Religion Free Society

We were informed that the attacks in Paris were the inspiration for the topic, one that the Source felt quite strongly about.  It is an idea that has been batted around for some time, although the actual consequences are not always very clearly thought out.  On one hand, we have the idea of "freedom of/to", in which anybody can follow any religious tradition without interference from the state; on the other, we have the idea of "freedom from", meaning that whatever you do you do not have the right to force anybody to pay attention or go along with you.  What the Source seemed to be getting at was a society entirely without religion, but we must consider why religion exists at all if we are to examine how a religionless society would function.  Religion, or at least a set of beliefs about the nature of the world and the best way to behave, seems to exist in all human societies.  There is a variety in the details, but the idea of a structured guide for morality and understanding appears to be universal.  As humans, we have a desire for order and closure, desires which are met by religion, which gives us origin stories and directions for living.  Many people happily follow a religion because it gives them structure or peace, an escape from the uncertainty of a life without a higher power as guidance.  Although the blind adherence to a religion appears to be due to a lack of mental prowess, there are logical reasons for it, in terms of energy and time conservation.  Religion claims to have answers for everything.  Why not just let it be, except for the questions that most interest you?

The Source insisted on the link between violence and religion, historically speaking.  He could not ignore the damage religion has done to advancement in science and social morality.  One idea he landed on was the idea of exclusivity.  Perhaps the act of admitting that there are many churches or faiths that claim to have the truth, just like one's own, could remove a bit of the hubris.  He insisted that a sort of clarification or admission of lack of certainty would add some kind of respectability to churches and religions.  Also, the admission would function as a kind of warning, much like the ones on medication or other products with unpleasant side effects.  After listening to several people try to dissect the connection between religion and violence, he insisted that since religion is the constant excuse for violence, there must be some kind of link.  Pointing out instructions for peaceful co-existence in religious texts, even while the faithful attack and kill, the Source saw as missing the point.  He said bluntly that religion is a force that actively promotes destruction and violence.

A Regular Listener made the effort to prepare a contribution for such prickly topic.  In it, she said that the benefits of religion include giving people a space to speak about their fears and lay their doubts to rest.  More than dogma, society needs rules and the crowd with its sense of belonging supports belief that might fall flat if an individual had to sustain it alone.

The True Philosopher focused on the sociological basis of religion, saying it is not some spontaneous and random event, but a process of creation in society.  Historically, religion has been connected to politics as the source of power for those with it, although even in our modern secular societies, the dominant religion tends to have a political component.  He insisted on there being no necessary connection between religion and violence, mentioning areas where even the infamous Islam does not produce violent adherents, such as South East Asia.  The violence that religion excuses has political roots, and is a function of political will rather than faith, perhaps influenced by the political power of a culture of faith.  He did not deny the prevalence of violent acts with religious defenses, but insisted that the link was not intrinsic to religion.  Violence is something added, not a basis element.

The Leader pondered the forces that could create a religion-free society, saying that it boils down to two possibilities: either people evolve past the need for the rigid external structure of religion, or authority bans it from being practiced.  First, he examined the human need for religion or belief, noting it as an emotional state rather than a rational conclusion.  Although we feel the need for structure, imposing lifestyle or behavior is problematic.  As humans we display an instinct to protect our own beliefs and prohibition of religion would end up being a victim of its own restrictions on thought and behavior, much like prohibition of alcohol in the US.  Religion has its own limitations, of course.  Being linked with politics and particular brands of morality makes it certain to appeal to some but not all.  He saw the real problem as being the privilege religion enjoys, not only in the sense that it limits the freedoms of those not connected with religion, but even denies the rights of those within it.  He mentioned envy and having the spotlight always on as causes of the loss of rights, but more detail was not forthcoming.  He asked why we need a religious monopoly on holidays, suggesting that any religion's festivities should be recognized, which led another participant to say that this situation would easily lead to the total elimination of work days.  The Leader mentioned the dependence on the supernatural for the legitimacy of religion, although only in passing, and speaking directly to the Source's inspiration, said that the problem in France had much to do with immigration and assimilation, not just only religion.  He noted that people are annoyed by lack response to religious violence, leading them to point out hypocrisy in faith, but law is not immune to hypocrisy either.  The issue is not belief or what kind of belief, but the prescription of lifestyle and the repression of "alternative" or "heretical" behaviors.  He also warned us not to put too much stock in separation of church and state at the moment, since the reality is that they are rarely separate, for a variety of reasons.

The Educator believes religion to be a very personal thing.  It comes from the need to find answers, and since our experiences are only our own, our religion is by necessity something belonging only to ourselves.  There may be superficial similarities which allow us to worship in community, but the real belief can only be individual.  This being the case, we cannot oblige other people to believe, nor can we prevent them from believing, so a prohibition of religion would simply not work. 

A Former Regular made a surprise reappearance for this topic, and gave us more ideas about the communal nature of religion.  He also sees religion as a social process, with its development united to politics, but at the same time belief is an in-born, non-rational thing.  We are strong in a group, which leads him to think that new belief (or non-belief) systems can only arise when those ideas can be communicated and accepted among a number of people.  One person alone cannot break away from her faith, but with a group of like-minded people, it is possible.  I disagree a bit with the appearance of new or different belief being contingent on there being a group to support it, but will go along with the expression of different belief being next to impossible without any network behind it.

My takeaway from this discussion is that while violence is not a basis component of religion itself, and in fact many religions insist that violence be avoided as much as possible, we give religion a pass to use violence.  As a society we allow religion and the religious certain leeway to behave in aggressive and harmful ways.  This makes religion the perfect excuse for bad behavior; not only do we have a hands-off approach to it, but its subjectivity when it comes to interpretation makes it easy to justify practically any course of action.

While there have been meetings that have run a little long in the past, this one ended up with a list of six people waiting to speak with half an hour before the center closed, and we still needed to choose the topic for the next week.  Immediately after his saying this, the dull drone who had been allowing badly pronounced half-formed thoughts to spatter our ears started up again, insisting he had some more important things to say, although nothing he has had to say has ever been important.  He does certainly like to use up oxygen, though.  After he had finished his spotlight stealing, a couple of people on the list gave their last thoughts and the rest were set to wait for the next week.