going backward to religious intolerance

Here's an outline of some of the "debates" I've read online about the worth of religion:

• Ha! Religion! Bash bash!
• Er...we would prefer if you didn't compulsively beat up on religion based on the slightest provocation.
  
• You religious people keep complaining about sensitivity for your "sacred" fairy tales! How dare you even make a sincere attempt to defend yourselves! I wish the whole lot of you were wiped out! [expletive, expletive]

I'm mystified by the logic behind replacing "intolerant" religions with intolerance for religion. Nor do I comprehend how someone else's vehement hate toward me is expected to convince me that his or her belief system is kinder than mine.

There were times in the past (actually, in the present, too, depending on location) when official belief systems were not only mandated but also strenuously enforced. It was known as religious persecution. Societies chose to pioneer new lands rather than endure it. Needless to say, religious persecution hasn't succeeded.

Now we don't persecute people on account of their belief systems, and all are expected to coexist as harmoniously as they can. This is known as religious freedom, in which unity and tolerance are important values. A "progressive" who advocates the extinction of religious belief systems is a "regressive".

False Amorality

Pro-Christian people and anti-Christian people have common ground, despite protests to the contrary. They both have the distinction of caring at all about the topic. They both have important rallying points. They both have persuasive leaders and throngs of followers. They both must tussle with life's trials, whether physical, monetary, emotional, or relational. Most obviously, they're both human.

Not nearly as obviously, they hold some of the same beliefs about each other! A perennial example of this is the charge of "amorality", the belief that the other group has no (valid) morality. Having no morality is different from being immoral. An immoral person may be aware he or she has violated a moral, while an amoral person goes one step further by not acknowledging a moral's very existence or rationale. Amoral people are convincing bogeymen because they dare to deny the moral fabric that helps define one's understanding of personal and social reality.

Although someone who holds to a relatively looser morality may be prone to suspicions of amorality as defined above, someone with a relatively stricter morality also is. The amorality just operates in the opposite way. If someone can be amoral by ignoring moral codes out of disrespect for sensible principles, why can't someone be amoral by adding moral codes out of respect for nonsensical principles? To the atheist, theistic morality has no basis, so anyone who practices a theistic morality has no true morals. From the atheist's perspective, religious people are "amoral" and inspire the corresponding level of queasiness. An atheist may express this queasiness through a statement like "religious fundamentalists can't be reasoned with". Of course, "reasoned with" in this case may really mean "converted to my belief system" and the concept of "reason" may really be "reductionism", but this language confusion merely reiterates that the "amoral" chasm runs along fundamental lines.

Regardless of whose viewpoint the accusation of amorality (in the broadly-inclusive sense described here) comes from, clearly the accusation reinforces rather than bridges rifts between the accuser and the accused, who sincerely believe in one or the other. After all, if I state that you have no morality (likely in unflattering terms), or that your morality is worthless (again, likely in quite unflattering terms), we have nothing productive left to say on moral topics. Discussions about morality only apply to moral agents. Debates don't go anywhere if one or more debaters refuse to concede any points advanced by others, or even bother to listen. An assertion of amorality is a method to rebuff conversation.

Fortunately for people who want to keep a dialog open, perceived amorality is false more often than not. The distinction between real and false amorality can be subtle to spot, for anyone who hasn't tried:

• Self-deception is more durable than steel. When a person loudly denounces any fixed standard of morality, the proclamation will be contradicted a few minutes later--as soon as that person is the victim of an immoral act. The selfish and/or manipulative will pull a con and refer to it as the shameful consequence of the sucker's foolishness, but will change their tune after the spoils are "unfairly" stolen by a double-crosser. Morality is present in people's beliefs no matter how they hide from it, and also no matter what they say to the contrary.
• Another entirely unsurprising (to Christians) indication of the falsity of amorality is what happens in practice when people purposely choose to live by it. (The paradox of making a rule to not live by the rules shall be passed over.) Those who choose amorality tend to have trouble not "accidentally" running into the need for morality later. A household with no rules about chores except "if you see something that needs doing, do it" sounds deliciously laid-back. Depending on the level of commitment to community and the spiritual maturity of the household members, perhaps a set of monks, it might even work. For less disciplined and caring people, it might work temporarily. Isn't it incredibly naive to imagine that a household randomly picked out of a street would function this way for a significant length of time? The lazy would be lazy, the industrious would be industrious, the controlling would be controlling, the pushed-around would be pushed around. Morality isn't arbitrary. It's how human behavior works. Taking a more important example, couples who live together like husband and wife, yet eschew "outdated" marriage out of lust for independence, will find their own feelings betraying the depth of the bond. Part of the need for a marriage-level of commitment is to prevent the emotional, financial, and familial pain caused by either party tearing apart the relationship at will.
• The danger of exposing someone to a differing morality or (sub)culture is the ease of mistaking, without any maliciousness, radically strange morality for amorality. Modesty is a prime example. Just because the customary clothing of a society covers up more or less than one's own doesn't imply the society has no concept of modesty. In any case, the problem in dressing provocatively is the sins of thought and action it incites, not the specific amount of the body it displays. Or consider swearing. It's only natural to assume that someone who casually swears about everything has no morality about what he or she says. He or she may have picked up the habit of swearing to attempt to convey that very impression, in order to seem threatening or free of scruples. But assuming amoral language use wouldn't necessarily be correct. The continually swearing person possibly could be very careful to not insult the weak, for instance. He or she could be the type who, in spite of saying that people should talk however they want, would without hesitation take offense at certain abominable statements. Swearing can demonstrate an appalling lack of respect for God and humanity; it must not be condoned. However, swearing is not an infallible mark of actual verbal amorality.

Amorality is not a helpful label to apply to people. It's not productive for reconciliation. It's not accurate, most of the time. In the Christian mindset, it's inconsistent with the universal love Christ preached and gave. He didn't damn people for knowing not what they did. He connected with them at their needs, at a point they understood, thereby enabling them to realize the worth of Him and what He offered. Then He told them to 1) repent, 2) follow Him. An "amoral" person may be more ready to hear the truth than the description would suggest.

materialism summed up

Here's a perspective on materialism I once heard.

Material objects are dead. This means people who demonstrate love and devotion to material objects are loving dead things!

Now that is sick.

Worldview Fragment: just be yourself

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The "just be yourself" worldview fragment is defined as the belief that "each unique individual can have no greater ambition than to be and do what comes most naturally to him or her". Like other fragments, it's correct about some things but is not an example of unqualified truth.

Each individual is precious and rare, is worthy of a chance, and has a distinct set of talents. Christianity contradicts none of those assertions. Jesus mixed with all layers of society, particularly the "worthless scum". The complete non-exclusivity of the Gospel (subject to academic arguments about "predestined elect", but leave that aside for the moment) is implicit in the idea of the Great Commission, confirmed by events/councils in Acts, and preceded by Jesus' merciful interactions with Gentiles. The wide range of spiritual fruits and virtues, along with the Bible passages about the importance of unity among the diversity of the Body of Christ (the Church), illustrate the value of what only each individual can bring to the whole.

On the other hand, Christianity without earnest repentance and sincere shame for sin is not Christianity. Loving oneself, and everything about oneself, is a questionable ideal which is actually loathed in practice. Who hasn't wished for vain, arrogant snobs to receive their comeuppance? How often is someone blinded to his or her own weaknesses by blind self-love? The greatest tragedy is when someone closely identifies with his or her sin, thereby loving it like a body part or "pet".

Of course, he or she is somewhat right in that belief, since Christianity teaches that sin is natural for people. Someone who sins "naturally" still sins. A "natural" sin may be committed with relatively purer intentions than a "premeditated and consciously-chosen" sin, but the act remains the sick product of a sick being. Moreover, the more "natural" sins someone commits, the greater the evidence someone is naturally twisted. In short, to "just be yourself" when faced with a decision may not be an innocent proposition (although it may be).

Not "just being yourself" when faced with a decision could seem ridiculous to those who believe in a companion worldview fragment, "people can't change". And once again, even such a minor fragment is partially helpful and partially misleading. It's more accurate to claim "people can change, but change is hard". Many fail to change simply because they don't try enough. Then they succeed for a while, but don't sustain the change because they fail to be vigilant against the forces (within and without) that originally kept the old self/behavior so consistent. Drastic, lasting change is an easy dream but a hard endeavor. The Good News, for the Christian who really is trying, is the forgiveness offered to the confessor--forgiveness not granted in order for the sinner to sin again but granted in order for the contrite to begin anew (again).

Yet another objection arises. If Christians are trying so hard to change themselves into a group that acts uniformly, thinks uniformly, feels uniformly, then won't the result be a boring, homogenized mass of lukewarm mush? It's an honest question with several answers. For one thing, the parts of themselves that people leave behind aren't any good. Any good qualities of those parts stick around, in greater purity, due to not being weighed-down or held-back by dross. As all the members learn how to live harmoniously, they're enabled to form a stronger, better-functioning society, a society in which everyone can "be themselves" without worry because it is safe and caring. Perhaps the best response to the charge of boring uniformity is the irresistible uniqueness etched into a soul. One person can't be hammered and shaped into another, or at least not by breaking one of them. All are imperfect; when made perfect, perfection will shine in a specialized, finite way through any one of them.

Worldview Fragment: life without rules

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The "life without rules" worldview fragment can be summarized, if not concisely, as follows: "Living according to a set of rules or customs only produces an elaborate fantasy existence in which real humanity is all but absent." Some punchier statements in the same vein are: "rules are meant to be broken", "show me a rule and I'll show you a hypocrite", "have fun by ignoring the rules for once", "rules are for tools or dupes", "might makes right", "rules are dead so following them makes one dead".

Here are first some positive aspects to this worldview fragment:

• Life is complicated. Rules will necessarily be insufficient to cover all situations. Therefore, it's beneficial to realize that rules are not enough, but principles nevertheless enable one to confront new decisions. This is unavoidably true within Christianity. The Bible is old. It was originally written to people who lived much differently than those in the present. Christians who attempt to live out every exact word of the Bible, while having good intentions, are in my opinion taking on the unneeded burden of preserving a nonexistent past (a past with its own set of downsides). Rules are limited, so rules aren't everything.
• A central Christian doctrine is the human inability to be holy apart from God. Rules come after salvation. Once again, mere rules aren't sufficient. In fact, in Jesus' teaching He replaced the rules regulating actions with still-harder rules regulating attitudes and thoughts! By this He acknowledged the insufficiency of (those) rules.
• Speaking frankly, some rules truly are pointless and ridiculous. Judging objectively whether a rule has a good reason, as well as when an exception is called for, is a mark of maturity. Notice that saying "Rule 4c is not applicable right now because of _____" is still far different from saying "Rule 4c is never applicable because rules are never applicable".

As usual, the principal problem of this worldview fragment lies in how it has been applied, as expressed in the set of related statements above. It is prone to spreading certain inaccuracies:

• To be generally dismissive toward rules is to misunderstand the general purpose of rules, which is enhancing life. When someone knows that a particular action is dangerous or at the very least has undesirable consequences, the ethical response is to create a rule forbidding it. On the other hand, if a particular action leads to a greater good, the ethical response is to create a rule mandating it. Serving customers in the order of arrival is a good rule to promote timely, fair service all around. An alternative, such as serving whichever customer successfully tackles the others to the floor, would not be as good.
• Rules may feel like the enemy of passion or desire, because rules can stifle. The error is in not acknowledging the value of this stifling effect in producing personal freedom. Freedom is choosing what will be, so someone who always listens to desire isn't as free as he or she may claim. Merely consenting to desire at every turn is a subtle bondage in which desire is one's master. Christians (and other myriad belief systems) have recommended the discipline of fasting as a great aid in this context. Although I don't think fasting regularly is necessary, I trust those who report that fasting is invaluable from time to time.
• Moderation's "dirty little secret" is how it can increase enjoyment of desire. Indulgence without moderation sooner or later is self-defeating. Addicts of any stripe know this intimately. As movie critics point out, there is nothing as tedious as nonstop action. A little modesty goes a long way. Binges can dull experience and also fatigue the person who's binging. To take a common example, consider fire. Fire is a powerful tool for light and warmth. Too much (uncontrolled) fire is a tool for destruction.
  
• The saddest element of this worldview fragment is the tendency for its disregard for rules to ripple into a disrespect for the mental faculties connected with rules. That is, someone who subscribes to the "rules are a prison" belief is more likely to elevate the importance of his or her "gut" over rational judgment. Does anyone doubt what disasters could result? For some decisions, the difference may not matter much. Yet the compulsive rule-breaker, whose insistence on "living free by shooting from the hip" leads him or her to throw caution away, sooner or later may discover the harshness of some of reality's rules. Risks are part of life, but stupid risks should not be. Some personalities naturally err on the side of overconfidence, while some naturally err on the side of fearfulness. Neither error is worse than the other, although people with a dramatic flair will insist that taking stupid risks is better than taking no risks.

The thrill people experience from ignoring rules is really the thrill of living dangerously. "Look at me! I'm disobeying a rule. I wonder what could happen?" The thrill people experience from living "outside the lines" is really the thrill of being cut off from meaning, purpose, authority, and responsibility. This thrill speaks to the human ambition to be "like God", to be beyond good and evil. Unfortunately, it also happens to be absurd. God isn't beyond good and evil either. Moreover, life is dangerously thrilling on its own. All one must do is seek it out. The true "elaborate fantasy existence" consists of smashing or ignoring rules in order to pretend the Good needs the Bad to be interesting.

Worldview Fragment: All you need is love

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The worldview fragment I have named "all you need is love" could be precisely summed up as "affection, compassion, appreciation, and goodwill are sufficient to achieve lasting utopia". Who could argue with this? What past recipient of such kind feelings would doubt their effectiveness? How many people have been transformed thereby?

Let me state immediately that love is a huge part of Christianity, too, although as I (I'm an analytical male, by the way) understand it, Christian love is less about feelings than about action: love is expressed by doing what is best for the object. I have the impression that love is the lifeblood, the heart-and-soul of Christian life. As the Bible reiterates, love is the most important and desireable quality or virtue one should pursue, but love in this sense is much more than a feeling. The array of possible meanings denoted by love can make communication tricky, which is why I grasped about for four alternative words to use in the definition in the previous paragraph. For convenience I will use the acronym ACAG to reference those words, affection, compassion, appreciation, goodwill.

All that having been said, the worldview fragment "all you need is love", as defined above, is incorrect:

• One difficulty is that ACAG are simply not constants. When someone who is close, whether emotionally or even just physically, lashes out for the flimsiest reason(s), ACAG tend to evaporate. In those moments, self-control and a determination to preserve the relationship's peace--not ACAG--must act as substitutes.
• Other problems can arise when ACAG are directed more strongly at one party than another, because a bias or preference is the natural result. If an argument or other need for mediation occurs, neutrality won't be present out of ACAG (if both claim to be the "victim", isn't it hard not to side with whichever party "deserves" more consideration or has "earned" more sympathy?). An obvious retort is that ACAG must be directed at all people equally to be any good, but the honest shall readily confess to feeling more benevolent toward the victim of an unprovoked attack than toward the aggressor, to purposely take an extreme example.
• Wise folks have observed the close connection between the emotions of love and hate. (The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.) Love and hate have similar physical manifestations, can turn into each other with alarming ease, etc. Lovers turning into angry maniacs is one of the most prevalent ways of creating drama in any medium. In a love triangle, "love" may be the sole cause of the hostility ("betrayed by my best friend and my girl!"). The point is that the two A's of ACAG, affection and appreciation, when left unrestrained, can transmute into the most awful of passions.
• On what could be thought of as the other end of the spectrum, mere ACAG are not much help in the endless examples of the minute details of existence. Newlyweds will discover this quite soon after the wedding, if not during the wedding's planning stage. For instance, what US state will one live in? Someone can't be in two distinct places simultaneously, no matter how much ACAG someone has. Take a smaller example. What color should a wall be? Assuming that a combination of colors on the same wall is not a possibility (probably due to being too garish), the wall can only be one or the other, regardless of how much ACAG someone has. Tragically speaking, if "all you need is love", more marriages would last longer.
  

ACAG are great, in Christians or anyone else. However, Christianity is more than ACAG and the associated Christmas carols. It has to be, if it claims to be a workable solution to the Human Condition, and if it claims to have a (feasible) heaven. A Christian whose Christianity does not go beyond ACAG should really drop his or her pretense to the label--if ACAG was all Jesus had to carry out to save the world, why did He bother with that business about repentance and the cross?

Grand Self-Deception

Any belief system is subject to charges of hypocrisy, a disagreement between proscribed and actual behavior, but regardless of its widespread press it's no more than one of the many breeds of deception and self-deception. Just as I've read that courage is the foundation for a good deed, self-deception may be the foundation for bad deeds. Self-deception enables typically-well-intentioned people to perpetrate evil without admitting or confessing it (to themselves, anyway). More importantly, entire groups of people can undergo self-deception at once. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if self-deception on a grand level operates as the duct-tape, buttress, or girder--perhaps even the mainspring--for society and culture. In the following I'm not writing from an exclusively Christian perspective but attempting to express a range of values.

• Consider the concept of sexiness, which is a goal for fashion and dance and media. The very word contains its real meaning, "sex". And sexiness is a positive quality, correct? After all, we're just animals, so refusing to embrace sexiness without restriction would be unhealthy and prudish! But wait--being perceived or treated as a "sex object" is definitely not positive, correct? History and past customs have shown how awful it was when people were reduced to the state of functioning as objects, so we're proud to have advanced past that point. Aren't we? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that sexiness has nothing to do with sex. The trick is to be provocative without thinking too hard about what is being provoked, see?
• Consider the concept of spirituality. Through spirituality people can reach a deeper level of existence. They can transcend. They can find the god within. They can communicate beyond the grave or use sixth senses. This is much better than those busybodies who rush around focusing on just what they can directly sense, correct? But wait--science and technology have taught us to toss out superstitions. Gods are human inventions that function as crutches for the weak-minded or weak-spirited. The supernatural is for the gullible, correct? Isn't it? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that spirituality has nothing to do with the superstitious supernatural. The trick is to be spiritual without thinking too hard about spirits, see?
• Consider the concept of personal freedom. Each person does all the harmless things he or she wants, without worry of oppression from others. Moreover, each person can pursue happiness as he or she wishes, and believe whatever world narrative he or she likes. The public should give the private free rein, correct? But wait--certain goals can only be reached as people work together. Democratic government doesn't reflect the will of the people unless the people put in effort. Some individuals are powerless to care for themselves. All economic transactions require more than one participant. Someone's personal life interferes with his or her ability to work. Duty and responsibility are what separate a functioning social system from anarchy, correct? Activities people must do? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that personal freedom is more important than duty and responsibility. The trick is to do whatever you want because it's your right to do so, but donate leftover resources to meet the minimum demands of duty and responsibility of a "decent" person, see?
• Consider the concepts of marriage and family. In so many cases, marriage and family end badly. Career offers an upward-progressing path, while marriage is the definition of a relationship that stays the same. Outside marriage, sex is a recreational activity. Inside marriage, sex turns into a monotonous chore. Children hamper someone from achieving his or her goals. The exciting years are before marriage, because marriage is "settling down". It makes no sense for people to be trapped by outdated, traditional norms, correct? But wait--large segments of the market are devoted to products for kids and raising them. On holidays, families gather to spend time together. Some people depend so heavily on family support it borders on exploitation. Without good families, humanity's future is in doubt. Sentimental media extol the preciousness of family. Over time, many single people grow desperately lonely. Marriage and family are extremely significant spurs to personal growth and adulthood, correct? Self-deception is the rescue from this dilemma. Self-deception enables us to pretend that the totally unfettered, single, self-centered person relishing life and career is accomplishing as much as if not more than the married shlubs who are discovering how demanding authentic love is. The trick is to view personal relationships in terms of emotional profit rather than as difficult but incredibly rewarding adventures, see?