As I start this, I am acutely aware that some people may take offense at my ideas and believe that I am, somehow, mocking their beliefs.  This is not my intent at all!  However, in the light of my becoming ordained as a minister of the Universal Life Church in order to fulfill my daughter’s desire to be married on the day chosen by herself and her then-to-be-husband, during the pandemic (see #177 in the archives), I found myself with a real desire to consider, somewhat seriously, how I feel about religion and religious beliefs.  So, for the past several months, I’ve been trying to figure out (mostly to/for myself) how, and what, my feelings are about such things.  That’s the background of this post.
 
I will confess that my credentials were from the Universal Life Church largely because it was possible to satisfy the legal requirements to serve as their “officiant” through this simple, online process.  However, I DID take a look at what the group SAID were its principles, and I found that I agreed with them.  Here is their basic statement.

     The Universal Life Church was founded of the basic belief that we are children of the    
      same Universe and, derived from that basic belief, has established two core tenets by
      which it Expects its ministers to conduct themselves:
       1.          Do only that which is right.
       2.          Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their
      choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does
      not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the
​      government’s laws.

I like this because it’s about as free of specific doctrine as one is likely to find and, it establishes the idea that one’s religion is personal to oneself; it does not have to conform to someone else’s idea of what it is SUPPOSED to be.  I like that, as I am sure that I have not yet found “THE ANSWER” in any of the various religious practices I have yet heard espoused.  It’s also true that the idea of beliefs being personal appeals to me.  
 
I take that to mean that MY “answer” doesn’t have to be the same as yours, nor is it any of your business what mine IS, as long as I don’t expect you to conform to MY beliefs.  In the same way, I don’t need to know your beliefs, as long as you let me have mine.  We actually MAY share our beliefs, but it is not our place, or right, to try to force others to accept them as CORRECT!  That’s how religious wars start; and we’ve had too many of them. My religion is between me and whatever deity, if any, I choose to acknowledge.  I think religion should be personal and private.  I’ve read Matthew 6, 1-8 and I support the principles expressed.  One can argue about the details of “the Father,” but the basic ideas expressed there seem sound to me.
 
I guess that I could probably most accurately be referred to as an agnostic, but I really don’t care what you call me, I’ve probably been called worse.  AS I see it, an agnostic is one who admits that he/she doesn’t know THE answers to all of those “religious” questions.  Still, I find that I do, somehow, feel that the world/universe has meaning, is somehow good, and that my being here has purpose, even if I don’t know exactly what it is.

When I took a course in what was, at the time, called “Comparative Religion” (Wow, isn’t THAT a currently NON “politically correct” name!) quite a long time ago, one of the things I learned was that a point of commonality among every religion we looked at (most [all?] of the prominent Western religions and several of the Eastern ones) is what is often referred to as “The Golden Rule,” the principle of treating others as you want to be treated.  In passing, I am told this idea is accepted by the vast majority of religions AND most cultures, as well),
 
I’ve read that this “rule” may be expressed in a variety of ways, such as:
1.  Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)
2.  Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or 
        prohibitive form)
3.  What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form)

These are, obviously, simply various ways of stating the same, basic idea.  That may get us to the crux of my issue with religion.  If (essentially) all religions agree that fairness and equity in the treatment of others (treating THEM as YOU wish to be treated) is a fundamental principle, how is it possible to understand that “… more people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason.” as Harvey Milk once said and has be stated in a variety of ways by many others.
 
As one who has studied a bit (a very LITTLE bit) of the history of Western civilization, I find myself forced to agree with Ruth Hurmence Green that “There was a time when religion ruled the world.  It is known as the Dark Ages.”  I find it sad that that appears to be the case, but, based on my own, limited, studies, it does appear to be true.  The REAL problem, then would appear to be why religious communities, which claim to have kindness, fairness and equity as fundamental principles in common, can’t get along to the point of going to war to destroy those who don’t have religious practices which are identical to their own?
 
This leads me to suspect that my real issue isn’t with RELIGION, but with CHURCHES!  I should note that I’m using the term, “church,” in the broadest possible sense, as a body or organization of people professing to “believe” the same thing.  I would suggest that once a body or organization is formed, a hierarchy, an organization, a leadership structure becomes necessary and, hence, the opportunity for individuals, or groups, to establish authority (power, superiority) over others by defining the “beliefs” of the particular organization.  My suspicion is that it is usually quickly established (at least implied) that this power structure rules by “divine” authority, so that anyone who opposes the will of that structure is defying the “correctness” of the “church,” and that challenges the church in its entirety.  
 
Once that structure is created, however, the possibility (I would even venture to say inevitability) of power struggles developing among those who wish to be at the top of that structure seems almost inevitable.  It also establishes the idea that the followers will be encouraged to believe that for THEIR specific set of beliefs to be acceptable, ALL others MUST be unacceptable.  After all, if THEY (we) don’t have the exclusive sanction of Divinity, then SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT, which would make them (us) wrong, and that simply can’t be permitted.  
 
My experiences in the theatre have taught me to observe others.  In doing this, I have found that it is often wise to follow the advice of Rachel Maddow and not pay much attention to what people say, but to focus quite intently on what they do.  In doing this, I have all too often become aware how many people do NOT suit their actions to their words and their words to their actions.  That is, that all too often what people SAY are their beliefs and values don’t seem to agree with their actual behavior.  I suspect that that may well be at least a major factor which explains most (if not ALL) of the violence, war, and destruction which has made up so much of human history.  I suspect even so-called “trade route wars” and many other forms of violence may well have a component of religious conflict within their causes, but I certainly can’t prove that.
 
As I said before, I would argue that Religion is PERSONAL!  If it violates YOUR religious principles to drink alcohol, or to dance, or to have an abortion, or to wear purple with polka dots, then DON’T DO those things!  That’s your belief and YOUR choice.  I would argue that that’s what “freedom of religion” means.  However, I refuse to allow you to make a law to prevent me from having different beliefs and acting on them as long as I don’t try to force those beliefs on you.  I have often wondered how so many people can wish to legislate against abortion because they insist that it involves killing, yet apparently are perfectly happy to demand the death penalty.  I don’t understand how they can believe that “Thou shalt not kill.” allows one, but not the other.  Still, I WILL grant them the right to have religious beliefs which I find completely incoherent and inconsistent.
 
Carl Sagan once noted that:

           In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument;
          my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you
          never hear that old view from them again.  They really do it.  It doesn't happen as often
          as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful.  But it
          happens every day.  I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics
          or religion.  

I suspect the reason for this is that scientists are trained to understand that science is based on the idea that we accept as true those things which appear to be supported by the best evidence available.  Hence, science adopted the idea that the Earth was flat because the available evidence supported that idea.  Once the evidence against this notion seemed more supportable than that for it, the earlier idea was abandoned.  Much the same can be said of many ideas from the “superiority” of one race over another; to one sex over another; to one culture over another; to meat-eaters over vegetarians (or, vice versa); to democratic vs autocratic political systems; and on, and on.
 
The difficulty with many (most?, all?) “religious” belief is that there is NO specific, verifiable evidence to support it; it is simply DEFINED as “TRUTH” with no room for debate.  Stephen Hawking pointed out, “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason.”  I would suggest that the key to the problems this causes MAY be that politics and religion have been, and are, so inter-twined, at least in much Western thought, as to make it virtually impossible to separate them, creating political consequences to religious disagreements.  I believe one can say that studies of “primitive” peoples would appear to suggest that even in such situations the political leaders of the group quite commonly include, if they are not limited to, the shamans (medicine men, priests) of the group.  As Arthur C. Clarke once said, “One of the greatest tragedies in mankind's entire history may be that morality was hijacked by religion.”  To which I would add that then religion proceeded to hijack politics.
 
I think this notion was stated quite well in a comment attributed to Robert A. Heinlein in Religion in Science Fiction: The Evolution of an Idea and the Extinction of a Genre.  He said, “Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.”  A quick look at, say, anti-abortion political activists would seem to reveal their essentially religious justification for their position on this issue, just as alcohol was once outlawed largely due to objections by religious “do-gooders.”
 
Since religious worship (in my opinion but based on three-fourths of a century of observation) remains the most divisive portion of American life (which may be true in other countries, as well, but I don’t have enough information to assert this as a fact), I do not find it improbable that the mixture of religion and politics, which is technically unconstitutional, but is, in fact, supported by many laws, has contributed to much of the toxic state of affairs in much of American life today.  In the USA, especially, the division of Christianity into a “White” church and a “Black” church has probably done more damage to American culture than anything else, certainly it’s responsible for much of the racism which so infects our society.  And that doesn’t even touch on the arguments over which is the truly “proper” denomination of Christianity.
 
I think it’s important that we remember the words of John Adams, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”  This does NOT suggest, at least to me, that Mr. Adams was, necessarily, anti-Christian, just that he did not see the actions (or desires) of the Founding Fathers as being based on the notion of founding a specifically “Christian” nation. I suspect Mr. Adams might, as I do, tend to agree with Mark Twain when he said, “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” 
 
I think Mr. Twain was suggesting that religious, and, therefore, political, beliefs, should be understood to be different from scientific ones.  That they are NOT subjected to the same scrutiny as scientific ones, and are, in fact, based on emotion and “authority,” NOT on serious, careful examination of the best evidence available.  Perhaps, Joseph Campbell expressed it better when he pointed out that “Every religion is true one way or another.  It is true when understood metaphorically.  But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.” 
 
This may have turned into a more negative treatise on churches than I intended.  I am well aware that some church organizations make valuable contributions to our society, especially in times of need, such as the current pandemic.  However, I take considerable issue with the actions of ANY church, or religious-based organization, which insists on using its “charitable” activities as a form of propaganda and/or recruiting.  The notion that in order to obtain a meal when I am hungry, I have to agree to “pray” according to someone else’s religious practices, turns my stomach.  I agree with Phillip Pullman when he said, 
 

          I think it's perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing
          God into it, but I don't know everything, and there may well be a God somewhere,
          hiding away.  Actually, if he is keeping out of sight, it's because he's ashamed of his
          followers and all the cruelty and ignorance they're responsible for promoting in his
​          name.  If I were him, I'd want nothing to do with them. 

I have probably spent too many words discussing these issues, but (obviously) I find them difficult, confusing, and upsetting.  I do, however, agree with Garrison Keillor when he said, “Anyone who thinks sitting in church can make you a Christian must also think that sitting in a garage can make you a car.” 
 
I ‘m finding it helpful to say (write down) these things, and, again, I apologize if they upset you.  I repeat, that was NOT my intent.  I’m trying to determine and express MY truth here, to satisfy my own needs.  Like a penitent at confession, I’m finding that writing my thoughts down and trying to edit them into coherence, is helping me to clarify them in my own mind.  And, who knows, I just might be engaging in what some might call my “ministerial” duties.  After all, I AM a “minister” and have the credentials to prove it.  (see below)

Next time, I plan to take a stab at trying to explain more specifically what I DO believe beyond just discussing the Golden Rule and what troubles me about what I see all too often around me in “religious” practices.  That is, of course, if I can be at least this coherent about them.
 
LLAP,

Dr. B