If you grew up in the 1980s or 1990s you might remember the constant hype of the coming twenty-first century -- a new century of freedom that would be the ne plus ultra of man's scientific and technological achievements. The Cold War was over. Europe was coming together. Borders were falling away. The Internet would revolutionise society and create a glorious new Information Age.

Things didn't quite turn out that way. Predictions of the Future -- the future with a capital "F" -- rarely if ever come to pass. But people began to look backwards instead forwards. They didn't want to live in a new era. They wanted to enslave themselves to the past. They wanted religion.

I don't understand this. I don't understand the desire to live in a theocracy. Religion should be a private affair, not a public one. The particular faith or sect doesn't matter. I don't try and force other people to conform to my way of living and my ethical standards. But a great many religious people seem to want to do just that.

Now, instead of a bright future we are faced with a dark abyss. Religions are telling people that if they hate others they are really "loving" them. Denial of truth is actually "knowledge" as everything that is necessary to know is already written in sacred texts and education isn't necessary. Intolerance is justified as religious "freedom."

Why?

You can't save the world by destroying the one you live in.

Very well said. I didn't grow up in the 80's or 90's but I was thrilled at the direction the world was slowly headed at the turn of the century as we were becoming more inclusive people and nations. Who would have thought that upon arriving in the information age that the information that would wield the strongest sword of divisiveness would be the disinformation, even hearsay, that is the hallmark of religion? Deceptive use of phrases and words as you have pointed out have become the "new truth" or to use the more popular term, "alternative facts." A two thousand year old self contradicting bigoted mess of a book is still the "go to" for these people? Seems unfathomable.



I have personally noticed through my work that humans have a tendency to want desperately to stick with what they already know, what they are used to. Even when offered something better they will cling to ways they are already comfortable with. Because the status quo is "known" it feels deceptively safe and comforting. And if your status quo is bigotry, then, they will cling until their fingers are bloody. You listening Oaks?

We often take a client's very dated and dysfunctional product and construct a new improved version for them. While they appreciate the update and notice it is lighter, stronger, more functional, they inevitably begin asking for small adjustments that push the product slowly but surely back to what they had before. In the end they want what they are familiar with more than they want the improvement.

This is why I love the EXMOs on this board. They really do love learning, and progress, and adapting themselves to something better. Exploration is not a dirty word. Casting off the old is a way to enhance a life. Embracing new ideas may create a little fear, but it is fear of the new and unknown that will sharpen your senses and bring the enlightenment that cannot be found in a cozy cocoon.

I have a friend who insists that this latest tack of society back to theocracy is the last dying gasp of religious control and that the younger generation will follow the technology and not the religion. They are less religious and it seems possible, but if the glazed over look on their faces while their thumbs are stuck to their phones is any indication of this, then I'm not sure what to think anymore.

I did some research, back in my college days, which has been very reassuring to me over time. I was taking a journalism course, and was assigned to read old magazines and comment on some thread that was consistent in periodicals of a particular time long past.

The time period that I chose was just after the major surge of unionism, and its eventual acceptance. People had great, high hopes for a wonderful new world for workers and their families, with the unions protecting employees. And then, stunningly to many writers (both those writing articles and those writing letters to the editors) society began to slip back to some of the pre-union conditions.

People were terribly upset, as they had so celebrated certain advances, and now, those same advances were being lost. It was a time much like this time. The thing that I realized, though, was that the backlash didn't stick. All of the things that were being mourned as lost were things that we have now, and take for granted.

So then I looked at other issues, racial ones, religious ones and so forth. Same pattern. Big period of societal change, big backlash, and then gradually, the gains from the period of change were consolidated and became a stable part of our society. I saw it happening over and over.

Since then, I've felt some solace, whenever we are in a period of backsliding, in the understanding that it is part of what appears to be a regular human cycle. Repression - Big Advance - Backlash and Despair - Gradual Regaining of Improvements.

Religion is one of the biggest areas for that. Many of us tend to see our own period as being the most advanced. But back when our nation was founded, what the fundamentalists today see as true religion was not at all accepted by many great thinkers. And then, religious revivals swept in and religious mania took over, at least on the surface.

Then there was another period in which socially-conscious people began to abandon fundamentalist beliefs. Then another backlash, with many people, generations ago, saying exactly what many on this board are saying today: How could we be losing the advances that we made? How could primitive superstition be taking control all across the nation? What is wrong with society, that religion is replacing knowledge and we're gong back to the dark ages?

It all seems to go in cycles, a big move forward, followed by a lurch backward. At the same time, overall, I could, and can, see that society has continuously made gradual improvements which ultimately stick. It seems that we need the big swings to get things moving at all. But the lasting advances happen more gradually, and nearly always with some frustrating setbacks along the way.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They wanted to enslave
> themselves to the past. They wanted religion.
>

Apart from Islamic states which still practice slavery and deny basic rights to women, can you give some examples of where religion brings slavery in a contemporary setting?


> I don't understand this. I don't understand the
> desire to live in a theocracy.

The only actual theocracies on the planet are Islamic. Can you show us where people are seeking to establish other theocracies?

> Religion should be
> a private affair, not a public one. The particular
> faith or sect doesn't matter. I don't try and
> force other people to conform to my way of living
> and my ethical standards.

Except for your insistence that religion be a private affair? It's okay for your morality to take a public stage, but not that of theists?

> But a great many
> religious people seem to want to do just that.
>

As do a fair number of secular people.

> Now, instead of a bright future we are faced with
> a dark abyss. Religions are telling people that
> if they hate others they are really "loving" them.
> Denial of truth is actually "knowledge" as
> everything that is necessary to know is already
> written in sacred texts and education isn't
> necessary. Intolerance is justified as religious
> "freedom."
>

I take it you're part of the new world lexicon where hesitancy to embrace your point of view is "hate." Conversation is not allowed on a wide range of topics, there is only complete acceptance and haters, right? Have you ever been able to have a discussion with someone who believes marriage should be just between a man and a woman without assuming they had some deep-seated hatred for gay people? Are you ready to accept the fact that there can be disagreement without hatred, bigotry, and homophobia? Are you ready to recognize there can be variations of opinion and opposing points of view without the requirement that hatred or bigotry motivates the one you disagree with? If not, you are the one pushing destruction, not "them."

The world of "tolerance" so many seem to seek today is where a single point of view is tolerated and all others are dismissed as backwards and hateful. There are no variations of ideas that can be discussed, only correct thought and hatred.

> Why?
>
> You can't save the world by destroying the one you
> live in.

And if you are unwilling or unable to intelligently engage those who disagree with you without resorting to dismissing them in a stream of invectives as "haters," you're part of the problem, not the solution.

"Slavery" doesn't have to be in the literal sense. If you turn off your mind and abandon your will to think and reason for yourself and allow others to think for you, that's also a form of slavery.

There are several Jewish and Christian groups that also deny basic women's rights -- not just Muslims. Some Muslims are progressive, some aren't and yes, some are terrorists -- just like Christians.

Utah is a theocracy and I would submit several Southern "Bible Belt" states are also quasi-theocracies. Israel also has some theocratic elements as the official rabbinical authorities have a great deal of power and influence.

When I say religion should be private and not public, I mean public in the legal sense. A democracy cannot function if there's no separation between the religious and the secular. I don't see a lot of Muslims who are trying to give their religious views the force of law (as so often claimed by right-wing media) but I do see a lot of evangelical Christians who are trying to do this and succeeding.

In my personal experience all the people that I know who express anti-LGBT views do so out of personal bias or dislike and many of them use religion as a cover. If you say you don't then I'll have to take your word for it. If you are not in favour of marriage equality you are free not to be and you are free to preach that to others if you wish. But if we are going to have free and open commerce and a civil society we can't have people being refused service or legally discriminated against. I would apply this to Hindus and Muslims and Catholics and Protestants as well. Government should neither favour or disfavour religion.

If someone wants to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible is literally true then that's their business. If they do not want to accept scientific fact and deny evolution and climate change and biological evidence for the aetiology of homosexuality or transsexuality, they are free to do so. But they can't force the government to legally mandate such views. Scientific facts are not opinions that can be ignored or argued against.

I had a good friend who was an evangelical Christian. He wanted me to know that he didn't hate people and he was sincere and believed in his faith. He asked me if I knew about Jesus and if I wanted a personal relationship with Christ. I told him yes, I know about Jesus but I didn't believe in god or gods or any religion. He wanted to witness to me as a personal favour as he was a friend and worried that I was a good person that would go to Hell. I allowed him to so. We were still friends even though I didn't follow his faith or any other faith.

You know "enslave" doesn't have to be taken literally and mean actual physical chains and bondage? Ever hear of the word "literary" or perhaps "metaphor?" There are many semantic intricacies when we write that you may want to familiarize yourself with.

I can't even bother with the rest of your dismissal of a nicely written essay expressing an opinion that you have misconstrued to be hateful when in fact it is an expression of hope for a more inclusive and cohesive society run by kindness and increased knowledge and understanding rather than by archaic and hateful religious dogma.


And yes, those opposed to marriage equality base it on religion and part of that is hatred of gay people. I know. I'm on the receiving end. The new "supposed freedom of religion" is nothing more than a license to be bigoted. Period.

I offer my feedback not to challenge but to better understand each other.

"a new century of freedom that would be the ne plus ultra of man's scientific and technological achievements."

Scientific advancement is wonderful but should be implemented carefully taking into consideration all the foreseeable risks. Too much change too fast cannot be properly assimilated into a culture and could have negative impact causing decline, chaos and potentially have disasterous consequences on a society.

"Europe was coming together. Borders were falling away."

Some times secure borders are useful as they help to preserve the culture or what is uniquely good about a nation,its culture and its laws. Also can keep threats to national security and national interests at bay as well as preserve the sovereignty of the nation and its people. Sometimes too much mixing of diverse cultures can lead to conflict and disfunction. A nation is free to admit immigrants that will bennefit the national interests but is under no obligation to admit all that petition for admittance.

"The Internet would revolutionise society and create a glorious new Information Age."

It has created a glorious new infromation age, and some make full use of it. It allows free humanity to escape the monopoly control of the social engineers who have traditionally owned and dominated the information market and attempt to engineer public opinion.

"Religion should be a private affair, not a public one. The particular faith or sect doesn't matter. I don't try and force other people to conform to my way of living and my ethical standards. But a great many religious people seem to want to do just that."

The decline of religion may be very slow as it has played such a significant role in culturalal developement for tens of thousands of years so that it is almost written in our DNA. As we know, you can't reason with religious people and especially the most radical strains.

America and Canada have the longest undefended border between two countries on Earth. Crossing was very easy and simple until a few years ago. Each nation has their own laws and culture but goods and people could easily cross. That's not so true now.

Nations may differ but people are basically the same all over. In our time we've seen how religion is used to divide instead of bring people together.

There's an old movie that I was fortunate to see when I was growing up:

"Kameradschaft" (1931)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffE0pdJdGaw

It's based on a real-life mining disaster on the border between France and Germany. Miners -- against the wishes of their superiors -- on each side of the border work together to rescue their trapped brothers.

At the end of the film, officials from both country are shown to re-erect the border gate in the mine -- far below the surface.

But that's not the part of the film that I choose to remember.


This is.

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/612783e773634df8b563a243fc804643/two-miners-one-wearing-gas-mask-shaking-hands-on-set-of-the-film-kameradschaft-e7a2kg.jpg

It's when the miners -- who just a few years before were slaughtering each other in the trenches -- shake hands and join together to rescue their friends.

Growing up in the 60s and 70s we always heard that by the turn of the century, the country would be mostly Godless (but most of the good people would be mormon), the politicians would all be Atheist, and nobody would be fighting anymore FOR our religious "values," e.g., homophobia, misogyny, hate, bigotry and the all saving prayer in schools.

IF OOOOOOOOOOONLY....

Why?

$