Let’s say that you’re a person in the 1800’s in America who believes the enslavement of Africans is wrong because it’s wrong to enslave human beings. Others look at you and say, ‘That’s strange, don’t they have inferior mental faculties? They’re a different group. Why do you think blacks are more important than whites?’ Therefore treating people from other ‘races’ as equals gets you labeled as an extremist; the most extreme position people would be able to accept is you having a ‘White Man’s Burden’ attitude, or at least, people want to interpret your ideas that way. Showing any anger about the issue of slavery gets you labeled as ‘intolerant’ or as a ‘fanatic.’
The world was relatively secular back then, but it was also much more religious than it is now. If slavery was legal nowadays, and you attempted to talk about it, or spread awareness for just how horrible it is, people would accuse you of ‘preaching.’
There are situations where using the term ‘lecture’ instead of preaching is appropriate. People don’t want to be ‘lectured’ or looked down on. It’s like the difference between calling a female colleague you dislike a bitch versus calling her an asshole.
But this is the problem with comparing political causes to religions. I used such an extreme example because we have enough distance from it to see the absurdity of the dynamic. Any sort of group/cause with big goals and passion motivating it gets lumped in with religion and spirituality. I saw a father talking fondly about a cause his deceased son advocated for, and said that his enthusiasm was able to create more ‘converts’ than he thought possible. A person making the comparison to religion may say, ‘I’m not saying it as an insult. I love spirituality…’ But as you see it is used to quickly dismiss a whole ideology. To a certain extent, it’s true that the comparison has positive connotations at first. It’s similar to ‘positive stereotypes,’ which are usually just backhanded compliments, or poisonous praise. Like when someone says, ‘your people are so much better at hoarding up lots of money than everyone else.’ The moment your ideas step outside of the current political establishment, the comparisons start to become much nastier. The moment you take action instead of talking, every tactic available to you is automatically deemed immoral. You said the wrong thing, you were disrespectful, you did the incorrect type of protest. People who are religious ought to hate this dynamic. Essentially, commentators are insulting others by comparing them to you! Does that feel good?
Religious groups often use anti-religious talking points against their political opponents. For example, a person that doesn’t want to call themselves religious, and calls themselves spiritual instead. Or a person that says that they don’t have a religion, they just have a ‘relationship with Jesus.’
A religious evangelist attempts to convert as many people as possible because they believe they have a duty to stop people from burning in Hell for all eternity. They also do not question whether it is moral for God to throw people in Hell for being unbelievers because they think God is the inventor of morality. If you believed the same things they did with full conviction, you would feel the same way. A political cause on the other hand attempts to solve problems here on Earth, here in this realm, this reality, rather than looking for some supposed shadowy truth that’s secretly behind the curtain. Culture; things like history, science, poetry, writing, social gatherings, etc, allow us to have rich mental and emotional lives. With the exception of hybrids between the two, religious organizations, and political groups inherently have different goals because of how they view the role of pain and suffering in the world. It is the difference between charity, and the need to replace an entire system which is broken. Actually, I am not entirely correct about the different goal part. There is one goal the two have in common, which is the accumulation of power; a noble goal universal to all humans. Now, not everyone associated with political causes are exactly the same. Some people are bigger realists than others. Others never engage in big action (this isn’t always bad, not everyone has the same roles.) But in the sense I’m talking about, politics and religion aren’t the same.
But let’s play a little devil’s advocate, and look at some opposite truths. What does the religious experience, and activism have in common? The rush of group emotions. When many people are gathered in one place and feel the same emotion at the same time, that feeling is powerful. Like if a thousand people are all excited at the same time, or have feelings of peace, love, and harmony, or are furious and angry. Perhaps a thousand people are feeling a slight hint of sexual tension. Think about the tactic of nude protests. If protests are a negotiation tactic to create pressure on establishment, and gain as much publicity as possible; what other taboo could you break to achieve this goal so quickly? Think about concerts. Imagine the vast swaths of people screaming, gurgling, passing out, and throwing their underwear. This group dynamic is deeply ingrained in human nature, and was important for human evolution. It was needed for survival and allowed us to form social groups. It is what allows groups of people to all agree to use the same money, assemble as employees and customers in manmade company buildings which accumulate into franchises and chains, and create giant nations which span entire continents. Other animals don’t reach this extreme point. This is the phenomena people actually miss if they’re feeling nostalgia for some of that ‘old time religion.’
People have a tendency to mythologize certain figures. For example, when talking about the founding of America, we tend to focus on a group of people known as ‘Founding Fathers’ whom we are taught to revere. We leave out important details of history when we tell this story in order to avoid having them look bad. Anything we propose telling is held up to intense scrutiny, because there is no way to tell the story without being accused of having a political angle. We don’t want to talk frankly about things that objectively happened. For example, Pennsylvania had something called The Gradual Abolition Act. Any slave that lived there longer than six months was to be freed. When George Washington moved to the state, he didn’t want to free his slaves, so he used a legal loophole to get around it. Every six months, he made his slaves take a trip with Martha Washington to Mt. Vernon, or outside state boundaries. This would effectively reset the clock another six months. He also had a slave named Ona Judge. She ran away when she learned she was going to be sold as a present to one of Martha Washington’s granddaughters. Washington used The Fugitive Slave Act, which he had previously signed into law to hunt her down. Because of this law, in Free States, black people were dragged into the streets in public view and sent to The South; even those who weren’t former slaves. It was a white person’s word against a black person’s. Ona Judge sent a letter to The Washingtons saying she would return if they freed her when they died. They refused her offer. A man was sent to New Hampshire to take her by force, but The Senator there warned her ahead of time. Washington wanted to be extra careful, because a public spectacle would be embarrassing for his administration. Here’s another story we don’t go over in school. Thomas Jefferson didn’t just own slaves, he had ‘relations’ with one of them; Sally Hemmings a person he owned as property. He kept her children as slaves. It started when she was fourteen and he was in his forties. Even at the time; when the information got released it was a giant scandal. Even though we now understand that such occurrences were frequent, it was still considered extremely taboo. While two well known ‘Founding Fathers’ didn’t own slaves, those being Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams, (and Benajmin Franklin, despite owning slaves as a young man, tried to pass an abolition bill later in his life;) we actually purposefully leave out other figures with similar tendencies. Like Roger Sherman. He was the only figure to sign all four of America’s founding documents, those being The Continental Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. He refused to put a tax on slaves because in his eyes, you tax property, not human beings. We present things the way we do, because if enough of America’s mythologized figures owned slaves, then the ones who owned slaves have their actions becomes normal, and we don’t scrutinize it. Thomas Paine penned the books Common Sense, and The Common Rights of Man. He spread revolutionary ideas across the globe, yet, many of these ‘founding fathers’ hated him by the time he died. We treat documents like The Constitution like The Bible, rather than a manmade document. Democracies have elections and they have constitutions, but we don’t have to treat them as so sacred. The fact something is in The Constitution becomes an argument for something in itself. Despite the fact that these things take form in secular matters, we must admit that the tendency to emphasize obedience to The King, and by extension fetishizing national identity stems from religion. Or the idea that God picks all leaders so we must obey them. Ironically enough, the founding ideals of America involved committing treason against The King, and rejecting their ‘Divine Right to Rule.’ On the other hand, American rebels were Patriots on behalf of their states. Patriotism creates order. Yet Thomas Jefferson himself can be quoted saying, that our interests shouldn’t be in favor of any one nation, but the whole world.
Moving on to something else… It is possible for leaders to get drunk on power, becoming grandiose, and for members of a group to become increasingly irrational and defensive; causing the group to become cult-like. The biggest sign of this is when information exposing a group’s flaws pushes members deeper into it. When you experience it, by its very nature, you are unaware that it’s happening. This is why you should routinely question your allegiances, or entertain your opponents’ thought processes. Some of this is just Human Nature, and tribalism. I mentioned earlier how strong the instinct of group formation is. But sometimes it’s deeper. For example, in Ancient Greece, Pythagoras was a skilled mathematician, but also created a cult around numbers and mathematics, assigning groups of numbers something akin to spiritual meanings. Perhaps a political leader has started wearing temple robes, as if signifying he’s some sort of prophet. Or perhaps a leader starts referring to himself in the third person. For example, Joseph Stalin saying, ‘Stalin sent an army’ instead of ‘I sent an army,’ or Julius Caesar saying, ‘Caesar hears you’ instead of, ‘I hear you.’
There are those that legitimately do things that are totally out of proportion to the cause they supposedly advocate for. These should be seen as hidden forms of neuroticism attempting to disguise itself. People like The Unabomber come to mind. Violence should always be a last resort, for self defense, or for when your most fundamental rights are being threatened.
People have a tendency to turn the ideas of rationality and the pursuit of truth into a myth. If we are honest, the repression of emotions due to fear of the passions is related to religion. The idea that there is this shadowy reality which actually represents the truth controlling everything behind the curtain; and wanting to escape to heaven or the spiritual world can be derived from Plato’s Allegory of The Cave. Plato viewed the physical world as a prison, and believed after he died his rational mind would be freed. He believed that behind our imperfect view of the world was a ‘perfect world of forms.’ The Hebrews were very influenced by The Greeks by the time The New Testament of The Bible was written. That’s why in The Book of John, ‘The Logos’ or ‘The Word,’ becomes flesh – and Jesus later declares himself to be ‘The Truth.’ But before his crucifixion, Pontius Pilate questions this by asking him, ‘What is Truth?’
You ever hear the saying ‘Welcome To The Desert of The Real?’ We come up with complex ideas about the truth, then decide that ‘waking up’ is impossible, therefore, people conclude that if we can’t become perfectly rational we shouldn’t try to combat any of the largest forms of irrationality either. A better metaphor for rationality would be The Rider and The Horse. If you pull on your emotions too hard and overly constrict them, they will become wild and uncontrollable. If you let them do whatever they want, they will destroy you. Better to employ maintenance, and utilize this energy for your own purposes.
Us humans have a tendency to use mythological symbols, whether we’re telling a true story, or it’s in fiction. For example, if a famous general temporarily retreats, only to attack the opposing side later – we might relate this to a type of story frequently told in religion. For example, Moses wandering in the desert for forty years before Joshua takes The Promised Land, or Jesus fasting in the mountains for forty days, or Mohammad temporarily retreating from Mecca before retaking it later.
When giant institutions or systems fall apart, you can bet a bunch of small cult-like movements will try to fill the power vacuum. But once again, people only want to make this comparison with systems they disagree with. For example, when talking about the fall of communism in The Soviet Union. But you can bet that if the much mythologized capitalism fell apart in The United States tomorrow, something similar would happen here. You can also see this phenomena play out as religion loses its influence over people.
Despite all these arguments; attempting to absolutely equate political movements with religious ones is a failure to take responsibility for all the things religious institutions have done in the past, and continue to do now. There may be bleed-over and nuance if you’re comparing the two. Secular groups can become cult-like, but they don’t have to be; religion and the desire to be an activist are not inseparable. People may agree with this part, but I also want to add that such labels shouldn’t be thrown around just because a group’s ideas are outside the Overton window, or its members are passionate. Flatly comparing political groups to religion is meant to dismiss and discourage any self starting, bottom up political action. Actual religion still influences our politics. The things some people advocate for are actually supported by The Bible. Being a victim and victimizer is not mutually exclusive. A person can be both. Perhaps you don’t reject religion, but you shouldn’t just sweep all this under the rug. That is a cop-out.
There is nothing wrong with the accumulation of power. We should also be realists. But there are those that think that any belief in the greater good, ideals, or attempt to make the world a better place should automatically be lumped in with religious movements. Such rhetoric is meant to dismiss these efforts. Anything other than the naked accumulation of power becomes spirituality. This idea is born out of sheer cynical laziness. For many, the only way to endure the pain and suffering of the world, is to believe that these things are perfectly good, fitting, how things ought to be; or that things will always be this way. It takes a stronger mind to simultaneously understand that things don’t have to be a certain way, but we still have to endure them. I often find myself swinging too far in one direction or the other rather than striking a balance.
The next two points I want to make address controversial topics the most directly, but I feel I need to get them out of the way. Even if you don’t like them, you should try to entertain them.
First, stop referring to people as ‘devout atheists.’ A person only is enthusiastic about their atheism because they had suffering, anxiety, and guilt inflicted on them, either by religious institutions, religious politicians, or their former religion’s sacred texts. Anger, and other such types of energy is a perfectly natural reaction. So many people have a fear of confrontation, an attitude of conformity, or an attitude of, “Oh… I’m so sorry, I don’t want to be perceived as rude.”
I’ve also heard people say that atheism is its own religion. To these people, I want to ask; are you so unconfident in your own beliefs, that you think that everyone has to somehow be a part of them for them to be true? If you believe in a religion, and there’s others who have religions you disagree with, perhaps there are also others that reject religion altogether. For example, there are Deists, religiously unaffiliated individuals who believe there’s a God; Agnostics, who think a lack of evidence for God can only mean that we don’t know either way whether a God exists; Atheists, those that think that a lack of evidence for God means the concept should be actively dismissed; and Ignostics, those that don’t believe in a God, because the word god never has a consistent definition, or they think of the term god as being a sort of grammatical error.
It is possible to be an Atheist and be religious at the same time, for example, people who are Buddhists (perhaps they also believe in reincarnation) but are also Atheists. An Atheist merely believes there is no God. Think of it this way, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Ayn Rand were all Atheists. If you put all of them in a room, do you think a single one wouldn’t be annoyed with what the others had to say?
Hopefully none of my points here detracted from anything else I had to say, and it’s my hope you could at least entertain some of them. But I think we’ve reached a point where we can discuss these topics openly. Anyways, it’s just a thought, have a good day everybody.