A New Secular Movement

NB: This post is a work in progress

Recently I've been spending a lot of time promoting atheism in my own way using my Facebook profile by posting a few choice tidbits from the world of religion. I've gotten quite a bit of attention from theists and atheists alike but what has boggled me immensely is the shear lack of understanding on both sides of theistic divide.

Theists who know nothing credible about their own religions versus atheists who don't understand even the most basic aspects of epistemology much less of the extent of religious violence in the world.

The biggest point of confusion is the belief that atheism somehow has an agenda and that's what they're expecting from atheism because they equate it as being a religion. Even atheists seem to think that atheism and religion are somehow one and the same. At first I thought it was because they simply didn't understand what atheism was but I now think they simply don't understand what religion is.

If they don't understand what religion is, how can they understand atheism?

Speaking of which my interest in religion has moved from believers to cult leaders and prophets onto sociopaths and dictators. Cult leaders, prophets, sociopaths and dictators all appear to be difference species of the same genus.

It has occurred to me that same nonchalant ignorance we have of the two dozen or so monsters (dictators) in the world and the heinous crimes they commit against humanity is the same nonchalant ignorance most non-religious 'religious' (and pro-religious non-religious) people have toward the crimes committed by the world's various religions.

For example, Kim Jong Il (put into the popular consciousness thanks to "Team America World Police,") jails hundreds of thousands of his starving people for 'hoarding' food... in country where it has to be rationed out and the average 7 year old is 8 inches shorter than their south Korean counter part. Why are the people starving? Because he spends all of North Korea's money on building missiles, nuclear weapons, warships and maintaining a massive offensive army while he lives a life unfettered luxury.

Such monsters are an insult to human dignity. Over 20 million suffer needlessly every day because of this man but does anyone care? Not many, certainly not the general public. Simply because no one thinks about North Korean long enough to form an opinion. For example, I have heard people talk about dictators and they've talked about Kim Jong Il as one of those funny crazy dictators that makes people laugh with the silly things they get up to. This used to make me feel ill being around people talking like this because they almost sounded like they like and respected the guy. But on reflection I don't think it is because they lack compassion for the plight of the North Korean people... rather they just haven't thought about it as deeply as I have.

I believe (no evidence yet) that if most people spent as much time as I thinking about these matters they'd reach the same conclusion as I would. That dictators like Kim Jong Il are a bleeding festering wound on human dignity and should be removed from power at the earliest opportunity. They might also consider that personality cult surrounding Kim Jong Il's father has a creepy simularity to how a new religion is generated.

Religion and politics do indeed appear to blend together very naturally in a dictatorship. Religion and fascism have the greatest in common: pro-natal policies, supreme imfallible leaders, unquestioning obedience to authority, paranoia about the loyalty of the faithful, believe they have the authority to tell people how to live their lives, don't care for the feelings of the people their destroy and highly dogmatic and resistant to scientific ideas and challenges. I know some people will bring up Nazi Germany as an example of a scientifically advanced fascist state, but keep in mind that the Nazis kicked out a third of Germany's intellectual before the war started and dumbed down the education system so that any future generations of Germany would be scientifically challenged if Nazism had survived.

What is needed to challenge this religofascism? I mean, we defeated the nazis and the fascists and the Stalinists... but just as Herman Goering predicted we are neck deep in Islamofascists, neostalinists, zionists and Christian fundamentalists in politics. It almosts seems as though the history of enlightened civilisation is about brief epochs of rebellion and aggression against religofascism only to fall back into generations of intellectual and spiritual laziness just expecting the forces of totalitarianism will just go away by themselves... all the time forgetting the blood shed in the name of freedom.

Brave men and women fought and died to bring about political and religious freedom. If we cannot honour and respect their sacrifices do we deserve to continue to enjoy the securities and liberties they worked so hard for us to have? Of course we don't... but our memory is poor and we all forget the reasons and sacrifices of generations long before us.

Once upon a time people used to talk about slavery like they would the weather. There was no feeling at all that slavery was in any way immoral or wrong. When some people started to question slavery and pressure people to abolish it... I rather imagine that people had the same kinds of reactions to my fellow irreligionists. What's wrong with slavery? Can't you see it is natural? Look, you're just upsetting people. Keep your opinions to yourself and stop trying to push them onto other people.

I imagine it was the same with equality, homosexuality and racism... can't you see the natural order of things? Women are inferior, stop making trouble! Homosexuals are unnatural, they're sick, they don't deserve our respect! All races only think about their own self interests, it is impossible to have a functional society made up of individuals from all sorts of different races, stop trying to upturn society!

In every case: abolition, equality, tolerance, multi-ethnicity, religious freedom etc... the general population's living standards and happiness improved. We need to stop object to agitators of change with a reactionary response but engage them in a free, fair and open debate. Then we need to be willing to either concede to them gracefully if they are right or to crack down hard on them if they are wrong.

And I mean crack down hard on people because multiculturalism is not the same as multethnicism and the while I completely support the latter and believe the former is a recipe for civil unrest. A nation should have only one set of laws from which no one is exempt, especially politicians and other people in high office.

Where is all of this speculation heading?

I'm still not entirely sure but one thing is certain, we need a formalise the ideas of the enlightenment movement into a political movement that crosses all borders and divisions. One that unites all of the people of Earth and looks to minimise the amount of suffering and harm caused to the greatest number of people. One that does not blindly think of the present but also considers the future and the needs of those who will come over us. One that is firm against dictators, religionists and sociopaths. One that is proscience for the treatment of humanities and world's ills.

I had thought that such a project would be too idealistic and unattainable. But rather I'm convinced we can improve on the previous ideologies of utilitarianism.

Instead of working for the greatest good or achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people we should be working to eliminate harmful and destructive elements: we should leave individuals to seek happiness for themselves but collectively work to remove sources of misery.

We should tell our scientists to focus not on enhancing humanity but instead on removing all of the weaknesses: cancer, heart-disease, paralysis, skin disease, every form of genetic and physical malady. Then let individuals choose for themselves if they want to explore being more than human.