THE PROBLEM WITH SACREDNESS

Today’s post is closely related to yesterday’s post, “Who speaks for God?” That is the reason it will not be a very long post. There is not a lot to add to what I wrote yesterday, just a few additional observations.

If people were secure in their religious beliefs, they would not mind constructive criticism. Because the opposite is the case, many religious people will not take kindly to anyone who questions their faith. They place a protective mantle over the book that contains the writings of the prophets or leaders who founded their religion. The book becomes a “holy” book; the writings become “sacred” writings; and the protective mantle over their sacred scriptures becomes a shroud covering what is now a dead corpse. The preachers and the faithful have permission to “interpret” what has become “the Word of God,” but they may not question it beyond the boundaries set by tradition.

There is safety in numbers. The group maintains cohesion by thinking alike, again, within the marked limits. Most people do not dare cross that invisible line separating believers from doubters. Those who do, wind up ostracized or expelled from the group. By keeping their group segregated from other groups, they protect their sacred beliefs from contamination by outside sources.

All this unnecessary segregation affects world affairs. Our conflicts in the Middle East have an origin in the religious differences of the parties involved. The intense hatred would not be there, if it were not for the role of religion in the overall picture. To work towards peace, we must seek the integration of religious groups. If a good number of believers in the world became proligious (see Ercian Testament – Part One, Chapter 4 “Proligion”), then we would have a chance at making it all work. Talk about safety in numbers, the integrative power of proligion could gather enough supporters to outnumber the followers of any particular religion.

Months ago, when Muslims protested a controversial depiction of Muhammad in a cartoon, I saw the photo of a man carrying a sign that said, “Behead those who insult Islam!” My question is—and this ties in with yesterday’s post, “Who speaks for God?”—if somebody had made fun of me or you or the next average person, would Muslims have protested? Would any of them have asked for the beheading of those who insult Joe or Harry or Joan? I do not think so, and that is the problem of making books “holy,” and prophets "sacred" or "untouchable." It discriminates against other books and other children of God.

If Muhammad is God’s prophet and Jesus the only begotten son of God, what are we, chopped liver? I am a child of God and, in principle, a person with the same inherited rights as any human or alien born past, present, or future. You can criticize my book, thereby polishing my ideas or correcting me when I am mistaken. You can also make fun of me all you want. I appreciate good humor. Clear minds will know who is right and who is wrong, what is proper and what goes over the line of good taste.