h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This really is a question about how a religious persons life would really be like if they were forced by the state to follow all the stuff that they are told to do in their religious books but don't because it's either really stupid or just doesn't fit in with real modern life. Obviously, we all immeadiatly thing about Deutromony and all the stuff in there.

And I am not talking about theologic dogma that has been 'interpreted' from texts.



Could religious people of any persausion survive in this day and age.

I also put in a caveate that they *must* do what thier book tells them *even* if it is against the laws of the land as 'their book' is the way.

It would mean they would be arrested etc but we cannot have one overall law or one and another for others.

Would we see religious 'law' martyrs who would go to jail. Would we see people leaving religions or would the leaders of that religion simply totally re-write their religious texts.

For a start, we'd all be schizophrenic. I am a believer and a practitioner, but I have to admit that some parts of the Bible directly contradict each other. It's the reason why I feel justified in a certain amount of picking and choosing.
In terms of practicalities, I'm pretty sure the Old Testament would be re-classified as some kind of 'reccomended reference text', which would cut down on a lot of the more serious problems.

There's a book called "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible" by A J Jacobs. I nearly bought it but then decided it was either going to be all "god really exists. No really" or "these people with their imaginary friends" and as both extremes bug the you know what out of me I didn't bother.

Deb

'Do as thou wilt'

hmm...

And there's plenty of religions with *no* written historical point of reference, being from ancient word-of-mouth storytelling type cultures etc... what do they do?

Todays Radio 4'Thought for the Day' is rather apt:

Thought for the Day, 1 April 2008

Subject: The best way to counter misunderstanding is to go back to source teaching.

Indarjit Singh

"Forget the bottled water and go straight to the well". These words of Pope Benedict suggest that we shouldn't place too much store on distilled and often skewed religious writing and preaching, but should go back to the source teachings.

His advice was quoted at a Vatican Education Conference last week on the need for greater dialogue with those of different faiths to which I had been invited. The quote struck an immediate responsive chord. A number of the learned contributions seemed to me, to miss the declared aim of the conference of understanding, and rejoicing in what different communities hold in common and respecting and reconciling areas of difference. Despite this, the conference did show people in Europe are becoming increasingly alert to the challenges of living together with different cultures.

In Britain, we rightly pride ourselves on our progress in understanding and respecting the communities around us. But, in my view, and that of some other minority faiths, since 9/11 and the London bombings, we seem to have lost our sense of focus. Concerns over the activities of a small core of Muslim extremists, and an understandable wish not to offend the Muslim majority have pushed the need to understand our different faiths and cultures to the back burner. Earlier initiatives on greater understanding have given way to new thinking, based on the questionable premise that all faith communities are isolated, and there is an underlying need, in the jargon of the day, to build bridges and connect communities. Bridges from where to where? The Sikh community, for example, gets on fine with those of other faiths or none, and this year celebrates the 100th anniversary of the opening of the first gurdwara in Britain in London's Shepherd's Bush.

What worries me about this political and academic manoeuvring to curb extremist activity in one religious community is the implicit suggestion that similar problems exist in all minority faiths. It's true that religion can be manipulated and packaged with dangerous rhetoric, but, as Pope Benedict observed, the best way to counter this is to go back to source teachings. The Sermon on the Mount or Sikh teachings on equality and justice, and similar teachings in other faiths, cannot be open to misunderstanding - and focussing on these and other values we hold in common is, in my view, a sure way to true community cohesion."

Obviously, he really hasn't thought this through as some of the stuff is so wooly it *has* to be interpreted and therefore the problems come when people interpret them for their own 'political' needs.

Of course, Ratty is saying go back to the source teachings as it means he will be able to say 'exactly' what it means and how they should be followed. As he is trying to drag the Catholic Church even further back into the dark ages we can only expect more puritanical dogma to come out of this.

I believe that we would be in serious trouble. We would have a Middle Ages style requirement to believe in Christianity in "Christian countries", Islam in "Muslim countries" etc. Certainly in "The Western World" we would have trouble. It amazing that England survived the Middle Ages and with all the technology available today religious leaders would be even worse. The "holy" books for most religions are the most violent pieces of literature ever written and we would destroy each other instantly. The "New Crusades" that would almost certainly happen would last about 10 minutes and 95% of humanity would be wiped out as everyone nuked all the countries with a religion other than theirs.

I'm not so sure. The historical bits are pretty bloodthirsty, yes, but the actual rules for living don't tend to advise the same stuff for general life.
Also, I'm guessing the questioner began with the assumption that most of Britain is now non-religious. Moreover, most of those who profess to a religion on the vague basis that their parents did it would drop out pretty quickly if there were suddenly actual legal implications.

Not exactly, more that the religious amongst us are trying to make everyone else fall into place with thier dogma via stifling laws and scientific advancement.

The religious leaders always trot out the statistic that 65% of people in the UK are Christians because the last census says so.

I think your comment above makes my original question even more interesting though.

"...the religious amongst us are trying to make everyone else fall into place with thier dogma via stifling laws and scientific advancement."

Well, I'm certainly not, and neither are any of the religious people I know. Okay, a few of them are a bit hard-line about the behaviour of those of us inside the particular religion I follow (Catholicism) but we appear to have pretty much given up on the rest of the world. Any attempts we make are more along the lines of a wheedling kind of evangelism: "Aw, go on, worship our God. You'll like it, I promise. Come one, give us a go. Pleeeeaaase!"

However, Bob, I cant see, if it became legally binding, religions being happy to let the non-religious live along whatever moral guidelines work for them... (by religions I am talking more about the runners and organisers, but their stance would most probably be echoed down the heirarchy...) The division between religions would probably be wider and more defined and I suspect that even your 'average joe' could become quite stronly opinionated.

I remember a chap dressed as the devil (silly red catsuit with hors and a trdent...) walking down a road in Salt Lake City and having both verbal and physical abuse thrown at him by passers be. He wasn't hurting anybody or harrassing anyone, but people felt the need to harrass him. I believe it was a Jackass stunt. I can see this being a common scene (without the cartoon costume) with people hiding behind, being stifled by and then expecting others to do the same because of their religion.

I'm sorry if this doesn't sound like *you* if you are religious and reading this, but human nature often seems to generalise into defensiveness and retalitation. Into creating rules for oneself and then trying to inflict them on others, and feeling aggrieved if they dont choose to follow your lead.

This is one of the places where we run up against the problem with the hypothetical question: it could never actually happen. After all, there are laws against religious discrimination in most western countries and this is just discrimination against all religions rather than just one.
The obvious answer to what religious leaders would do in this situation is that they would rail against it, but the question assumes that it has happened and therefore the situation must have arisen in which it got past them in the first place. We really have to assume that they're accepting that religion and the religious be singled out for treatment which doesn't apply to atheists. That's not completely outlandish (it plays to the arrogant side of some people, after all), but still very far-fetched.

"The religious leaders always trot out the statistic that 65% of people in the UK are Christians because the last census says so."
Acording to the last census about 15% of people in the UK are Jedis Including my friend and his family because his dad put it down for a laugh. But the point I made is that living by "their book" would make religious people, especially those of a Judaeo-Christan faith, 100 times worse than the Nazis. Yaweh, God of the Old Testament/Talmud, makes Hitler look like he cared for people outside his faith. Yaweh is pathologically opposed to the idea that anyone could worship any God but him. Most of the Old Testament/Talmud (the Torah is just the first 5 books, the Talmud is the whole of what Christians know as the Old Testament) basically boils down to, in the words of Marcus Brigstocke: "Fight, fight, kill, maim, fight, smash, destroy, fight, murder, kill and fight". He also says "The relationship between religion and warfare is rather like the relationship between Ant and Dec. You could have one without the other, but I'm not sure anyone would see the point.

This question, like many other contemporary modern-day philosophical issues, is ably addressed by The Simpsons. Just observe what happens to Ned Flanders as he desperately tries to obey the bible to the letter.

~*~This is one of the places where we run up against the problem with the hypothetical question: it could never actually happen.~*~

Sure it could.



~*~After all, there are laws against religious discrimination in most western countries and this is just discrimination against all religions rather than just one.~*~

Well the problem there is that you're assuming people will actually follow the law. Ultimately a law is just words on paper unless it's enforced, and there are countless examples of laws /not/ being enforced. Besides which, the question seems to imply that these laws don't (practically) exist in the scenario, so just run with it.



~*~I remember a chap dressed as the devil (silly red catsuit with horns and a trident...) walking down a road in Salt Lake City and having both verbal and physical abuse thrown at him by passers be.~*~

I'll have to try that.

About the devil man... I obviously wasn't as clear as I should have been... I wasn't *in* SLC, it was on a TV show... And therefore, while I take it with a pinch of salt (oops, no pun intended) it was indicative of an attitude which I am told does exist.

And having been shouted at in the street by amplified evangelists in the shopping centre here, (presumeably because I look ungodly, though who can tell?) I have very little cause to doubt it.

But if you can't assume that the discrimination law will be obeyed, you can't assume that religious people will obey this one.

I do agree with you Bob, the religious or non-religious are not necessarily more or less lawful.

~*~....it was indicative of an attitude which I am told does exist.~*~

Not as much as you'd think. Mormons are actually very friendly.

Ooh, dont get me wrong, I wasn't thinking denominationally specific, the city was simply where this incident *if* I remember correctly occurred. My great-aunt was a mormon and I never had any trouble with her

From the street evangelists with their amplifiers in our shopping centres, to 'kerayzee' redneck types (the world over!) there are too many people who will use religion as backup for persecution of that which makes *them* uncomfortable. And more and more 'normal' people get caught up in the attitudes and actions of a driven few with loud voices in times of change and mistrust.

Devil man might have been 'Normal Bob Smith' though he tends to be dressed in a smart suit.

Google 'Jesus Dress-up'