Pessimistic Politics: Religious Reflections

One thing we all have to love about religion is there’s no way anyone can agree on any of it. This is mostly because no one can prove it. This may come as a shock to some religious zealots, but believe it or not, there are people who believe your holy book, whether it be the Bible, Torah, Qur’an, Veda, Tripitaka, Guru Granth Sahib, Lun Yu, Kojiki, Siddhanta, or whatever, is a bunch of made-up garble. Many, including myself, can accuse secular history books of being fraudulent, as history is written by the victors. Given that, I cringe anytime anyone, especially religious fanatics, tout their way as “historically verifiable.”

Religion, to state it again, is impossible to prove, yet many fanatics will swear that not only is it right, it CAN be proven. This in itself doesn’t make sense, since faith and proof are two different things. God himself put great emphasis on blind faith over fact.

Trust me, I’ve heard some of the Christian arguments, and they mostly involve the same kind circular reasoning that some (Chick) accuse science of getting involved in. Sometime there isn’t any reasoning. It’s religion, why should there be?

But let’s play ball here for just a second and actually look at the Bible. If we literally believe every word, no interpretations, then we find that our best friend Jack Chick is in some serious trouble. No sooner did I begin reading the Bible did I notice some speculation on his part pop up that wasn’t actually in there. These are the questions and concerns this section will pose.

Obviously, I’ll be focusing on the world’s largest religion over others, simply because it’s so influential and I happen to know more about it. No doubt we’ll veer off into other religions at some point, but for now, let’s focus on the big one.

I’ll be armed with the New Revised Standard Version Holy Bible as reference, a version that Chickians accuse as a “perverted” word of God. Don’t pay them any heed. They believe the only “true” Bible is the Old King James Version, which was created in 1611, after the formation of the Church of England, which was itself separated from Roman Catholicism in 1534 because King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife. Suspicious, to say the least.

This feature will be progressive. It’ll also be one of few I insist that you, the reader, get directly involved in. If you have a point you’d like to make, send it in, and we’ll have a discussion. If you find something that’s flat-out wrong, let me know that too. Just remember that you're still under the rules for contact laid out in the Rules and Regs section. Also, a topic-specific subject line should automatically fill in your subject line, so don't change it if it does. This makes it easier to sort out discussions from the rest of the mail.

Now let’s get this discussion on…

-Zasada