When someone becomes overly insistent and overly aggressive about the truth behind their deeply held religious beliefs, I like to remind them that their deeply held religious beliefs are almost certainly predicated upon geography.
For the vast majority of people, religious belief simply correlates to where they spent most of their childhood. It is not a found or discovered belief but an inherited one. In the United States, for example, 56% of people affiliated with organized religion were born into that religion, and another 20% have merely changed church affiliation within the Christian or Jewish faith.
As a result, more than three-quarters of Americans espouse a religious belief because they were born in the United States to parents who had the same belief.
But let’s be honest:
If these same people were born in Saudi Arabia, they would almost certainly be Islamic.
If they were born in Tibet, they would almost certainly be Buddhist.
If they were born in India, they would likely be Hindu.
Considering that 23% of Americans are nonbelievers, this means that less than 3% of Americans are currently affiliated with a religious belief that they did not inherit upon birth and is not based upon their childhood mailing address.
So relax, you overly aggressive religious interlopers.
I’m not saying that your geographically inherited religious belief is any less important, meaningful, valid, or spiritually satisfying as a belief (or absence of belief) that is realized only after careful study and introspection.
I’m only saying that this is true if you are attempting to impose your geographically-based beliefs upon others through some political, legal, or economic means.
Your religious belief may be true to you, but just remember why you probably think it’s true and let the rest of us believe what we want, absent of any judgment or persecution.
This Post Has 0 Comments
What color was Augustine of Hippo? What skin color was Jesus? Who cares? After looking into a variety of philosophies, including hinduism, bhagavid-gita, koran, Sartre, to Kierkegaard, proceeding from K. to the text of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son, the satisfaction of soul came from the New Testament. Integrity demanded that I repent (metanoia) change of mind/amendment of behavior, the impossibility of that being totally accomplished drives me to grace, the unmerited love of God daily. Regarding grace, it is not the drug-induced grace of an Aldous Huxley, but a realization of incapacity before the demands of what is righteous. Righteousness, though a sense of oughtness is contrary to some viewpoints (viz. Fritz Perls), it is the reflection of what C.S. Lewis described in his Abolition of Man, and uses as a launch point for discussions in Mere Christianity and Miracles, which is the argument of outrage as an indication of a moral principle (old school=law of human nature) behind all faiths and philosophies. Now, the rejection of competition in a sailing race reminds of my experience at U.C. Berkeley, when our four-man frosh shell beat the 8-man shell and the j.v. shell; I withdrew from competition, though inside I was competitive. I withdrew (physically) from classes before dropping out; Professor Salter liked my paper on Nietzsche (which was written at 18, six years before reading K.). Brilliant people, such as Wittgenstein, leave open the option of an encounter with God, when lesser thinkers involved in group-think, such as the Vienna Circle, reject it as primitive. The searching sixties replaced the hipster 50’s, and preceded the crazy seventies, the harbinger of which was the loss of control of personality. I hope that our generation does NOT loss a thinker of first rank like, Moxie; Alan Turing’s most likely heir. (Apologies to Knuth, or Schneier…)