Over the previous two days I’ve written two drafts at this blog and have decided to publish neither of them. The reason for this is because I feel that I am actually repeating myself. In the last year particularly I found myself without a religious membership but posessing a great interest in religion as a subject matter. In some ways my religious experiences (most of which are already documented elsewhere on this blog) were unpleasant and sometimes just exploring those and the logic behind them was carthatric. In other ways I just wanted to understand why people believe the things they believe, the psychology of belief itself, and the politics of organised religion.

However I feel as though I have plateaued. My whole philosophy and belief system has crystallised in recent times and I feel that when I write about religion now it isn’t so much to explore so much as reiterate. So I would like to include a brief overview of my own understandings here and now for your benefit as much as mine and until the desire strikes me again I think I shall retire the religiously themed blog entries.

My Religious Manifesto

• There may or may not be a God, but if he/she/it exists, he/she/it doesn’t appear to communicate directly with humans.


• Because of this lack of deity-to-individual communication religion relies heavily on religious texts. These texts are archaic examples of ‘inspired literature’ that often have no obvious correlation with modern life. Interpretation and embellishment of such texts has understandably become a theological art.


• An individual’s religious understandings are shaped primarily by their own conception of their deity and associated religious figures. If you start out with the presumption that ‘God is good’ this will influence how you approach questions such as ‘Why do bad things happen to good people?’ and ‘Does God love me?’ The same is true if you started out with the presumption that ‘God is vengeful.’


• The question ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ is an invitation to speculate. Another theological art, perhaps? We do not know what Jesus would do. Even if treated exclusively as a literary character his behaviour is somewhat erratic. He is just as likely to be the ‘Prince of Peace’ as he is to condemn a Fig tree.


• Religions often reflect the values and expectations of the time in which their respective religious texts were conceived in, but not always. This is a difficult thing to resolve. Slavery is now illegal, however the bible not only endorsed the idea but provided helpful tips for dealing with your slaves. Discrimination is illegal in a lot of places but most religions are completely incompatible with and intolerant of other religions. Because one religion is the ‘true’ one, all others are wrong; because one idol is the ‘true’ one, all others are false idols. Homosexuality is no longer illegal in many countries, though still a sin and a ‘threat’ in many traditions. How does an individual negiotate this hierarchy of authority? Who gets top billing?


• Until very recently your personal religion was often determined by your family’s religion which was determined by your nationality and your geography. When we were entrenched in our own local geography (we didn’t travel or communicate with those of other nationalities) organised religion served a very useful social function. It was a normalising instrument. If you were born in Afghanistan you were probably Islamic. If you were born in Brazil you were probably Christian. If you were born in Vietnam you were probably a Buddhist. If you operate from the presumption that your religion is the only true one, isn’t that a new strange form of racism? And do you truly believe your deity would say, “Oh, we like the British, the Americans and the Australians, we’ll make them Christian. Not so crazy about the Japanese…”?


• I am not suggesting anyone should have to give up their religion. Quite the contrary, I wholeheartedly believe everyone should be able to believe and practice what they feel is ultimately true for them. I would however ask that all people be sensitive and aware of the issues that surround their personal religion and religion in general. I would hope that we can cultivate a respect of all of humanity and a desire to operate in ways that benefit the social good of all, not merely those that share our same outlook. I believe in defending religious freedoms, but I emphasise that your ability to oppress other people (because you think they are wrong or sinful) is not a religious freedom.

I used to think the central flaw of religion was that it was discriminating and exclusive, though I’ve come to believe the real problem is that it is unchanging. We hear a lot about waning church participation numbers and attempts to encourage additions to congregations through charismatic performances and multimedia installations, but at its core the general lore of religion doesn’t change. And in a lot of ways, short of a visit from a deity or religious figure (say, a ‘second coming’ of Jesus), it really cannot change. All it has to work with is its remarkably old and confusing religious texts and its people’s attempts to make sense of those texts. I cannot think of another area of life that is still being governed today by the information and understanding we had several thousand years ago. Imagine if we decided to shun modern day medical procedures in favour of whatever the popular cure of the day had been back then (probably death, leeches, or some sort of human sacrifice)? As people we have grown and changed. Our world is different. Our religious texts haven’t grown and changed with us. I suppose for Biblical Fundamentalists that is desirable.

I just desire to work with what I know to be true, rather than merely what I hope to be true. I know the reality of my fellow man. I know the reality of the environment I live in. I know the reality of the technology with which I am sharing this message. It just makes more sense to me to deal with what is here and in front of me.