Kort Explores conundrums of the human condition

Mankind has over the centuries experimented with a wide variety of social structures. Even today there are many who argue there is a better way to manage the interactions between individuals that make up civilization. Are there any guiding principles that have truly stood the test of time?

I believe there are principles so basic and necessary to civilization that we compromise them at our peril. The trick, of course, is identifying and adopting accurate truisms on which to build a functional world view. There are some basic truisms that are fairly obvious - the laws of physics for example, especially as they apply to the human condition. Few humans down through history would disagree that placing one's fragile flesh and blood in the path of a heavy falling object is a bad idea. Those who refused to accept the intrinsic validity of this truism tended to be eliminated from the gene pool - at least until the advent of modern medicine.

Things get more difficult when attempting to define truisms dealing with human nature and civilization, but I think there are still some ideas that have universal applicability. The principles of mutual respect and reciprocal results appear to represent the bare minimum rules of engagement necessary to support mutually beneficial interactions between individuals. These functions comprise the basic social contract, and its minimal operating principles make up basic secular ethics.

Consider how absolutely necessary the principle of mutual respect is for even the most basic cooperative group dynamics. If you believe your life is in immediate danger, your primary focus must then be to protect that which is threatened. If all individuals must be constantly on guard to defend their lives and property, they don't have any time or effort left over to create or maintain civilization. When the confidence of the citizens in the safety of their lives is degraded by war, banditry, or the suppression of their rights to defend themselves, civilization rapidly declines back into barbarity.

The evolutionary history of primates and humans would appear to indicate that secular ethics predate any religious belief systems. Prehumans lived in groups and practiced basic secular ethics before they evolved sufficient intelligence to embrace any religious explanations for the world around them. To my knowledge, not only are the "lower" animals like gorillas excluded from consideration within human religions, but I've seen no indications that any primates other than humans possess a religious belief system. However, in spite a total lack of religious beliefs, they do practice within their group dynamics many of the fundamental behaviors that form the basis of human secular ethics. Primate behaviors like reciprocal grooming, food sharing, and mutual defense, among others, could be said to be the predecessors of human secular ethics.

Even if human-centric thinkers find it hard to accept the prehuman primate origin of secular ethics, it's indisputable that within the written record of human history, references to the principles of mutual respect and reciprocal results date as far back as the earliest civilizations. Writing itself evolved as a means of tracking the increasingly complex interactions between individuals that result from the adoption of these most basic principles.

The key fact is that while the bulk of religious thought has changed over the centuries, basic secular ethics embody intrinsic truths and values that have carried them down through the ages. But these proven values are once again under attack. There is an ongoing conflict around the world over the primacy of secular ethics or religious morals. There is an increasing chorus from religious activists claiming that modern society is suffering a moral crisis that can only be solved by the intrusion of religion into the secular affairs of state. But is the involvement of religion in the secular services provided by government the solution or cause of religious intolerance? Perhaps more importantly, have the basic functions of society degraded because of the abandonment of religious morals, or as a result of the ongoing attack on secular ethics by religionists seeking to suppress any competitors to their vision of a spirit centered society?

The world is full of examples of violent religious intolerance in those places where the believers of one religion seek dominance and attempt to suppress all competitors. In Northern Ireland it's the Catholics and Protestants, in India and Pakistan it's the Muslims and Hindus, in the Middle East it's the radical Muslims at war with everybody else. In each case, the violence is fueled by the expectation that ultimate victory for their belief system is not only possible, but demanded by their god. Most if not all of the most violent religious groups claim to be fighting in the service of gods whose teachings allegedly stress tolerance and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

The consistent pattern of violent religious intolerance by radical Muslims in the Middle East and Christians in Northern Ireland demonstrates the fallacy of believing religionists can act reasonably when trusted with secular power. To the contrary, the absolute separation of church and state is the only reliable cornerstone for building religious tolerance. Allowing any religion to gain influence over the secular state inevitably leads to religious intolerance. The problem isn't the tolerance of secularists toward religionists wanting to become involved in government, it is the intolerance of religionists in government towards everyone else.

In contrast to the religious bloodletting in other parts of the world, modern America counts among its citizens followers of perhaps the greatest variety of religions anywhere in the world. Among the people I come in contact with on a fairly regular basis, there are Atheists, Agnostics, various flavors of Christian (Catholic, Protestant, Russian Orthodox, Baptist, etc.), Muslim, Jewish, Bahai, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American Spiritualism, New Age Spiritualist, Pagan, Wichan, and others. I have no idea of the religious beliefs of many of the people I come in contact with since there is no reason for me to know. Nearly every one of the represented religions claim to be the one true way, and in those times in history and/or areas of the world where they were dominant, have actively persecuted those who did not share their belief system.

The important aspect isn't the number of religions within my circle of acquaintances, but the relative lack of religious conflict. We all get along because we respect each other's differing beliefs. If any faction attempted to impose their beliefs - or lack thereof - on the others, conflict would be inevitable and maintaining the social contract and free association that provides substantial benefits to all of us would become impossible.

Peace is maintained because instead of each of us advancing our own particular religious dogma as the primary criteria governing our cross cultural interactions, all of us yield to the secular principles of the social contract as they apply to interactions among the group. Within each individual's personal life we are of course free to live according to what ever religious principles we choose so long as we don't attempt to impose those principles and practices on others.

But the relative tolerance and peace enjoyed in America is now under renewed threat from the rise of aggressive religionists seeking to subvert the secular state into an extension of their religious beliefs. The founding fathers of America demonstrated a rare brilliance when they wrote the principle of separation of church and state into our nation's defining documents. While most of the founders professed some personal religious belief, they understood that the key to true religious tolerance in a multi-religion nation was the creation of a truly secular state showing no preference or support for any of the many competing religions. Having witnessed the horrendous abuses of religion based governments in Europe, they believed that only a purely secular civil structure provided the neutral environment within which the believers in a variety of incompatible religions could peaceful coexist.

America largely respected the principle of separation of church and state for most of its first century. Even though the history of religious tolerance in early secular America was not entirely spotless, the citizens in general enjoyed a unique freedom from religionists seeking to use the coercive power of government to impose their particular beliefs on the population.

During America's second century religionists have sought to erode the separation of church and state and establish a primarily fundamentalist Christian presence in government services. It was only during this period that religious phrases and references appeared on our money and in our secular rituals. Lately there has been a concerted effort to further redefine the meaning of separation of church and state by religionists seeking to justify their political activities, to imply that the principle was only meant to keep the government out of the churches, not keep the churches out of government. They claim that religious tolerance demands respect for their beliefs by all citizens, believers and nonbelievers alike. Only when they demand respect they actually mean compliance with the social constrictions defined by their belief system.

The moral teachings of most major religions incorporate principles that largely mimic basic secular ethics in addition to their other guidelines and proscriptions, becoming a superset of secular ethics. To the believers in any one of the various major belief systems, secular ethics become an obsolete subset of the "one true way" most religions claim to offer. The elimination of secular ethics and the elevation of their favored belief system in its place seems the obvious and logical thing to do - for the believer in that particular belief system. Unfortunately, the various "one true ways" offered in our multi-religion society don't find much to agree on above their most basic secular ethics emulating concepts. The elevation of any one belief system by definition violates the beliefs of all the rest of the citizens.

Religions come and go - especially in a multi-religion society - while civilization hopefully continues on regardless. Even long lived religions change over time - often responding to criteria that have nothing to do with the operation of secular civilization, and especially at odds with the interests of those who don't subscribe to that particular religion.

By placing its faith in transitory religions, civilization sets itself up for the abandonment of those principles necessary for its very function when the moral structures associated with discredited religions are rejected. If the only justification for a principle that people understand is an association with the dogma of a religion, when that religion loses favor it drags down all of its moral structures as well leaving a moral vacuum. When questioned by their children why things are the way they are, parents are left with hollow explanations like "because we've always done it that way", etc. that are too easily rejected by the next generation.

Secular ethics based on the fundamental truths of civilization retain their validity regardless of the fortunes of the religionists because their meaning and functions address the realities of life not the hallucinations of malnourished self-abused prophets, or the death wishes of the charismatic mentally ill who see a spaceship concealed in the tail of a comet. Many civilizations of the past that were too tightly tied to a religious base have fallen along with the failed religion. Some civilizations that survived multiple religion changes fell when they abandoned their secular separation and allowed the religionists to infiltrate and ultimately dominate their previously secular state.

We need to recognize that in a multi-religion society it must be secular ethics that transcend religious morals, not the other way around. Only pure secular ethics can transcend the religious barriers of our multi-religion society and bridge the generation gap. Ethics define the way things have to be in order for civilization to function. Morals describe how some portion of the population would like the world to be - at least until their beliefs change and they want it a different way.

Many religionists today are convinced they've found the "truth" and aggressively seek to make their new found beliefs the operating principles of our current civilization. But the religionists of the past were just as convinced the sun wouldn't rise without ceremonial genital mutilation, ripping the still beating hearts out of captured victims, and other assorted sacred practices. Those so anxious to impose their beliefs on others today should consider how they will feel when some time in the future they and/or their children are forced to adopt someone else's blasphemous belief system. Those who establish theocracies rarely retain control for long. The only defense for any belief system is the defense of all belief systems.

As such it becomes necessary for the secular state to resist and suppress those religionists who seek to gain secular power, in defense of both the secular state and those other religions who are not aggressively seeking secular power. Simple logic and ethics indicate that religious fanatics who seek to die in order to further the religious conversion of secular civilization should be assisted in achieving their desired mortality before they can take any nonbelievers with them in their demented death wish. Believers who seek to live peacefully among those who do not share their beliefs should be treated with the same tolerance they demonstrate towards others.