Oh, for the love of God ...

The most poignant thing I ever saw on a bumper sticker was one that read: "God, save me from your followers"

How does one find a good expression of faith? One can usually cite the untold thousands of good and charitable works performed by groups affiliated with various and sundry religious groups. By extension, you can usually laud those individuals who donate of their time and wealth to support such groups. But, are any of those expressions that I have mentioned really good?

"What the hell are you talking about?" ... you may ask yourself. How can a charitable act be a bad thing? Well, I know this may seem odd, but it seems to me that those acts of charity don't really qualify as charity because of what motivates that charity. Those that give charitably as an act of faith would appear to doing a good thing. They provide the benefit of their expertise, their wealth, or even simply of their time to aid those who's needs for said benefits is both great and immediate. But I just don't think it is charity.

Charity, at least in my mind, is something that you do with no expectation or reward or recompense. So, is it just me or does this not hold true for faith based charities? Depending on the manner and variety of your faith, charity at the least fulfills a requirement of the deity of that faith or earns a reward from said deity. The flip side of the argument would seem to be that those in receipt of charity would logically be those in need of charity. In many circumstances the recipients of charity are asked to either participate in some religious expression or are encouraged to join in the community that embraces said faith. Now, don't get me wrong, but if you expect something beyond gratitude from the recipient of charity it seems less like charity and more like employment.

Another thing that bothers me is that these churches are considered charities themselves. These charities rely on the donations of their adherents in order to propagate their message. Again, it seems to me that anyone who pays to propagate their message are not doing charitable works, it seems to me they are advertising a product. If you were to look at it from an outsider's perspective, you would wonder why the churches don't pay taxes and the psychics do.

There is an even more worrying and questionable practice that seems to be taken to the Nth degree in certain christian sects ... the practice of prosperity theology. This dubious espression of faith implies that the rewards for giving to support your faith are not rewarded in the afterlife, rather they are provided in the earthly realm we currently occupy. Various christian preachers like Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson have used this tactic to encourage their followers to support their church's activities. One preacher, Robert Tilton, famously employed this tactic to raise millions of dollars to support his ministry before coming to the interested notice of several US Attorney's General. Even the most unbiased viewing of the peccadillos of the various and sundry abuses of the charitable nature of the followers of these individual ministries. Not wanting this to sound like an editorial, but the charity of this escapes me.

There are charities out there that work in a religious vein that seem to have been able to be charities in the proper sense of the word, I am thinking specifically of the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. Both groups work within the respective frameworks of their faith, but offer their assistance regardless of the recipient's faith.

To the atheist, charity is simply charity. The atheist does not seek God's approval or endorsement, nor do they require an expression of faith or gratitude to their deity. To the atheist the reward of charity is simple, and primal ... the reward is knowing that you have helped. Where the faithful seek meaning through expressions of their faith, the atheist find meaning in the simple knowledge that their effort, whether large or small, eased someone's distress. Why does this hold more truth than that faith offers? Because the atheist understands that we are social animals, and this social instinct, more highly evolved than in our primate cousins, is not an imperative imposed on us by a god. It is what and where our evolution as a species brought us to be. Charity is the best expression of ourselves that, if nurtured and cared for properly, will grow to offset the worst, most venial parts of our collective psyche.

Zeus, by Jove

Time for another random stream of thought regarding the problem with religion.

The Abrahamic religions call themselves by various names but I will, for the sake of simplicity, sometimes borrow the nomenclature of of Islam and refer to them as "the people of the book". Judaism's faith seeks the coming of the Messiah. Christianity asserts that the person known as Jesus (or Joshua bar Joseph) as the Messiah and the son of God. Islam holds that Jesus is a revered prophet, but lesser in stature to Mohammad.

As I understand it, and as always I claim no special knowledge or training in theology or history, this monotheistic faith is somewhat unique to the historical region from where it arose. When you look at the other major civilizations in the region; the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians ... these were all polytheistic societies. To steal a humourous line, they had "... gods by the bushel, gods by the pound, gods for every occasion". These various pantheons all seemed to have their equivalencies. For example the Greeks had Zeus, the Romans had Jove, the Egyptians had Horus ... even the Norse had Odin and the Hindi had Vishnu. All these beliefs had these specialized Gods that had dominion over specific aspects of life & death, harvest and the seasons, and various other aspects of mortal endeavours. The thing is that all these gods were not worshiped equally. Zeus/Jove was considered the father of their pantheon of gods, but depending on the vocation and social station, people would choose among those pantheons to worship the gods they felt would give them the greatest advantage in their everyday lives. The other thing I found interesting is that in each of the aforementioned cultures they may not have worshiped the other deities, and they may not have even acknowleged those other gods as being even remotely equal to their own, there was little or no animosity directed against those who worshiped these "foreign" gods.

Now, what gets me is that these ancient civilizations were more metropolitan and sophisticated than our current culture seems to be in regards to religious faith and practice. It seems to be that depending on the tenets you choose to follow and the level of investiture you have in the practice of that faith, believers in the Abrahamic faiths run the gamut from believing that those who do not share and practice their faith will suffer from as little as exclusion from Heaven to the threat of eternal damnation.

The other thing I find interesting is that, with the limited exception of Judaism, these monotheistic faiths place a heavy emphasis on proselytization, or conversion to their system of belief. Again, as with all things, it is the intensity of the belief and/or adherence of the individual to that faith that dictates the language they will use with those outside of that faith. Various statements used to describe unbelievers have included things as innocuous as "not knowing the true majesty of god's creation" to either deserving of death or extreme punishment for their unbelief. I have also notice that all these faiths firmly believe that they, and they alone will have dominion over the world once they have fulfilled the requirements of their god.

In my opinion (and yes, I am aware that opinions are like ... well, you know) once you strip away the history, philosophy, social and class elements you are left with this bare nugget of truth: My God is bigger than your God. The question I ponder in this is how can this vast, unknowable entity be capable of creating the infinite diversity of our limited understanding of the universe, and still be such a petty, controlling and insecure individual?