He loves you - and he needs money! He always needs money. He's all powerful, all knowing, all present - all wise. But, he just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions and billions of dollars. They pay no taxes, and somehow always need money. You talk about a good bullshit story. If I may be permitted a small pun - Holy Shit!"- George Carlin

As a measure of human susceptibility to hypocrisy, our proclaimed  
dedication to establishing democracy in Third World lands is perhaps 
exceeded only in the area of our professed dedication to religious ideals 
or doctrine.

     A majority of Americans attend churches, and proclaim a belief in the 
teachings of a man called Jesus.  This man disdained wealth, ("'Tis easier 
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to 
attain the kingdom of heaven") and counseled against violence and war. 
("Turn the other cheek".."Love thine enemy.")  Upon viewing the behavior 
of Americans today it shouldn't require 20 -20 eyesight to notice that 
something here is very remiss!  What is out of order, and what must be done 
to put it back in place?

     One thing is clear.  The means by which we strive to motivate economic 
and industrial progress appears to be in direct conflict with the main 
tenants of the expressed  religious beliefs of  a majority of Americans.  
It might seem, then, that a stronger adherence to religious convictions 
might lead to a  more compassionate and cooperate attitude regarding our 
economic endeavors.  Let us then proceed to explore the outlook for any 
change in religious attitudes in America

Prostitution is often referred to as the 
world's oldest profession.  Another candidate 
for this honor is perhaps more appropriate.  
That would be organized religion!  From the 
time of the high priests of Egypt in the days 
of the Pharaohs, to the time of guardians of 
the temple in the days of Christ, to the 
Crusades of the Middle Ages, to the Spanish 
Inquisition, to the  televangelists of modern 
day America, religion has been used as a vehicle 
for self-aggrandizement, power and profit, as 
well as enslavement. And, as we may well know, 
hardly a crime or indiscretion can be found which 
has not been committed in the name of religion, at some time or other.  
Even today as religion plays it's roll amidst the murderous conflicts festering in 
such diverse areas as Bosnia, Rwanda, Palestine, India, and Northern Ireland, most 
will regard this as an aberration or exception, and not something to lead to serious 
questioning of the value or importance of organized religion.

     Religion is generally used to justify, or excuse the most basal of 
human instincts.  Jim Jones at Jonestown, and David Koresh, the Wacko at 
Waco found it convenient in the justification of extraordinary sexual 
excesses.  Moses enlisted religion to justify the bloodiest form of 
vengeance.  Check Numbers, Chapt. 31, King James Version of the Holy 
Bible.  "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 'Avenge the children of 
Israel of the Midianites' ... And Moses said unto them (The Israelites) ... 
'Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman 
that has known man by lying with him.'"  Pretty vicious advice for one who 
espoused the "Ten Commandments!" ("Thou shalt not kill.").   

        This is not to deny that religion may not and should not be an 
essential aspect in our lives!  However a few distinctions need to be 
considered.   One being that there is a difference between organized 
religion  and  personal religion.  Another has to do with what we mean by 
religion. What passes for religion today is generally some hodgepodge of 
superstition, mysticism, ritualism, and wishful thinking, rather than an 
honest attempt to deal with the "ultimate reality", or "the hereafter".  

        The vast majority of the humans on our planet appear to have 
accepted a religious belief based on  or  influenced by  the family or the 
society they live in.  And they generally feel that their's is the one true 
and real understanding of God and the  hereafter!  Is there something wrong 
with this picture?  If any group of aliens were to land from outer space 
and view this phenomenon, wouldn't they have a laugh!   Yet this is the 
hold that organized religion has upon us.  There  are, of course, many who 
adopt a more personalized faith.  They are much less inclined to 
manipulation, and control by those who prefer to use religion for 
materialistic, neurotic, or selfish pursuits.

        It must also be realized that what we mean by the words, religion, 
and God, have somewhat different meanings for different  people. Webster's 
Dictionary states it this way.  For religion, we have:  "The service or 
worship of God or the supernatural."  For supernatural Webster lists: "of 
or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible, observable 
universe".  In dealing with God, Webster has: 1) "The supreme or ultimate 
reality", 2) "A being or object believed to have more than natural 
attributes and powers, and to require man's worship".

        There are two basic concepts.  One involves the more structured and 
dogmatic father-type view of God.  The other, leaning more towards the 
philosophical, recognizes the existence of a power, and order in the 
universe, but places it's faith in a less dogmatic, but more humanistic 
service or worship of that power. It would stand to reason that those who 
adapt the former concept are more  vulnerable to manipulation by those who 
would use  religion for the purpose of manipulation.

        Religion, much like many other institutions or facets in our 
society, forms a fertile ground for escapism.  In the psychological view, 
almost every person will deter, at times, from the normal pursuit of 
satisfaction of the basic drives (hunger, sex, sleep) to contemplate such  
concepts as the hereafter, the supernatural, or the fundamental meaning and 
purpose of life.  For many this becomes, of course, a very agonizing task. 
Often the only apparent relief being, of course, the  acceptance on faith 
of one of the pre-packaged religious doctrines promoted by surrounding 
groups.  Often the larger the sponsoring group, the  more reassuring the 
choice.  Or perhaps material advantages to be gained from the choice would 
determine the affiliation.  Seldom, it seems, does the choice of faith stem 
from an objective, logical, analysis of reality.  Most would consider that 
to be an impossible  task.  And it probably would be if one felt that there 
had to be absolutely no doubt about the validity of the choice upon which 
one's faith is placed.  On the other hand, don't we make many choices 
without requiring absolute certainty!  An act of faith is required whenever 
we take a seat on an airplane.  We place our faith in a choice of playing 
or folding a hand at poker. But we use our best judgement.  Perhaps that's 
all we can, or should expect when choosing a faith in that "higher power"!

     Indeed, it would appear that without reliance on some form of religion
the case for human survival in the atomic age is weakened.  However the
type of religion required is perhaps best exemplified in Time Magazine's
(May 19, '97) depiction of Tim Berners-Lee who is credited as the original 
creator of the World Wide Web.  Tim Berners-Lee appears to be a man of 
modest means, who quite unlike most in his field and perhaps society as 
well, has somehow managed to escape addiction to money, power and 
materialism.  He likes the minimalist Unitarian dogma - theologically 
vague, but believing in the 'inherent dignity of people and in working 
together to achieve harmony and understanding'.  He can accept the notion 
of divinity so long as it is couched abstractly - as the asymptote of 
goodness that we strive toward - and doesn't involve 'characters with 
beards' 

     Development of religious feeling rather than simply belief would best 
describe what is being suggested here.  Too often a belief is accepted in 
response to social pressures, or as an attempt to overcome anguish evoked 
by the frustration arising from the search for an answer.  While the act of 
acceptance in this case provides a measure of relief for the individual, it 
often results in a diminished feeling or fervor to actively pursue that 
belief.  The essential goal, thus achieved, (escape from anxiety) he's 
generally inclined to devote attention to other interests.  On the other 
hand, those who accept a religious commitment based on personal and logical 
analysis (albeit, recognizing the possibility of fallibility) may sense a 
more personal stake in the choice, and thus feel more inclined to action, 
and less inclined to engage in hypocrisy.

     Since religious beliefs or convictions generally contain tenants 
encompassing the concept of human brotherhood, it makes sense that a 
resurgence of personalized religious beliefs would provide a greater hope 
for action disposed to further human survival.

   A strong case for this concept:; the bonding of religion to human 
survival, is marvelously expressed by one of the central characters in the 
movie entitled "Mindwalk".  The character, a scientist played by actress 
Liv Ullman, displays strong ethical behavior grounded on her studied 
perception of recent discoveries in the science of physics.  The scientific 
analysis of the ultimate make-up of matter indicates that it really 
consists of "relationships" rather than any trackable or even identifiable  
entities.  Therefore, Ullman's character reasons that we exist only as a 
part of that mass of interrelationships.  As humans, we are all part of one 
another.  Our destinies are somehow tied to each other, just as is all 
matter.  The satisfaction in the service of fellow humans could be 
characterized as personal religion.     

     The intelligent choice of religion is one of the keys to human 
survival.  We must learn that the choice must not be made due to "outside 
pressure". It must come from within.  When we place our faith in religion  
it  should be with the understanding that one does not own the monopoly on 
infallibility.  Religious intolerance is, of course, a more  serious threat 
to survival these days than it  ever was in the past.  The question arises: 
can we adopt a faith in the hereafter that is, to some extent speculative, 
and feel comfortable with it?  If this be possible, a great stride towards 
countering the survival-threatening intolerance fostered by  organized 
religious groups existing today might be achieved.