RE RELIGION

Religion appears to have followed the same path as has the history of mankind in general.  For example, in ancient Mesopotamia, during the third millennium before Christ, each city had its own separate deity.  Then, the process of amalgamation, similar to that which has taken place in many other aspects of man's existence, began to occur in the religious sphere.  By the second millennium B.C., an Egyptian pharaoh attempted to establish a cult to a god named Aton, a personifaction of the sun.  This has been described as an effort to found the world's first monotheistic religion.

Subsequently, Judaism arose and thrived in the Middle East.  Its offspring, Christianity, can be described as having developed into the first worldwide faith. 

Thus, in religion, we see the same phenomenon:  various elements evolving and joining together into larger, more unified, institutions.  It is, therefore, even a possibility (although not in any way espoused or encouraged by me) that one day the world will come to embrace but a single universal religion. 

Hence, it must be made perfectly clear that what I encourage and hope will one day come to pass, does not include any form of unity on a religious level.  As is the case with cultures, religious beliefs and practices are strictly personal matters, and must be treated as such.  Religious denominations or organizations should thus be in no way assisted, interfered with, or forbidden, by government actions or policy--unless, and only unless, they happen to endorse, encourage, or foster the rendering of harm to persons or property.  Thereby, although complete freedom of religion is thus advocated, there should be restrictions and prohibitions as regards--but only as regards--such ostensible religious practices as could constitute danger or harm to the practitioners or others.

Dying for one's religion may be commendable.  But most people consider dying for one's religion to consist only of circumstances that would be referred to as "martyrdom"--i.e., more or less reluctantly suffering injury and/or death, usually at the hands of others, by reason of one's religious beliefs or activities.  On the other hand, there seems to be no rational connection betwween the aforesaid, and the current practice whereby "terrorists" commit suicide, in a crowded place, so as to cause death and destruction to others, for the purpose of making a point related to their religious convictions.  Whether the practices within a religion, or that which it advocates, include the handling of poisonous snakes, or the destruction of buildings or groups of people with explosives, such practices need to be outlawed and extinguished, so that all can live in peace and security concerning their persons and possessions.  On the other hand, it is hoped and expected that the unification of the world into a single nation--wherein there will be no national boundaries or national interests, no alliances of nations, and no support by nation "A" for nation "B," to the displeasure of nation "C"--because there would thus be no nations--will resolve the causes for, and hopefully thus extinguish, the anger and frustration to which most terrorist organizations refer when justitying their actions and motives.

 For most of us, religion is based upon love--our love for God; God's love for us; and our love for each other--if for no other reason than because most faiths teach us that God commands it.  In our journeys through life, we will inevitably meet people who are seemingly wrong or mistaken when considered with regard to such personal religious concepts that we might possess.  This might motivate us to strive to correct such supposedly erroneous beliefs or conduct, via cordial and friendly means.  But it should never occasion hatred for the "mistaken" party.  For resort to anger and hatred against persons who are deemed to be in "error" concerning some religious matter seems to be something other than the exercise of one's religious belief; instread, it appears to comprise a resort to religion as an excuse or justification for this very underlying, pre-existing, anger or hatred.

In this connection, we are all awareof many cruel and destructive things that have been perpetrated in the past by man in the name of religion.  This would include the Inquisition, the Christian Crusades, and so on through the ages and across the globe, culminating in the current acts of terrorism that are being practiced in various places today.  But no one has the right to forcefully impose his religious beliefs upon others, or to take revenge against others on behalf of his God.  Furthermore, it seems that an all-wise, all-knowing, and all-powerful God (which most deities are presumed to be) would not--nay, could not--wish any man to do harm to his neighbor for His sake. 

Self-defense and the preservation of peace are the only possible exceptions that may be in God's thoughts as justification for violence against one's fellow human being.  But I am sure that He limits this "self-defense" concept to instances of grave danger from actual present or immediately likely behavior on the part of other persons that would render harm to oneself or others.  I am sure that it would not, and should not, include mere instances of suspicion of such intentions on the part of others.  Moreover, it would be even less applicable to cases wherein certain ideological beliefs held by others are merely disagreeable or intolerable with reference to one's own. 

In short, a unified world would have to offer universal religious freedom.  What would subsequently transpire or evolve, as years went on, should occur naturally, influenced solely by the freely arrived at decisions of individual persons themselves, with no interference by any governing entity.  For while logic and planning are urged for the operation and guidance of our world, religion has no place in government, and government should have no place in religion.  They are two separate spheres--two separate aspects of civilization--and only if they remain so will mankind be truly free.

                                                               * * * * *

In our contemporary world--and in the Middle East in particular--we encounter a number of governments that are comprised of, or strongly influenced by, religious leaders and concepts.  This is often accompanied by attitudes, policies, and actions that reflect displeasure and animosity--if not outright hatred--toward certain other national entities and/or factions who are thus viewed as enemies.  We are, further, told that what is ultimately sought by some of those in power in such places is a triumph over, and/or a conversion of, all of the world by or into the religious entity to which such governments or leaders are devoted.

It is, however, sad to note that the nations or factions who harbor the strongest of such feelings, as well as the most hostility toward the nations and factions that constitute the rest of our world, are those who are enduring relatively high degrees of economic difficulty and poverty, coupled with--and possibly thereby occasioning--the least quantity of personal freedom and opportunity within their respective borders.  Many of the most angry proponents of such hostility seem to view the West (and Israel) as a single separate and foreign faction, who possess too much, and grant too little to the members of the nations and factions who constitute the balance of the world--and particularly their own.

It is, on the other hand, hoped that in a single united world, opportunity would be made to exist for all--who could seek it everywhere.  It is thereby hoped and anticipated that social and economic conditions within these places--perhaps currently enclosed, isolated, and deficient within their respective borders--would quickly improve, as these places became a part of the entire broad world.  Evil and illogical as they are to begin with--"terrorist" acts would now come to be perceived as completely inappropriate as a childish and wasteful demonstration of anger, by members of a faction against those of another faction--because, now, all would belong to the same worldwide faction that is the human race.  Such evil deeds, if continued to be resorted to by a few of the most angry, and therefore least reasonable, would be dealt with by and on behalf of the entire united world, as but a crime against all of humanity.

It is consequently fervently hoped that the concepts espoused in these postings would eventually promote conditions wherein there can exist true brotherhood among all of mankind; with freedom for every individual person to pursue the religious faith, ideals, and practices of his or her personal choice and conviction--without impediment by any person, group, governmental entity, or force.

                                                           * * * * *