Religion, spirituality and the social contract
Every religion has a sacred text which is alleged to be authored by those who had a direct and personal relationship with the God of their understanding. The ensuing conversations between this God and the authors then often become the sacred commandments of this God which one dare not disobey. Generations of individuals are then fed this text in hope that they will feed it to their children. Since it is now sacred, keepers of this covenant have to prohibit new information from contaminating this covenant. Therefore, debates about these issues are theoretically impossible although there are volumes of theological works on every detail of the original text. Despite the fact that in many nations or states there is no official religion and there may, in fact, be a constitutional requirement that church, and state remain separate., the sad truth is that many laws and “accepted norms” are based on historic religious beliefs.
Daily in my counseling practice and in the larger community I am confronted with the psychological pain which is a direct result of these narrow beliefs about the nature of god, what pleases or displeases god and the human impossibility of fitting into and remaining in the narrow parameters of these beliefs. Throughout history my colleagues have not only codified behavior they considered aberrant or sinful but has (and in some cases continue) participating in the punishment of those who are unable to stay in the assigned boxes which may have originated from religious beliefs
Law and social mores based on religious belief are not in and of themselves, moral or effective in achieving goals of the body politic.
Laws and mores based on solid scientific evidence or at the very least based on our best scientific evidence to date will more likely achieve a goal which benefits the society long term. For example, a transgender person who knows that they were assigned or born with hormones and genitals which do not fit for them is not able to function at their best. It makes sense to support their transition. An immature 19-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old does not, as many of my colleagues would assert, damage the 15-year-old for life. Raping a 15 or 19-year-old does cause acute psychological damage. The person who obsessively desires and forces sex on a 5-year-old child has a mental illness which may or may not be treatable, but that does not mean we have to treat the person as if they are a criminal. No one decides they want to have an obsessive, uncontrollable urge to harm others. No one decides that they want to be an addict and ruin lives. They may decide to experiment with alcohol and other drugs and in the process discover they are vulnerable to the disease of addiction. No one decides that they will have such low worth that they come to believe they have to try to prove their worth with power, money, things or sex.
There may be many behaviors which I do not personally find appealing or even acceptable. Very few of those need to be the object of the judicial system, Certainly there are those who are unable to consider the needs of other. They are not evil, bad, worthless or even repugnant. Some of them may need to be in a secure location and treated with love and dignity.
The desire of most spiritual seekers and of most religions is laudable; to make sense of this brief life dance and to seek direction in how to create safe, cooperative, creative, loving communities. Yet, just because they are asking the right questions does not mean they have the best answers for all of us. If their answers work for them that is great. Let’s do refrain from imposing our personal religion-based values on others. Let’s do allow the results of our best scientific research to date to determine how to organize and maintain the body politic.
Written June 23, 2020
Jimmy F Pickett
Coachpickett.org
Every religion has a sacred text which is alleged to be authored by those who had a direct and personal relationship with the God of their understanding. The ensuing conversations between this God and the authors then often become the sacred commandments of this God which one dare not disobey. Generations of individuals are then fed this text in hope that they will feed it to their children. Since it is now sacred, keepers of this covenant have to prohibit new information from contaminating this covenant. Therefore, debates about these issues are theoretically impossible although there are volumes of theological works on every detail of the original text. Despite the fact that in many nations or states there is no official religion and there may, in fact, be a constitutional requirement that church, and state remain separate., the sad truth is that many laws and “accepted norms” are based on historic religious beliefs.
Daily in my counseling practice and in the larger community I am confronted with the psychological pain which is a direct result of these narrow beliefs about the nature of god, what pleases or displeases god and the human impossibility of fitting into and remaining in the narrow parameters of these beliefs. Throughout history my colleagues have not only codified behavior they considered aberrant or sinful but has (and in some cases continue) participating in the punishment of those who are unable to stay in the assigned boxes which may have originated from religious beliefs
Law and social mores based on religious belief are not in and of themselves, moral or effective in achieving goals of the body politic.
Laws and mores based on solid scientific evidence or at the very least based on our best scientific evidence to date will more likely achieve a goal which benefits the society long term. For example, a transgender person who knows that they were assigned or born with hormones and genitals which do not fit for them is not able to function at their best. It makes sense to support their transition. An immature 19-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old does not, as many of my colleagues would assert, damage the 15-year-old for life. Raping a 15 or 19-year-old does cause acute psychological damage. The person who obsessively desires and forces sex on a 5-year-old child has a mental illness which may or may not be treatable, but that does not mean we have to treat the person as if they are a criminal. No one decides they want to have an obsessive, uncontrollable urge to harm others. No one decides that they want to be an addict and ruin lives. They may decide to experiment with alcohol and other drugs and in the process discover they are vulnerable to the disease of addiction. No one decides that they will have such low worth that they come to believe they have to try to prove their worth with power, money, things or sex.
There may be many behaviors which I do not personally find appealing or even acceptable. Very few of those need to be the object of the judicial system, Certainly there are those who are unable to consider the needs of other. They are not evil, bad, worthless or even repugnant. Some of them may need to be in a secure location and treated with love and dignity.
The desire of most spiritual seekers and of most religions is laudable; to make sense of this brief life dance and to seek direction in how to create safe, cooperative, creative, loving communities. Yet, just because they are asking the right questions does not mean they have the best answers for all of us. If their answers work for them that is great. Let’s do refrain from imposing our personal religion-based values on others. Let’s do allow the results of our best scientific research to date to determine how to organize and maintain the body politic.
Written June 23, 2020
Jimmy F Pickett
Coachpickett.org
RSS Feed