Myth or Religion?

 

We—humanity missed the boat,

     heads bowed in prayer—left behind only believers

     in fairy tales,

stomping hands, dancing on the beach;

Oh, to still believe in the full, full moon.

 

          What is the origin of the myth? One definition states "mythology is a narrative that describes and portrays in symbolic language the origins of the basic elements and assumptions of a culture." For example, mythological narratives relate how the world began, how humans and animals were created, and how certain customs, gestures and other forms of human activities originated. Almost all cultures possess, or at one time possessed, a mythological view of the world. In many cultures, myths were transmitted verbally from generation to generation as collections of stories while in others they were written in books facilitating more accurate transmission. In cultures that have written mythological books, these books usually consist of collections of stories that the authors recalled from the narrations of previous generations.

         Myths traditionally refer to an extraordinary time sequence, beginning with a time before the world as we know it came into being. Because they refer to extraordinary times and places as well as a mixture of natural and supernatural beings and processes, it has been difficult to distinguish myth from religion. The definition is usually a personal one: If you believe it, you call it religion; if you don't, you call it myth. Regardless of whether a story is considered myth or religion, both have great value, and can illuminate many aspects of the cultural life and belief system of a civilization.

         In ancient Greek thought, myth (mythos) was always in conflict with reason (logos). The Greek philosophers, for example, Xenophanes, Plato and Aristotle, criticized the religious myths and exalted logic. In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, a key element of the belief concerns one and the same God "revealed" to Moses in Egypt. Because all books of mythology include an ever-merging continuum of myth and logic as well as myth and history, there is always some truth and some fantasy in any such treatise. These books always reflect the attitudes of the people at the time of writing. Nevertheless, some members of a society, believing in the divine creation of their own mythological treatise, will claim and staunchly defend the notion that every detail written therein is fact, and that contradiction of those views is sacrilegious or heretical. Thousands of people have been punished, imprisoned, tortured, burned, or murdered because they did not profess the "correct" set of beliefs. It was in large measure because of such heinous actions that a policy of religious tolerance was professed and written into the constitution of the United States, after many Europeans fled to the colonies, refugees of harsh religious persecution. However, even in the professed tolerance of America, religious hatred raged, and witch burning was common in our early American Christian civilization.

         Even today the United States is essentially a Christian nation. On June 26, 2002, the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled unconstitutional because it included the declaration that we were one nation "under God". These words were not originally part of the pledge but had been introduced into it in 1954 by an act of Congress. This alteration to the pledge was a result of The Red Scare, in which the United States government, heavily influenced by Joseph McCarthy, and other such radicals, feared the influence of "godless" Communists. The Red Scare, and the unconstitutional actions that it encouraged has since become a black spot in U.S. history—an era to be remembered for its lessons on the extremes of intolerance and fear. Yet this mark of intolerance remained a part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 2002. The court ruled that the words "under God" violate the first amendment, which requires the separation of church and state. The court wrote: "In the context of the pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God' is an endorsement of religion." The reference to God is equivalent to a declaration "that we are a nation ‘under Jesus,' a nation ‘under Vishnu,' a nation ‘under Zeus,' or a nation ‘under no god.'" Amazingly, it took the courts 48 years to figure this out!

         The ruling prohibited public schools in nine Western U.S. states from reciting the pledge with the words "under God." What was the public response to this ruling? The decision sparked a swift, angry reaction across the nation, including a flurry of denunciations by public figures including President Bush and Gov. Gray Davis. Bush called it "ridiculous", and Davis said he was "extremely disappointed" that a court would rule against "one of our most profound human expressions of American patriotism." These actions and statements clearly reveal how ingrained religious belief is in American life, and how intolerant of alternative views our "tolerant" society really is. The United States professes freedom of religion; however, it seems that freedom from religion is still out of reach, unless, of course, you are a Christian.

         Since religious dogma appears to be inescapable, the question then arises as to whether a religious organization steeped in tradition and based on the Judeo-Christian-Muslim Bible can or will ever change its policies and practices in response to growing scientific knowledge and public demand. Happily, it would appear that the answer is "yes". The Hebrew Bible, which some claim was written by God, originally implied that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. These misconceptions were based on simple observation. The world looked flat, and it appeared that the Earth was at the center of the universe. After all, when you stare at the sky either during the day or at night, you can see the sun, moon and stars revolve around us.

         In 1632, Galileo claimed the opposite, professing his belief in the Copernicus hypothesis, which stated that the earth was not at the center of the universe but revolved around the sun. Galileo was consequentially summoned to Rome by the inquisition to stand trial for "grave suspicion of heresy." The inquisition found him guilty and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. His published works were ordered burned, and the sentence against him was to be read publicly in every university in Europe.

         In spite of these actions against Galileo and others, and in spite of the attempts of the Church to repeatedly dispute the growing scientific evidence, the astronomical truth eventually became established. What was the consequential reaction of the Church? Why, the Bible was merely rewritten. Nowhere in the revised King James version or the Revised Standard version of the Bible can the original supposition be found that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe.

         These facts reveal that although slow, the religious community can be responsive to scientific evidence and to overwhelming public opinion. With evolution now an established scientific fact, it is clear that the Bible needs to be rewritten again. Based on the past, it can be expected that the religious institutions of the Christians and Muslims will be the last to acknowledge this fact, but they eventually will capitulate. Acceptance of the truth can be delayed but not suppressed altogether.

What is most amazing to me is that anyone can believe that the Bible is anything more than that which it is: a Book of Mythology based in part on the historic facts and views that existed when it was written some 3000 years ago. We now all agree that the Greek religious teachings represent mythology. Similarly, the Roman and Norse religious writings fall into the mythological category. Then why can't Christians and Muslims accept the fact that their religious books are nothing more than mythological treatises?

         The answer to this question delves deeply into our sense of cultural security and superiority. If we feel sure we are right, our actions are justified, and we feel secure and happy; so secure and happy that we can rationalize and even sanction the slaughter of other cultures. Thus, the United States, an undeniably Christian nation, undertook the systematic extermination of the American Indians, justified the slavery of Africans, and robbed Mexico of its territories. After all, the people murdered, enslaved or robbed were considered nothing more than pagans or savages. The conquest of such people allowed for the growth of Christian America, and was therefore justified in God's name.

         The most unfortunate facts that emerge from these considerations are that religious belief breeds and has always bred intolerance. If you know you're right, everyone with a differing view must be wrong. Each of the dozens of splinter Christian sects in America think that only they are right, and often, only they have access to heaven. In history, one religious group pursuing a holy war on another was upsettingly common and is still prevalent today, even among peoples who essentially have the same beliefs (i.e., the Muslims vs. the Christians vs. the Jews; or even the Catholics vs. the Protestants).

It was not long ago that we heard chants of "kill a communist for Christ." In this present era, we have heard U.S. President Bush attempt to justify war on Iraq. He ultimately ordered invasion of Iraq without sanction from the United Nations. The rationalization? Bush rationalized this brash move by falsely claiming that Iraq may have been developing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Although over a dozen nations have developed or currently have access to similar weapons, Bush and his administration sold this song to Congress and the American people as rationalization for destruction of a foreign nation. Such a step risked and could still lead to World War III, differing from WWI or II as this one would likely be considered by both sides a holy war: The Christian world versus the Muslim world. Since the combined Muslim and Christian populations comprise about half of the world population, 3 billion people could be involved even though only a few careless political leaders actually pulled the trigger.

Put in a broader perspective, war always contributes to the destruction of planet Earth and causes immeasurable suffering. A simple and less devastating solution would be to take the path followed by the communist Chinese government and just abolish religion. It is very hard to find more than a handful of people of any religious persuasion in China today. Such an action has allowed this country, and only this country, to assume and enforce a responsible social position that has allowed tremendous economic benefit to its citizen. Such a policy, enforced worldwide, has the potential to save our world. Yet it isn't likely that this action will be taken in the U.S. We are too steeped in Christian traditions and beliefs. Let's hope the world can use its intellectual might to find an alternative solution before it's too late.