The better half just wrote this piece. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Moderate and extremely clueless
Apparently extremism has no religion. So I guess religion gets to wash
its hands clean every time someone bad invokes it. In a different way,
that thought makes religion even more scary. Extremism could hijack any
religion! Like computer viruses that work on Windows, OSX and Linux (Yes
they exist). All one needs is a good hole and both operating systems
and religions have plenty.
Holes in computer operating systems can be fixed however; and people are
expected to work on that everyday. The big problem with organized
religion is their holes don't get fixed easily, if ever. People try to
not talk about them, jump over them, walk around them, ignore that they
exist, and sometimes they fall into them because they are told that it
is not a hole. A common tie across all levels of religious fandom is the
belief that their texts and the so-called "word of god" are perfect and
infallible. It is not amendable to fit new sizes and you do not
question it. This tying tenet is THE oath of religious membership. None
of them invite open questioning; they are challenged by it. So you are
expected to get married drinking sweetened milk on a swing because that
is how they performed child marriages in the dark ages, and by the gods,
that is how you will be wed. No questions.
While most religion followers faithfully refuse to ask or answer
questions that carry logic, the occasional apologist will present
semi-logical ideas. He will deny the official membership of extremists
and state that moderate followers - the teeming millions of them - are
the majority and their membership is truly for inner peace and
salvation, as is said in the texts. The extremists, the zealots and the
evildoers are a handful and are not exemplary of the religion, which is
pure and beautiful.
Like Windows 8.1
Here is the problem with that line of thinking. Religious membership
exists as a hierarchy defined by how far you are willing to take your
fandom with your actions.
I call this a hierarchy of support. Each level supports the next tier,
even though they may not support the levels beyond. The support may be
open or a non-verbal nod to their ideas. At the base you have the
apologist who suggests that religious membership is truly an innocent
experience, exemplified by the pious and gentle moderate follower, who
strives to make his life more beautiful with his religion. The moderate
follower supports the political follower who will use his position of
power to influence others to also enjoy this wonderful mission to peace
and bliss. The political follower takes his religion and his job very
seriously. He believes that he can enlist ideas from his religion to do
his job. Through this, he hopes to provide good governance to the people
who are of his religion and the people who aren't. He supports the
chief religious body that fashions the guidelines of his religion. The
chief religious body strives to preserve the identity of the religion
and ensure that members adhere to the tenets of the religion properly
and non-members maintain good respect. And for that, they accept the
existence of the extremists.
Each of these levels have increasing amounts of power even if their
numbers decrease. And just having that power makes them dangerous and
disquieting. Should they choose to move away from ethical behavior,
standing up against them could spell doom. The extremist could be
willing to sacrifice thousands to ensure success for his holy mission of
supremacy. The chief religious body holds the rulebook on the religion
and their interpretation and direction could alter the fates of all
followers. The religious body could threaten followers (and others) with
damnation if they did not buy into its policies. The political follower
holds all other rulebooks that could make or break the world around
him. It could be argued that the meek and modest moderate follower poses
no danger as he holds no such power. Certainly, all apologists make
good mention of it. But if you consider how these higher tier bodies are
empowered, we get the reverse hierarchy of hijacking to hide away evil
intentions and deeds.
The extremist is empowered by the approval of the religious body; he
does not question the ethics of his deeds anymore. The religious body is
empowered by the approval of the political follower; now even its
questionable actions under the guise of religious self-preservation can
be cleaned away by use of political power. The political follower is
voted in by the moderate, so abuse of the power is acceptable because
the people enabled him to do it. The moderate follower never doubts his
choices because there is an apologist over the shoulder validating him
on the news and social media. It does not matter if the apologist is
religious or non-religious. However, it does matter that you might be
one of these.
This hierarchical model suggests that religion is a general
subscription. If you buy in, you have bought in all the way and the
extremists become your people even if you don't like it. It may be too
radical to suggest that all individuals quit religion in an instant. It
challenges your identity and a way of life that defines you. It may take
away what gives you inner peace. But think about what you follow and
what it can lead to. Think about the relevance of archaic practices and
how they stand in the way of humanism. Think about who truly deserves
your respect and support. Think about who they support. Think about
where your values come from. Offer a hand, not blind fandom. Is the
preservation and resurrection of dark-age remains of your organization
truly more important than humanity?
You are afraid of breaking out of this system of fear, hate and blind following. Don't be.
Je Suis Charlie
http://strumlife.blogspot.com/2015/01/moderate-and-extremely-clueless.html
