As the expression goes, more people have died in the name of God than in by other cause. Throughout history religion has been and still is the major cause of conflict in the world, one needs to look no further than the Middle East to confirm that fact. Radical Islam is currently the biggest threat to the world. Rather than focus on world issues and historical issues of religion, I'd prefer to look at domestic problems within the United States regarding religious zealots. The problem with religious zealots in America is that they try to impose their values through laws on society and largely do not base their arguments on logic or what's best for the country, but rather on what their interpretation of the Bible says. Additionally, there's a counter lobby of secularist extremists whose arguments, like those of religious zealots, are rooted in their hatred of religion, rather than in logic. Both extreme elements, the religious right and the Godless left are very dangerous to society and at the heart of the cultural conflict right now that is, unfortunately, being settled in the courts.
The major problem with the religious right is not necessarily that they put blinders on to science and the reality of modern society, but that they have a clear agenda that they seek to impose on the rest of society. In addition, many of their suggestions are harmful to an element of society, particularly certain minorities. We'll start in the area of education and the drive against the teaching of the theory of evolution in favor of creationism. Conceding for a moment that evolution may not be a proven fact, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that it took place, certainly enough evidence to make it worthwhile to study in school. To the religious right, this is an inconvenient fact which gets in the way of their creationist theory from the Bible, so there's a lobby seeking to ban the teaching of evolution in schools. This policy of ignoring evidence because it contradicts a worldview is very dangerous, and amounts to a policy of indoctronation. On the flip side, the secularists seek to only teach the theory of evolution, without mention of any other theories, which can be dangerous, but not quite as much as the ultra-religious seeking to ignore a widely supported theory. If we, as a society, choose to simply ignore inconvenient information, we would be back in the dark ages in a heartbeat.
Another issue with which I take issue with the approach of the religious right on is that of gay marriage. The far right has a hatred for homosexuality and all that it represents because they consider it a sin. Rather than viewing gay individuals as people, the ultra-religious view them in the lower class of sinners because they simply have adopted a different lifestyle. The religious right has chosen not to accept the lifestyle by individual gay people, and tries to impose their values on gay people who have clearly rejected at least some of them. If Joey wants to marry Vinny, how does that mere fact impact my life? It clearly does not impact me in any way, so why should it matter to me if it would make Joey and Vinny happy to be married? It shouldn't. The whole idea of the institution of marriage is a construct anyhow, and there's nothing particularly sacred about it (especially given the extremely high divorce numbers). Preventing gays from marrying, assuming there are no additional complications (which, of course there are) is simply eliminating an element of happiness that gay people could enjoy. That goes for polygamists too, by the way, if some people want to set up a polygamist family and obey all other laws, just for their happiness, they should be allowed to do so.
Now, I did issue a caveat in my last argument and I must now say that I am personally opposed to any type of marriage that is not between a man and a woman at this time. The reason is because of the faulty rationality of the court system and the knowledge that gay rights activists will continue to push them envelope into the realm of adoption. In a clear example that the far left has no logic, and won't leave well enough alone, it is almost guaranteed that as soon as gay marriage becomes legalized, there will be a push under the 14th Amendment (equal protection) to require adoption agencies to consider homosexual couples on equal grounds for adoption as heterosexual couples. This is insanity, and knowing the court system, this precise situation would be legislated from the bench. For a child, the natural environment in which to grow up is with a single father and a single mother. That's not to say a homosexual couple may not make great parents, but preference must be given to the heterosexual couple because that is the environment best suited to the child.
Yet another major issue which is divider is the abortion/birth control argument. The reality of the world is that abstinence is a thing of the past. I personally, at age 24, cannot think of one person my age who has decided to abstain from sex before marriage. It simply is not a part of today's world. The practical thing for society to do is to allow and to promote birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening, as these types of pregnancies cause society a multitude of problems and cost everyone money. While societal institutions should not actively encourage teenage sex, they should provide education on how to prevent pregnancies and to promote safety. That is simply the logical approach.
While birth control is good, and a healthy preventative measure for society, abortion is bad, and it should not be accepted as a reasonable means of birth control. While I consider whether to have an abortion a woman's choice, as she will have to live with the physical and emotional consequences of that decision, consequences that us men have the convenience of avoiding, society should not encourage abortions, nor should any late-term abortion be allowed without threat to the mother's life. Additionally, abortion should not be a unilateral decision, as the father should be given the option to solely take care of the baby. It is not fair that a father has to support an unwanted child for 18 years, while a mother can simply abort an unwanted child that the father wants to raise. Ultimately, fewer abortions are better for society, and life should be promoted. While there is a legitimate debate as to whether a fetus is alive, I think a consensus can be achieved that a fetus is more alive than sperm and egg before conception, and it becomes more alive with each passing minute, and that it's better for society in general avoid abortion.
While much of my initial argument has to do with the fallacies of the religious right, there are plenty of secularist extremists whose equal lack of logic is potentially destructive to society. Their premise, that there is a separation of church and state, is a fallacy itself (I will discuss in future blogs) and they carry this premise to the extreme, seeking to eliminate all forms of religion in this country. While religious extremists represent a threat to America, the United States is, in fact, a religious country with religious traditions, though not tied to any particular religion.
A pertinent example is the vigilant opposition to faith-based initiatives, proposed by President Bush at the beginning of his presidency and during his term as Texas governor. Faith-based initiative are basically programs aimed at helping homeless people, single moms and generally downtrodden people get back on their feet. Often these programs were tied in with some church or some form of religion. The plan was for the government to provide funding to these effective programs to help people who needed help. The plan was noble, however, the anti-religion crowd had a field day opposing these programs, simply on the basis that religious institutions were being funded to do this work. The plan would be perfectly fine, say the critics, if the institutions were secular. That argument has absolutely no basis in logic. Religious institutions are situated perfectly to help the types of people who needed help under this plan, so what's the harm? How does giving a Catholic church or a Jewish temple funding to carry out a program hurt the country or its citizenry in any way? Does it promote religion? Sure, but so what? The only people who it could "hurt" are those who seek to completely eliminate all forms of religion in this country.
Another example of the secularist crowd overstepping its bounds has to do with the multitude of court cases against religious displays and the use of public grounds by organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, who are quasi-religious. Recently, lawsuits have been filed to remove Christmas scenes and even a Ten Commandments monument. Additionally, a lawsuit which attacked the "Under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance was successful. My question is, what is the harm that these displays are causing? Very little if any is the answer. They certainly are not establishing an oppressive environment. Yet they are part of the local culture, which is being attacked for no clear reason.
Both the religious and the secularist extremes are dangerous to America. Both are devoid of logic and seek only to promote their narrow ideology, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in their fights in the courts. America needs to reject both sides of extremism and continue to make logical public policy. Courts also should adopt the stance that the Constitution is not a means by which they can write law and create policy. A vigilant minority should not be able to impose on the majority its narrow values through the court system.
