I thought I'd open with my oldest opinion:1. My disdain, and subsequenthatred, of organised religion. I realise I must be sounding rather unreasonable right about now, rather like the stereotypical 24-year-old gay. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if I get flagged for this. For that matter, I'm probably one picture of a burning cross away from getting shot, but anyway...
Firstly, my disdain: this stemmed from a common perception in my sheltered North London; that religion is archaic, and that zealots are crazy. This opinion is based on the idea that all religion is ultimately heteronomous (based on the will of a man).
All forms of religion have a strong definition of right and wrong. With ancient religions the connection to heteronomy is obvious because, with human nature defined as wrong, the uniformity and the set values of the status quo are easily accepted as right. These ancient religions considered life and time to be cyclical, and people were taught to accept their society as constant and infallible.
More modern, officially theonomous (based on the will of the divine), religions have a different approach. Rather than defining themselves as right, because they replace what's naturally wrong, they define themselves as right because they aim to do the do the work of something intrinsically good. In these religions, the 'God' is right, while human nature is considered neither right nor wrong. Nonetheless, although people are not taught to achieve any form of transcendence through the religions' doctrines, they are taught to honour the divine through the morality, defined by this status quo. These religions do see history as progressive. However, unlike theories such as evolution, people are told to look backwards, to a time when God delivered the Israelites from slavery, and sent his son to redeem his people (for example). Thus, the ideals and structures of the religions are kept alive.
This does seem to satisfy most people. It sure makes life easier, knowing what to do, and whom to hate; I guess religion really is just
'the opiette of the masses'.
Secondly, my hatred: this stems from a more controversial, and less readily accepted, view. Whilst most people might agree with statements like
'legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion', few would probably declare religion a negative effect on our society. Instead, they would refer to various acts of charity by Christian Aid groups. Throw in a little hands-across-America nationalism, and you have a argument that's all too contentiously refuted.
I must disagree. I doubt the majority of the people in these groups do so because Jesus told them too, and the people who donate to these charities definitely don't. In actual fact, those who do live by the doctrines of these religions are more likely to be the people who told Africans that condoms don't work, or the people who vote, day in, day out, against thing like same-sex marriage. It's these people who usher in 'dangerous' regimes across the globe, because these religions have staged wars for centuries, to the extent that the people there hate one another unconditionally.
[Conservatives, if you've made it this far without vomiting, stop reading now]It's my opinion that, for each person in these Christian Aid groups, there's a Jew somewhere gunning a Muslim, a Muslim somewhere blowing up a Christian,
[conservatives, definitely stop here] and a Christian somewhere who, if it were up to him, would carpet bomb them all, and that's just the 'enlightened' monotheists.
