinctive reactions, and emotional reaction usually means regression from the intellect to the instinct (Wright, 1994). Consider the treatise on crowd psychology presented by Gustave Le Bon. Le Bon's research shows that within a crowd people act without thinking and they become "primitive," driven purely by emotion and instinct. Rational thought is lost. They can easily become violent and destructive. A crowd is “a frightful combination of chaos, credulity and passion as persons within the crowd automatically regress to more primordial, animal-like states of being while under the influence of an, emotionally-compelling leader” (Le Bon, 1896). The Evolution of Morality The hominid has been a tribal animal for the past four million years, the human (Homo) for the past two million years. The evolutionary origins of morality are easy to imagine in such a long lived social species. A sense of fairness would have helped early primates cooperate providing a better chance of survival. A sense of disgust and anger at cheaters would have reinforced the positive aspect of fair play. Recent studies by Primatologists have shown that moral instincts do indeed have deep roots. Research by Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory University with capuchin monkeys provides us a look one universal primate morality: the sense of fairness. Brosnan and De Waal trained capuchin monkeys to take a pebble from the researchers; if the monkeys gave the pebble back, they got a small cucumber as a reward. Within a week, all the monkeys consistently traded their pebble for a small cucumber. The researchers repeated the experiment for several weeks. Then, they ran the same experiment with two monkeys sitting in adjacent cages so that each could see the other. One monkey was still rewarded with a small cucumber, but the other monkey received a grape—a tastier reward. The monkeys who got the cucumber instead of the grape, balked at the exchange and offered a puzzled look to the researchers. Sometimes, they threw the cucumber at the researchers; sometimes they refused to give the pebble back at all. The researchers plan to continue their experiments with different species of primates to gather more evidence showing that the instinctual morality of “fair play” or that of being treated “fairly” is universal in all primates (Zimmer, 2004). Imagine a Paleolithic band of five hunters. One considers breaking away from the others to look for an antelope on his own. If successful, he will gain a large quantity of meat and hide -- five times as much as if he stays with the band and they are successful. But he knows from experience that his chances of success are very low, much less than the chances of the band of five working together. In addition, whether successful alone or not, he will suffer animosity from the others for lessening their prospects. By custom the band members remain together and share equitably the animals they kill. So, the hunter stays. He also observes good manners in doing so, especially if he is the one who makes the kill. Boastful pride is condemned because it rips the delicate web of reciprocity (Wright, 1994). Such a process of reciprocity repeated through thousands of generations gave rise to moral sentiments, recurring patterns in the structure of family, friendship, courtship and morality. It is the evolutionary design of human beings that explains these universal patterns: why people in all cultures worry about social status, why people in all cultures gossip about the same kinds of things; why do people everywhere feel guilt, and feel it in broadly predictable circumstances. With the exception of psychopaths and perverts, every person vividly experiences the age old instincts as conscience, self-respect, remorse, empathy, shame, humility, outrage, honor, reciprocal/kin altruism, compassion, and mercy. In fact, Anthropologists do not know of any societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue. Yet the above evolutionary acquired moral instincts only represent one half of the evolutionary coin of morality (Buss, 1997). The dark side of evolutionary moral behavior is racism and the habitual distrust of strangers. Also, true compassion is frequently in short supply outside the immediate tribe. Groups are quick to imagine themselves the victims of conspiracies by competing groups, and are prone to dehumanize and murder their rivals during periods of severe conflict. Groups cement their own group loyalties by means of sacred symbols and ceremonies. Their mythologies are filled with epic victories over menacing enemies (Wright, 1994). Beginning about 10,000 years ago, when the agricultural revolution started in the Middle East, China, and Mesoamerica, populations increased tenfold compared to hunter-gatherer societies. Families settled on small plots of land, villages proliferated, and labor was finely divided as a growing minority of the populace specialized as craftsmen, traders, and soldiers. The rising agricultural societies became increasingly hierarchical. As chiefdoms and then states thrived on agricultural surpluses, hereditary rulers and priestly castes took power. The age old instincts were transformed into coercive regulations, always to the advantage of the ruling classes. About this time the idea of law-giving gods originated giving overpowering authority to the intermediaries of the Devine. For the past 5000 years, the “Church” and its respective clergy has provided the foundation for our religious morality (Wright, 1997). Many scholars agree, since the rise of city-states soon after the agricultural revolution, man’s first language of morality was overpowered by the out-of-balance, never-ending voice of unreason, the language of organized superstition. As more and more city states emerged so did more and more cults seeking converts to promote their language of “divine” morality. Out of the ashes of Zoroasterism rose the perverted and dominating language of Monotheism. Promoting the ideology of the eternal “holy war” against evil, combined with eternal damnation of the wicked, Monotheism became one of the divine languages of morality, the language we in the United States now commonly label “tradition values”. Promoting the Dark Side of Human Morality Monotheistic cosmology presents the ideology of the “holy cosmic war’, a war eternally raging in the heavens pitting all good against all evil. This belief in the positive value of a “holy war” glorifies and legitimizes warfare. When the act of “good overcoming evil” becomes an act of sacred obligation, it provides “divine” legitimacy to everlasting violence. The mind-set of the society that embraces the “holy war” ideology contends that it is: our holy duty to destroy them for they are “evil” (Kosmin & Lachman, 1993). Roy Baumeister, author of Evil – Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, agrees that religious idealism often leads to violence and evil, because good, sought-after ends provide validation and rationalization for violent and repressive means. “Most people, who do what their gods and their spiritual leaders tell them and feel certain that they are doing what is right and good, even if this includes hurting and killing others” (1997). One need only look at the conflict between Israel and Palestine for a brutal example of the never-ending violence associated with religious idealism. “When inflicting violent harm goes from being a right to being a duty, it is fair to expect that the violence will become relentless and merciless” (Baumeister, 1997). This relentless violence is amplified in the Monotheist’s moral code of reciprocity. The principle of reciprocity is the justification, motivation, the very essence of the concept of justice with reward and punishment. World history confirms century after century of religious violence, supporting Baumeister's conviction. Monotheism, with its "holy war” philosophy, has been paramount in keeping mankind “in a state of superstition-influenced barbarianism for the last two thousand years” (Russell, 1957). The barbaric ritual of human sacrifice was practiced at least 5,000 years ago among the early agricultural societies of Europe. Offering a human being to a god has often served as an attempt to placate the god and expiate the sins of the people. It was especially common among agricultural people, who sought to guarantee the fertility of the soil. The Aztecs sacrificed thousands of victims annually to the sun, and the Incas made human sacrifices on the accession of a ruler. In ancient Egypt and elsewhere in Africa, human sacrifice was connected with ancestor worship, and slaves and servants were killed or buried alive along with dead kings in order to provide service in the afterlife. A similar tradition existed in China. The Celts and Germanic peoples are among the European peoples who practiced human sacrifice. In the royal tombs of ancient Mesopotamia the courtiers - guards, musicians, handmaidens and grooms all died at their posts in the tomb, having taken a lethal draught of poison. Likewise, Christianity is constructed in the image of a sacrificed man-god who is said to have died to save mankind (Christians) from sin (Green,M, 2001). Many concerned citizens, like psychiatrist Ruth Green, question the moral validly of such an archaic belief system. ”When the concept of bloody human sacrifice is presented to the community as beautiful and worthy of societies admiration, what types of human behavior can be presented to them as reprehensible”? “Christianity suggests", Green continues, “that the pagan savagery of human sacrifice is the loveliest gesture of all time” (1992). Another example of the violence caused by the perverted language of religious idealism is the Crusades. The Crusades were series of religious wars undertaken by European Christians between the 11th and 14th century to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. In a speech at the Council of Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II exhorted all Christendom to go to war for the Lord, promising that the journey would count as full penance and guaranteed entry into heaven. The battle cry of the Christians, he urged, should be Deus volt [God wills it]. From the crosses that were distributed at this meeting, the Crusaders took their name. The movement spread through Europe and even reached Scandinavia. The chief factors that contributed to this enthusiastic response were the increase in the population and prosperity of Western Europe; the high point that religious zealotry had reached; the prospect of territorial expansion and riches for the nobles (Armstrong, 1993). For the Church, a Pope who could call for a successful Crusade would be elevated in the hierarchical pecking order demanding more political clout. For the Kings, Princes, Dukes and Barons, there was plunder, elevated status within the military, and domestic props for helping the Church, which even in the 12th century, was the largest "campaign financier" in the world (Armstrong, 1993). The Crusades were pure aristocratic politics in the disguise of the "holy war". The Church aligned with the aristocratic elite used the perverted morality of Monotheism to exploit, dominate and acquire more wealth. The Christian armies of the first crusade were preceded in the spring of 1096 by several undisciplined hordes of French and German peasants. The combined forces crossed to Asia Minor, took Nicaea (1097), defeated the Turks at Dorylaeum, and took Antioch (1098). The first crusade was completed in July, 1099, by the taking of Jerusalem, where the Christian armies massacred the Muslims and Jews. The election of Godfrey of Bouillon as defender of the Holy Sepulcher marked the beginning of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Second Crusade, 1147–49, ended in dismal failure, and except for the pathetic interlude of the Children's Crusade, 1212, that saw thousands of innocent children perish from hunger and disease, all the later Crusades were for the most part only expeditions to assist those who already were in the Holy Land (Armstrong, 1993). Century after century of Monotheistic religions brutally killing each other in the name of “God”, each perceiving themselves as “good’, and each perceiving the other as the ultimate “evil” that must destroyed so that the “good” might triumph. A never-ending struggle of violence and death, only finalized with the end of the world. These violent Monotheist religions are dooms-day cults; born of fear and superstition in the womb of the dark ages, and “kept alive by greed, ignorance and an army of self-proclaimed clergy whose very livelihood depends on the continued perversion of morality” (Russell, 1957). In 1291, the last Christian stronghold fell to the Muslims, ending the official "Holy Crusades", by this time however, the term crusade was also being used for other immoral expeditions, sanctioned by the pope, against heathens and heretics (Armstrong, 1993). The Holy Crusade against heresy was called the “Inquisition”, another example of the twisted morality within the community of Christianity. The Inquisition was a permanent institution within the Catholic Church charged with the eradication of heresies. Heresy is defined as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". Believing that the earth revolved around the Sun, while the church concluded that the Earth was the center of the universe is a perfect example of heresy. When evaluating the belief that the Sun is immobile and that the Earth moves around it, the scholars of theology and canon law judged the idea to be both "foolish and absurd in philosophy," and to be "formally heretical". Thousands of people were imprisoned, tortured and killed because they believed scientific evidence contradicting of the "divine" authority of the church (Armstrong, 1993). Efforts to suppress heresies were initially sporadic and regional. But in the Middle Ages a permanent structure came into being to deal with the problem. Beginning in the 12th century, Church Councils required secular rulers to prosecute heretics. In 1231, Pope Gregory IX published a decree which called for life imprisonment for the heretic who had confessed and repented, and capital punishment for those who persisted. Trials were conducted secretly and torture of the accused soon became customary and notorious. Most trials resulted in a guilty verdict, and the church handed the condemned over to the secular authorities for punishment. Burning at the stake was thought to be the fitting punishment for unrecanted heresy. A verdict of guilty also meant the confiscation of property by the civil ruler, who turned over part or all of it to the church. This practice led to graft, blackmail, and widespread simony (the sale of indulgences and blessed articles) (Armstrong, 1993). Likewise, unable to speak a true language of morality the Protestant reformation followed in the immoral footsteps of Catholicism. Echoing one thousand years of violent elitism, the champions of Protestantism - Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley, strongly advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the 'crime' of heresy. “Burn the witch” soon became commonplace throughout Europe and the American Colonies, reflecting the corrupted language of Protestant morality (Armstrong, 1993). Sociologist Auguste Comte argued the “the Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors”. Comte contended that the intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not any less tyrannical or violent than that of the Catholic tradition. However, Comte found the Protestant persecutions particularly hypocritical because they violated the very essence of Protestantism which was the “right of private judgment in matters of religious belief”. Comte concluded: “Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so” (Comte, 1830). The Holocaust was really nothing more than a modern continuation of the Inquisition, where religious ideology was again used to justify attacking Jews, pagans, gypsies and atheists. Early on, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther, in his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther, constantly quoting his works and beliefs and in a speech to the German people on April 12th, 1939 Adolf Hitler stated his immoral convictions: My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people (Baynes, 1942). Hitler, like so many charismatic tyrants down through history, simply used the perverted morality already present in Monotheism to convince the German people that it was their holy duty to “rid the world of evil”. By using religious symbolism, the charismatic leader charges his speeches with the highly emotional feelings of religious self-righteousness and divine purpose. United States president GW Bush sees himself as the God fearing leader, fighting a "holy war" against "evil". Again using the perverted morality of Monotheism, the neo-cons in Washington are disguising imperialism, aggression and never-ending warfare as a "holy" duty. In fact, on September 19, 2001, G.W. called his war against terrorism a Crusade. For corporate Christianity in general, however, Bush's crusade it is but another attempt to secure the holy lands, made even holier today with its strategic oil reserves. In an attempt to return to overthrow American democracy, powerful Christians are trying to push a law through Congress that would "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could be removed from office. The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" was introduced last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional allies. If enacted, it will effectively transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the subjective precept of a "higher power", as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or the President, can override the rule of law (Floyd, 2004). The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, drafted by a disciple of television evangelist Pat Robertson, is the product of decades of work by a group of Christian extremists known broadly as "Dominionists." Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule" over every aspect of society, placing the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other aspect of US society under the sphere of Christianity. As Attorney General John Ashcroft, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, has often proclaimed: "America has no king but Jesus!" (Floyd, 2004). According to Dominionist literature, "biblical rule" means further persecution of homosexuals and other "revelers in decadence"; massive tax cuts for the rich (because "wealth is a mark of God's favor - Calvinism"); the elimination of government programs to alleviate poverty and sickness (because these depend on "confiscation of wealth"); and enslavement for debtors. If the Dominionists get their way, No legal challenges to "God's order" will be allowed. Because this order is divinely ordained, the "elect" can use any means deemed necessary to establish it, including deception, subversion, even violence. As Robertson himself rallies the faithful: "Zealous men force their way in" (Floyd, 2004). The Dominionists are bankrolled and directed by well-connected business moguls and political operatives who have engineered a takeover of the Republican Party and are now at the heart of the U.S. government. They've made common cause with the "American Empire" faction of Cheney, Rumsfield and the neo-conservatives who seek "full-spectrum dominance" over the globe. The Dominionists provide money and domestic political muscle for the Dominators' imperial ambitions; in return, the neo-cons provide a realistic vehicle of crushing military might and state power for making the Dominionists' dreams a reality (Floyd, 2004). One of the principal moguls behind the rise of Dominionism is tycoon Harold Ahmanson. Ahmanson has abiding interest: computerized voting machines. As reported last year, Ahmanson, a fervent Bush backer, was instrumental in establishing two of the Republican-controlled companies now rushing to install their highly hackable voting machines, with untraceable, unrecountable electronic ballots, across the country in time for the November election (Floyd, 2004). The Dominionists also have strong backing on the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, (Dick Cheney’s fishing buddy) author of the unconstitutional ruling that gave Bush the Presidency, declared in the theological journal First Things that the state derives its moral authority from God and not the "consent of the governed". Government, according to Scalia, "is the 'minister of God' with powers to 'revenge,' to 'execute wrath,' including even wrath by the sword" (Floyd, 2004). Should the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" be allowed to pass giving the neo-cons extremists no legal restraints on their enforcement of "God's sovereign authority", the United States will have taken its final step out of the ashes of Democracy evolving into a military theocracy much like Iran (Floyd, 2004). In fact, if the Christian and Jewish Extremists have their way, we're in the final days of the last Crusade. Each is using the other to try and bring on the apocalypse according to their own ideology. The Christians are expecting the Second Coming of Christ, and the Jews are awaiting the Coming of the Messiah. When the Messiah comes, he's supposed to save all the Jews in one fell swoop, and wipe out all their enemies, ushering in a Utopian era for the Jewish people. But before the Messiah can come, Jews have to rebuild the Temple of Solomon at the Temple Mount - the place Muslims call Al-Aqsa, or the Dome of the Rock (Floyd, 2004). If the Jews are right, the Messiah will wipe out all the Muslims and Christians and save only the Jews, why would the Christian Coalition help these Jewish extremists? Because in the Christian version of the apocalypse, the Jews rebuilding the Temple of Solomon has to happen before the Second Coming of Christ, in which Jesus will kill all the Muslims and Jews who won't convert to Christianity, and save all the Christians. This is why Zionist Christians like Pat Robertson and others are supporters of Israel (Floyd, 2004). The third side of the Monotheistic triangle of violence is the apocalyptic mythology of the Muslim. For the “true believer” of Islam, there can be no peace on earth until all the infidels are destroyed (Armstrong, 1993). Creating the "Good Society" While the actual stories and beliefs vary slightly, the perverted language of Monotheism remains the same; destroy the evil ones while waiting for the final Day of Judgment. The Monotheist speaks of peace, yet only at the end of the “final” holy war. They preach of acceptance and love while rejecting and alienating those who disagree creating unbreachable barriers of social inequality. Embracing elitism and the habitual distrust of strangers, the Monotheistic community is prone to dehumanize and kill those perceived as evil. Their holy books (Bible, Koran, Torah) are filled with epic victories over menacing enemies. Monotheism, as history shows so bluntly, has used the dark side of mankind's instinctual morality keep mankind rooted in the world of the savage, unable to become civilized. "Civilization”, according to moral philosopher Ayn Rand, is “the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe, shamans and his gods (1943). The ancient language of the savage is the language of the Monotheist, an out of balance language supporting a "holy war" morality, and the self-righteous, warrior culture of the Christian, the Jew and the Muslim. “If Mankind is ever going to be free to create the “good society”, he must reject the corrupted language of the Monotheist. Only the human has the intellectual ability to understand his instinctive behavioral drives and to modify them to bring his behavior in line with a consistent moral and ethical cultural system. The basis for proper moral and ethical human behavior must be determined without reference to opinion, conjecture, philosophy, political ideology or religious dogma since these have no real foundation, are inconsistent, and do not uniformly satisfy the needs of the human (Wright, 1994). The degree of morality of a human behavior should be determined by judging its efficiency (as compared with alternate behaviors) in its contribution to the long term welfare and survival of the human species and in particular the intellectual attributes of that species. If put to the test, therefore, any human behavior may be intellectually analyzed and if it is not an optimum step in the path to human species survival, it is suspect (Wright, 1994). Teaching a child provable fact or scientific hypothesis for example, is moral behavior. Teaching a child ideological religious dogma as truth is immoral behavior. Universal behavioral rules need to be expressed in the same objective manner as our technology. The resulting world culture would be knowledge based instead of dogma based, a uniform intellectual culture instead of many dogma based cultures. It would go a long way toward developing a benign culture under which all humans could live productively while being free of the tribal conflicts (war, terrorism, genocide, bigotry, elitism, etc.) presently promoted by our religious "moral institutions" (Wright, 1994). Returning to the “traditional values” of the church as proposed by Putnam, Bellah and other conservative sociologists is not a step toward the ‘good society”, but rather leap backward into a corrupted and perverted morality conceived long before the Dark Ages. Bibliography Armstrong, Karen, (1993), A History of God, New York, New York. Baynes, Robert, (1942) The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press. Baumeister, Roy, (1997), Evil – Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, New York, New York. Bellah, Robert, (1984), Habits of the Heart, Los Angeles, California. Bohlin, Raymond, (1997), Evolution, Genes and Morality, Boston, Massachusetts. Buss, David M, (1999), Evolutionary Psychology, Needham Heights, Massachusetts. Comte, Auguste, (1830), Philosophie Positive, http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/topics/sociologists.html Durkheim, Émile (1897), Le Suicide, http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/topics/sociologists.html#durkheim Floyd, Chris, (2004) Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/03/12/120.html Green, Miranda, (2001), Dying for the Gods, New York, New York. Green, Ruth, (1992), The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible, Madison, WI. Ingersol, Robert, (1898), On the Gods and Other Essays, Kosmin, Barry & Lachman, Semour., (1993), One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society, New York, New York. Locke, John, (1690), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Le Bon, Gustave, (1896), The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Phillips, Derek, (1999), A Critical Appraisal of Communitarian Thought. Rand, Ayn, (1943), The Fountainhead, New York, New York. Russell, Bertrand, (1957) Why I Am Not A Christian. New York, New York: The Bible, New International Version, International Bible Society, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Wright, Robert, (1994), The Moral Animal, New York, New York. Zimmer, Carl, (2004), Whose Life Would You Save, Discover Vol 24 #4, Boone Indiana. Copyright 2004 GrandaddyBonegrinder
|
If you [Log In] as a member you can discuss this work with others
On Wednesday June 21st, 2006, stormtalk (881) writes:
"The degree of morality of a human behavior should be determined by judging its efficiency (as compared with alternate behaviors) in its contribution to the long term welfare and survival of the human species" = argument for eugenics. Bad idea.
On Thursday October 28th, 2004, manunkind (89) writes:
granddaddy, i love you. some day, i shall find you and marry you. :) i've read every single one of your works, and you never cease to amaze me!
You must agree to our terms of service in order to to access this site
Need help? Reach us on the poetry site resource page.
Navigation for Text Browsers
Things to Read Home Copyright Policy Bugs Web Design Shopping Cart