If Armageddon is nigh, I believe we will only have the religious zealots to blame. Which is doubly ironic, considering my agnosticism!
From the Canberra Times today, I read a posting in "Your Say" that sparked a worrying realisation about how fragile our future might be with the increasing popularity of fire and brimstone preaching. The posting stated:
Much more scary than Jesus
Max Smyth - Sunday, 17 October 2004
Graeme 'Godwhacker' Gibbon, our resident 'Get Ready Man', let me tell you about something far more frightening than Jesus H Christ's second coming, that thing nutters have been obsessed with for 2,000 years.
I am truly scared that the dimwitted Godwhacker President of the United States is going to win a second term. This could happen next month - not 2,000 years off. Wanna see him fry humanity in the Armageddon he believes is inevitable and within his control?
It heralds a stark realisation that we have in our midst (and increasingly among our elected representatives) people of the firm belief that the world as we know it will soon end and that unrepentant sinners will face eternal damnation.
These people are not merely forewarning of impending doom, they are actively working for, and rejoicing in, the approach of that day. They WANT Armageddon, they pray for it, they live for it, and they are willing to die for that belief.
Strangely, we are not talking about a Jonestown cult. These are everyday citizens of Australia and across the civilised world. Yet their strange and morbid fascination with the final days is commonly accepted without so much as a raised eyebrow. Why?
We laugh at the image of the disheveled vagabond with his sandwich board heralding that "the end is nigh", so why do we give more credibility to millions of bible-bashing church-goers? Is it safety in numbers? Is it because they wear shoes and dress neatly and have a home to go to each night? Does a particular level of hygiene bestow great gifts of respectability?
As an agnostic leaning towards atheism, I won't get into a debate about the truth of "The Word" - its just too subjective. Besides, biblical debates are emotive, not rational. Instead my rant today is more about the double standards we set and the implications for world harmony.
If I claimed to speak with 'God' on a regular basis, and that he told me what to do each day nobody would over react by sending for the straight jacket and booking a room at the local asylum. And if you are the President of the USA, well, that just makes your actions even more credible, being the work of God and such. Only the Pope and the President of the USA could get away with dropping a bomb and claiming it was God's will. A Moslem would be seen merely as a terrorist.
Change the perspective slightly and claim that you speak to some dead Swedish blacksmith from the 14th Century, who tells you what you should do each day, and many people will start to question your sanity. The dead guy has a lack of credibility, whereas God (as long as it is the Judeo-Christian monotheistic god) has ultimate credibility, at least within the relevant nations.
Moving into a Buddhist, Hindu or other polytheistic society may provide a similar acceptance of holy conversation. However the point is that religion is given far too much credibility when used to explain motives or rationale. I believe it tends to be an improper excuse or defence.
At the risk of losing the argument under Godwin's Law one only has to look at how Hitler brandished such extreme power under a Christian banner. The Crusades of old are no different to the Jihad of today. Same objective just different weapons. Is it any different for the leader of a nation, especially one that prides itself on the separation of church and state, to claim fortitude and a mandate under God?
What then does this say about the modern rise of a Christian theocracy? How is that political forces, like Family First, can rise out of religious fundamentalism to encroach on the separation of church and state by enforcing their conservative values on a secular society?
And why is it that they can hide behind a deity for all manner of acts and claims. Speaking in foreign and non-existent languages, miracles that claim to defy logic, healings that usually have little proof, conversations with apparitions. When excluded from a religious setting all of these would normally result in a psychiatric assessment of the individual. Religion is its own protector.
If traditional religion is immune from objective scrutiny and reality, should we begin to fear what the future may hold with these doomsayers making decisions of global importance. Should we worry that the man with his finger on the red button talks to voices in his head and believes that only Christian nations are good nations.
Should we especially be concerned that the people who most want the four horsemen of the apocalypse to ride across the earth are the very same people that are vying for more power in our parliament. The very same people that may, someday, have to choose between averting or starting World War III and potentially causing worldwide nuclear extinction.
Given a choice between languishing in this earthly existence or assisting in the fulfillment of holy prophecies by precipitating Armageddon at the press of a button, what would a zealous Christian do? Of course, they've already thought of that ... hence the reason for the third anti-Christ.
No matter what the non-believers and pagans think, Christianity will always win. Even if there is no god and no after-life, world destruction vindicates them. And as long as life continues, they continue to work and wait for the second coming.
Meanwhile those of us who are trying desperately to improve our mortal lot have to put up with their lot. There really is no justice.
[+/-] show/hide this post
No comments:
Post a Comment