Dec 20, 2003, 12.00am IST
Thomas M Easley.
What defines a gathering of individuals as a religious organisation? Belief? If so, why is a belief in God defined as a religion whereas a belief in free enterprise is not? Should all beliefs be defined as religious and all that is believed in, defined as God? If they do, are we free to assume that all who believe are equal in their belief and equally illuminated by the presence of “God”?
Those who create and support a free enterprise entity do so because they believe they will benefit from that organisation. Equally, believers in God maintain their belief because to do so benefits them. So there is no distinction between those who believe in a divine being, a country, family, gang, group, cult or fashion statement.
The adage that “all men are created equal” is wholly applicable when taken to mean that all men believe and all believers aspire to glorify the subject of belief. Then why do we disagree to the point of violent conflict when the subject of belief for one man differs from that of another?
We often disagree because leaders and subjects of belief are not regarded as equal in their capacity to bestow benefit upon the believer. A belief in God, for some, has more value than a belief in atheism or family, for instance. All organised bodies are similar — whether they are defined as religions, corporations, political parties, sports leagues or environmental movements — because they are created by the need for benefit. Also, they are sustained by leaders who strive to regulate social norms through manipulation of belief and the even- tual control of food, water, shelter and property, the hereditary and archetypical roots of man’s power.
The greater the perceived religious or spiritual value a subject of belief has, the more intense its imaginative interpretation and vulner-ability to manipulation by corrupt leadership. Any belief renders the believer malleable in the hands of group leaders and equally subject to harsh reprimand if he doubts the supremacy of his group identity and his behaviour contradicts the prevailing behavioural standards dictated by the subject of belief.
Behavioural regulation is essential to an organi- sation’s vitality and its longevity. In the absence of rules and its conformity there can be no cohesive group identity, no repetitive standards upon which to attach acceptance of group morality, no means of securing loyalty and no justification for leaders to assume possession of the believer’s will, his indivi-dual identity and his personal possessions.
A believer needs no proof of the existence of what is believed in. He will make no separation between himself, his belief, and the subject of belief. He will defend “the faith”, see non-believers as less pure, less moral and less right. Any challenge to his belief is a challenge to him, a direct affront to his ‘God’. He becomes one with his group and perfectly programmed to defend the group.
We fight because we follow. Were all men leaders with none to follow, differences in the subject of belief would not evoke conflict as each man would feel the gain and loss of every other man. Belief in leadership would then become unnecessary.
An individual human body is a self-organising system. There is no leader in the body, not one single cell, gene, system, or organ that leads the rest. All the body’s parts work as a whole and not as parts in search of a whole. The degree to which man will evolve will be measured by man’s ability to wean himself of the illusion of leadership.
Thomas M Easley.
What defines a gathering of individuals as a religious organisation? Belief? If so, why is a belief in God defined as a religion whereas a belief in free enterprise is not? Should all beliefs be defined as religious and all that is believed in, defined as God? If they do, are we free to assume that all who believe are equal in their belief and equally illuminated by the presence of “God”?
Those who create and support a free enterprise entity do so because they believe they will benefit from that organisation. Equally, believers in God maintain their belief because to do so benefits them. So there is no distinction between those who believe in a divine being, a country, family, gang, group, cult or fashion statement.
The adage that “all men are created equal” is wholly applicable when taken to mean that all men believe and all believers aspire to glorify the subject of belief. Then why do we disagree to the point of violent conflict when the subject of belief for one man differs from that of another?
We often disagree because leaders and subjects of belief are not regarded as equal in their capacity to bestow benefit upon the believer. A belief in God, for some, has more value than a belief in atheism or family, for instance. All organised bodies are similar — whether they are defined as religions, corporations, political parties, sports leagues or environmental movements — because they are created by the need for benefit. Also, they are sustained by leaders who strive to regulate social norms through manipulation of belief and the even- tual control of food, water, shelter and property, the hereditary and archetypical roots of man’s power.
The greater the perceived religious or spiritual value a subject of belief has, the more intense its imaginative interpretation and vulner-ability to manipulation by corrupt leadership. Any belief renders the believer malleable in the hands of group leaders and equally subject to harsh reprimand if he doubts the supremacy of his group identity and his behaviour contradicts the prevailing behavioural standards dictated by the subject of belief.
Behavioural regulation is essential to an organi- sation’s vitality and its longevity. In the absence of rules and its conformity there can be no cohesive group identity, no repetitive standards upon which to attach acceptance of group morality, no means of securing loyalty and no justification for leaders to assume possession of the believer’s will, his indivi-dual identity and his personal possessions.
A believer needs no proof of the existence of what is believed in. He will make no separation between himself, his belief, and the subject of belief. He will defend “the faith”, see non-believers as less pure, less moral and less right. Any challenge to his belief is a challenge to him, a direct affront to his ‘God’. He becomes one with his group and perfectly programmed to defend the group.
We fight because we follow. Were all men leaders with none to follow, differences in the subject of belief would not evoke conflict as each man would feel the gain and loss of every other man. Belief in leadership would then become unnecessary.
An individual human body is a self-organising system. There is no leader in the body, not one single cell, gene, system, or organ that leads the rest. All the body’s parts work as a whole and not as parts in search of a whole. The degree to which man will evolve will be measured by man’s ability to wean himself of the illusion of leadership.
0 comments:
Post a Comment