Megastar Elton John must've expected a worldwide backlash when he said organised religion should be banned but caused little more than ripples among religions themselves.
Picture the scene: there was nothing until God’s anthropomorphised mind and hand created the universe and then the life within it. LIFE!
Elton John’s recent comments that organized religion should be banned could have had one of two effects: either the secular world could have united behind him against the majority of the world’s population, or they could’ve simply ignored him. Thankfully for the sake of history, tradition, culture and the religions themselves, they ignored him.
Back to our story of the universe. Life. Here is the great quality of humans – we can choose. Whether we ignore or follow like sheep is our decision and we have a developed mind to rationalize and help us make the choices.
Just as criminals do, we can decide whether to do something popular or not; just like politicians we can decide whether to say something to make friends or enemies. We can consciously make a decision to be racist, sexist or homophobic, but sometimes people can come across like this however good their intentions might be. The fact is, we all make choices and we all make good and bad decisions and this freewill is a God-given gift.
So here is the situation in which we find ourselves: God created the universe and everything in it, one of those “things” being humans are able to act with freewill to make their own choices and decisions.
So if people want to be rapists, paedophiles or murderers, if they want to stereotype, bully or discriminate, then it is, by and large, their choice. The fact that God is loving, caring and forgiving doesn’t affect those who reject and ignore Him. These people can even be regulars at the local church, mosque, synagogue or temple and they can be well-respected members of the community. But at the end of the day, God is God and people are people. Only one is perfect and the two shouldn’t be confused.
Where organised religion can be a problem is where it is too legalistic or regimented. God likes spontaneity as well as structure but sometimes too much work goes into image and organisation and too little goes into worshipping who God really is – a loving God who accepts everyone as they are, regardless of age, gender, colour, sexual orientation or anything else that “people” try to separate us with. This is the God we should know because this is the God there is.
The copyright of the article Should We Ban Organised Religion? in Religious Intolerance is owned by Ben Hughes. Permission to republish Should We Ban Organised Religion? must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Nov 21, 2006 8:47 AM
Ben Hughes
:
If people are intent on banning religion, should other traditions be banned too? What about marriage, music and certain types of food? These are all traditions, cultures and things passed down from generations, with meaning and significance. Banning religion could start the slippery slope to banning all kinds of things. On the other hand, isn't religion the basis for so many wars in the world? What do you think?
Nov 27, 2006 6:21 PM
john wilfred SHARP
:
the point is to ban the hate in the religion, we donot agree with religion as we are free thinkers but we do not ban others thoughts , we just will not accept hate .should we ??
Nov 30, 2006 12:10 PM
Ben Hughes
:
But does religion realy promote hate or is it the people within the religion who hate? Surely it's the people and not the relgion itself. But how can we ban the hate within the religion without banning the religion as a whole? If we all have freedom of speech, it must be all or nothing. Personally I'm against banning the whole religion but we must do something, both people within religion and outside it, to stop such hatred. Would education work?
Dec 6, 2006 11:51 PM
Rodney Laurence Mansfield
:
Since the main ingredient in religion is values, to ban religion would necessarily require banning having values. Since values are what motivate people to action, a successful ban on religion would result in the elimination of all human action. But it is by experiencing the results of our actions, our mistakes, that we learn. Perhaps we should have a little patience and understanding and allow humans to exist and learn and grow and evolve instead of banning an essential ingredient in the process.
Dec 7, 2006 3:07 PM
Ben Hughes
:
I agree completely. Banning religion would mean getting rid of all human values and it's these values we have which help to define us. But what about those people who aren't religious? They can still have values but just because they aren't God's values or those people aren't worshipping a God, does it mean that we can still live without religious values? I think that the reward of an afterlife is enough to tempt people, but even without this people can still hold strong values and perform good actions for the intrinsic value they hold.
Dec 13, 2006 6:31 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil
:
You can't really "ban" religion because it's everywhere. If you put a stop to it, it just goes underground and grows. The Chinese did it, and while they think they have Christianity by the short and curlies, they are in fact building up to revolution.
Also, people who don't have a "religion" do follow things religiously. We Aussies love football to a point where it becomes a religion. If we were to ban religion, then we must ban sport, movies, music and anything else with a cult following.
I don't think it's fair to ban religion because some religionists are intolerant. Religion has done so much good for the world. If you ban religion, you just become as intolerant as the intolerant religionists. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Dec 15, 2006 3:00 PM
Ben Hughes
:
A good point. Religion is everywhere but is it better to have it strictly controlled? Like I said before, it's the people and not the religion who need to be careful how they are represented. It's the people who make the decisions and show themselves up, not the religions and their teachings. But does it mean we have to ban everything? Do people who follow football pray to it and literally live their lives to its rules? Surely banning religion or controlling it with tighter regulation doesn't mean we have to do the same with everything else as well.
Dec 29, 2006 8:34 PM
john wilfred SHARP
:
the real issue is one should not banany good thought but all the hate and discrimination should be taken out of the religious books , if they do not agree they should be banned. and i will make a new religion hatefull to the existing hatefull religions
Jan 2, 2007 2:51 AM
Ben Hughes
:
But do you know what hatred is in the religious books? Read the latest article on the consesus on actions and you'll see that it's not the religions which teach the hatred but the people who change the meaning of the teachings or twist them for themselves. So what can we do here? Ban the lot or allow freedom of speech? Because they are all useful in their own right, but it's the people who are the problem, not the religions themselves.
Feb 15, 2007 10:06 PM
Smorg
:
I agree. It's the people who pick and choose stuff in religions (and other form of 'authority' lending cultural things) to support their own agenda that is causing the problem. There are good morals and atrocious morals to be had in any religious texts (though the fundies of the particular religion will only see the good morals and pretend the bad ones don't exist).
At anyrate, it is useless to ban religion, I think. People will just use something else to lend authority to their own agenda.
I guess the key to religious intolerance is when religious folks insist that only their religion is right and all those that don't believe them are 'for the other (read the Devil)'s side. The same goes with when non-religious folks insist on eradicating all religions just because they themselves can live contentedly without it.
To each his own, I say. No imposition of one's values on another.
