Está en la página 1de 2

Time for a Non-Religious Ethics

We are doing something wrong. And we know it. So erroneous many of us are despairing and without a scintilla
of hope to cling to. People are asking what can be done for them, and not asking what they can do for others.
But a reversion of this stinginess, too, is not alone the solution. Individuals are grasping for moral straws to
salvage themselves from some impending doomsday. In what direction should we go to find out what is it that
we ought to do? And to whom should we approach for assistance?

There exists in the world an estimated 4200 religions, enough one would think to keep us on the straight and
narrowif not pious enough to live in peace with each other. But no. Religions even are a cause of violence in
many quarters of the world, and it is obvious that religious practitioners are less interested in the dogma of their
theological virtues than they are in the psychic move-ups that temporarily transport worshippers out of their
mundane lives into an ecclesiastic comfort zone. Religion has become a take it or leave it affair called upon
when it is useful to an adorer to avail of it. Worse, religions are already leaning to politics to recoup their
laurels.

Still disheartening, religion has become for many a huge club of adherents and fellow travelers under whose
dogmas political, nationalist, economic, and also violent objectives might be pursued. In a rapidly expanding
world in which we are learning more and more about each other, observing all the more clearly the inordinate
lack of robust economic growth, the inadequate global governance force, and an uneven global development
(Chinese President Xi [Globalization's dilemma is that underdeveloped nations are pilfering as taught them
by developed ones since 1601and even better!]), societies are clamoring to seek some unifying force that
might identify their interests and claims, and afford them an identity they never before enjoyed. The religious
guild mindsetfor many individualsfits this requisite almost perfectly simply because for so many people no
other exists. Desperation keeps us strong. (Beyond the Barricades; Spandau Ballet).

The characteristics of religions can be divided into two broad categories: apparent and substantive. If we
lineup three individuals, a Christian, a Moslem and a Jew, in all probability we can identify which one is the
Christian, the Moslem and the Jew. Further, their houses of worship are even more easily recognizable. A
cathedral, a mosque, and a synagogue possess distinguishing features perceptible to all the members of the
three religions mentioned. In addition, we can include the dress codes of the religions' ministerial leaders, the
rituals they perform during the executions of their religious ceremonies, and even items used by associates who
share the identical practices. These are identifying properties for all to be able to observe whether one is or is
not a member of one of these three selected sects.

The substantive earmarks, nevertheless, present another slant that we can distinguish in another manner less
tangible but more real depending on the intensity of the belief clutched by the religion's worshippersrunning
the ambit from the fervent practician to the so-called falling away religious person to the reverence of the
pious proselyte.

All religions possess one common denominator: there is an authoritarian vein in them. Religious leaders will
defend their strictness rationalizing that the masses of their followers need to be disciplined to conform to the
god-fearing notions of the organized religion. In fact, rules, regulations, commandments, and other doctrinal
methodicalnesses used to manipulate behavior are readily available. These tenets of comportment are peculiar
to each and every religion in order for them to be considered unique when contrasted with other faiths. For
example, most religious coteries will advocate that their members must or must not perform certain actions.
These activities might be related to the anthropological and social habits of the area where the religion first laid
its roots. Do not eat swine. Do not eat meat on Friday. Do not do this, do not do that. All religions have
biddings that belong to another age, and most of the members of these denominations pay no attention to them
even disobeyand sin by doing what they should not do hoping to remain morally upstanding and in good
steadall at the same time! A schizoid attachment to a religion is one of its most perverse idiosyncrasies.

There is a glue that demonstrates, too, that most of the 4,200 religions, have somethings in common that
bind them together. Certain precepts are common to them all: do not kill, do not steal, do not use violence, et
cetera. If this then is the case, it would be logically feasible to arrive at a common ground of ethical tenets that
are beyond the scope of religions themselvesset in some metaphysical never-never land where the isms would
be autonomously on their own and not subject to the belonging to of any religious sect. This would be a non-
religious ethics upon which more mundane canons could be added such as: do not gluttonize, do not inebriate,
do not use drugs unrestrictedly, et cetera. Even better said would be: eat wisely, drink judiciously, use drugs
moderately, et cetera. Better to be convincing than to be stern. Many other perspicacious guidelines might be
appended, thus declassifying the influence of any religious affiliation.

The point of a non-religious ethics would be to unite more individuals in seeking a common goal of community
and cooperation, where a sense of belonging to some ethical world order would raise the hopes of all human
beings without reference to self-conceited religious principles that only set people apart from each other
forbidding them to confirm themselves and then confirm others in a spirit of peace and goodwill.

Authored by Anthony St. John


15 February MMXVII
Calenzano, Italy
www.scribd.com/thewwordwarrior
Twitter: @thewordwarrior

* * *

También podría gustarte