Introduction

I must begin with religion, and for reasons that I believe will soon become very clear.  I have nothing against going to church.  I have always said that going to church can be a positive force in ones life, and in a variety of ways, from fellowship, comradery, moral/ethical guidance, and the like.  I have a fair number of friends and relatives, involved in organized religions, who reject the elitist view that theirs is the "only true church" and other contentious tenets of their affiliation's doctrines.  I have tremendous respect for such folks.  For them, having a faith that is "true" is enough.  This attitude leaves room for other belief systems that might also be "true".  And why not?  There isn't a person on earth who is even aware of, let alone intimate with, every extant faith.   And even if they were, it would be a tall order to demonstrate that only one of them was "true." There is absolutely no need to invite crippling divisions within society.  Is the idea of a superior faith, with exclusive access to the divine, an idea that is nourishing to humanity?   Is language like the "one and only true church"  the language of a benevolent, loving, omniscient God?  Or all too human demagogues who benefit from keeping the masses conveniently divided?

So although church can be a positive force in ones life, it can be a very bad one too.  Embracing even the inherently divisive tenets of any ideology, especially when these tenets are not even remotely provable, is highly suspicious, to say the least.  It creates a situation of extreme, ambiguous veracity for the devotee.  Why adopt such a stance?  What is the true nature of this type of devotion?  Is truth being sought here?  Or is the truth feared?  Why can't we embrace the obvious good aspects of any given ideology while rejecting the blatantly harmful?  Why is there so much blind faith in both religion and politics?  What end does this all or none mentality serve?   Are we so busy and harried that we can't resist the convenience of having our ideals prepackaged and ready made for us?  Or have we become conditioned to have a proclivity for the ideological antagonism itself?  Perhaps it is some of both?   Shouldn't participation in organized religion, politics, or anything else for that matter, be done with a cautious, selective, and discriminating sort of optimism?  This stands in stark contrast to the all too common blind faith and cheerleading, which play right into the very corruption that everyone seems to believe they stand against.   There is nothing more natural than picking and choosing.  Anyone who tells you that you shouldn't do it, that you should just accept an existing idea instead of exploring your own, ought to be questioned and scrutinized.  In the real world, individuality is far less dangerous than establishment elites and social engineers would have us think.  It's also far more interesting than the homogenous, sterile, social organization which they strive to foist upon us.  

Moreover, though there are many positive things that happen in organized religions, that's not to say that religion is the only way, or even the best way, to such positive outcomes, or that participation is a responsibility, ideas of which there is no shortage in our society today.  Spirituality is highly accessible to many people outside of traditional organization.  They are accessible to the many who function better outside of group process, as individuals or as members of smaller, more intimate groups. 

The truth is, humanity is, and has always been, greatly divided on the issue of religion.  This incontrovertible fact is very instructive.   For the most part, folks don't chose their faith as the result of an in depth search for truth.  And indeed, such searching is precisely what dogma often seeks to eradicate.  Membership of organized religions, by and large, is made up of people who were indoctrinated into their faith from a very young age.  By the time they are old enough to think for themselves their religious ties run too deep to disturb, regardless of whether or not they really believe in them.  Thus they hang on so as not to make waves within their social network.  Some hang on for different reasons.  Some of these are true believers.  Still others don't believe, but acquiesce because they think the truth is too dangerous.  All of these stand in stark contrast to a genuine, proactive, in depth quest for meaning.  How likely is it that the many youth, suddenly impassioned about their faith, have really done such due diligence?

Religion has been called "the opiate of the masses".  I don't know if religious dogma provides a peace of mind that is literally addicting.  Perhaps a neurologist could answer that one.  Nevertheless I do think it's safe to say that there's something about our wiring which provides positive reinforcement for conformity.   There is safety in numbers.  Questioning the story is inherently abhorrent because it makes the questioner stand out, separating them from the security of the group.  Nobody wants to be looked at as the weird one or the odd man out.  Fitting in and social status are paramount for us humans.  No one wants to put strain on the important relationships in their life.  

Isn't a more lively discussion, differentiating between that which can't possibly be known, and that which can, long overdue?   Isn't it high time that we stop reveling in our imagined superiority, especially in cases where doctrine and scripture part with widely accepted historical facts?  Is it really worth the division and alienation it creates?  Moreover, there's no reason that one's religion, faith, spirituality or whatever else we might choose to call it, shouldn't stand up to scrutiny.  Faith need not have a rational explanation.  I concur.  But it need not fly in the face of reason either.  There are some things we can know.  But there are others for which all we can do is continually reflect upon and refine our thinking about.  An open mind is receptive to new information and new insight.  Why not put oneself in a position to assimilate it?  Surely we're better off living without complete, definitive answers, than we are living with cheap substitutes.   It has become fashionable these days to allude to "simplicity", when it's convenient anyway.  It can make a good story line.  But not everything is simple.  It's ok that life's bigger questions involve some complexity and require some time.  Some things have to be lived before they even begin to reveal themselves.  Wouldn't this be one of those things? 

There is no reason we cannot enjoy having belief systems without shooting ourselves in the foot in the process.  But the requisite due diligence seems to be lacking.   Making a stand can and should be a good thing.  What could possibly be more natural than strong belief systems rooted in genuine search and questioning?  It's when strong belief systems develop without that due diligence that the problems begin.  Call this shortcoming what you like.  People call it different things.  I think "cheerleading" is a pretty good fit.  As we shall see, it is a problem that extends beyond religious values, running a broad gamut from the toeing of political party lines to extreme nationalism, where pom-pom waving has become endemic.  The cheerleader, a product of the popular culture and mainstream media, is fixated upon, if not obsessed with, the actions of other groups, yet remains relatively unconcerned with the problems, contradictions, and inconsistencies demonstrated by his own affiliation, outside the occasional, token criticism, of course.  In the realm of politics, the experienced cheerleader takes great pride in casting his votes, even with the full knowledge that his life has never been significantly different when the political nemesis was in power.  So why then is there such vehemence towards them?  What's really going on here?

Blind faith and realpolitik remain dominant mindsets in our culture today.  And what are the chances that such things will be enduring, positive forces in the world?  What are the likely effects of allowing such nonsensical, contentious, even patently false, if not bordering upon absurd, ideologies into our thinking?   When our churches ask us to believe that we are "God's chosen people" or the "one true religion", and our President's State of the Union address has come to resemble a pep rally or revival meeting, isn't it reasonable to wonder if our participation really makes sense, if there are perhaps better ways to fulfill our civic duty, and at what point we become our own jailers?  How many political or religious spiels have you heard which signify balance and objectivity?  And how many have you heard that signify one-sided, subjective bias?   Hasn't it become painfully obvious that pom-pom waving is an essential part of the very corruption we all claim to dislike?  Isn't it clear that cronyism and elite rule depend upon our distracted state of mind, that we remain sheltered from reality and the real problem?

We have seen this all pervasive ethic on every President's watch.  And it's easy to see how it has manifested more recently.   We all witnessed the very fortuitous treatment given the nation's largest banks in 2008 - 2009, and the subsequent government refusal to divulge the recipients of trillions of taxpayer bailout funds.  Has there ever been  more rock solid evidence of elite rule, oligarchy, and the utter insignificance of the voice of the people?   I would add that blaming Obama for these events is a mistake.  He is no more guilty than past Presidents were of the abuses committed on their watch.  Our Presidents have little to do with these events, outside of their symbolic, unwavering support.  Even the rare veto is supportive, making for a nice log rolling spectacle, as they are invariably overturned by Congress.  Blaming them is exactly what establishment elites want us to do.  It gives an air of legitimacy to the system.  If it's the President's fault, there's always a simple solution.  Or, as Mill said, "There's always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides."  Nor is it accurate to blame America, as the press loves to do.  Naturally, global elites, who meet regularly behind closed doors, would have to exploit the military, intelligence, and economic might of the superpower to their advantage. 

Still, there are a few other issues that I find even more intriguing, at least at present.  The first is the environmental movement and the way it is being used to greenwash the ventures of monied interests, particularly the currently hot (no pun intended) and controversial issue of global warming/climate change.  Another issue is the advent of computers and internet technology.  Though this technology is decades old now, it has practically taken over our lives, and its coming into the mainstream deserves some attention.  And one more issue is the so-called "official story" for the attacks of September 11, 2001, which shed absolutely no light on these events, at least for anyone not predisposed to magical thinking and Disney style movie plots.  But before any of that, a bit of historical groundwork is necessary.