People should be free to go to hell.
Any religious institution which is so heavily preoccupied with the greater good of humankind, that in effect takes away the right to go to hell, commits in its own turn a terrible sin against the divine inside each human, while the leaders of such an institution are directly responsible for the heavy sin of fighting against the divine order.
Chocking the human spirit’s blooming, because we are so keen on salvation, instead of rejoicing the awe it inspires, we move against the divine. Humans should be free to make mistakes, humans need to penetrate any hidden corner of the world, with both their bodies and their minds, because only this way can the divine drop in humanity transform life into an experience. Following a life of fundamentalist conformism, pampered by a religious institution, well intended otherwise, one cannot be judged and shall miss the opportunity of intimately ascending into a fully grown being of light, a resident of a world made for permanent happiness.
The constant exploration, which science, philosophy, art and sexuality do, must be unveiled from beneath the occult sheet of religious beliefs. In these domains any human is alone with God and acts according to his or her own capacity. If the human’s actions result in whatever sin against the spirit, the body or the soul and that human is the only one affected by the sin, then it is in no one’s power to put a harness on the human and forcibly guide them onto the right path. For all the other things who cramp or hurt the others we have the human laws.
Human laws are not divinely inspired, they are not revelation coming with the warranty of the Word. However, the universal law is based on the human desire for a formula that attempts the best way to guarantee that everybody is free to be their own thing in the pursuit of happiness, and that the others will not place themselves in the way. The common Law, and its laws, is in a way the most concrete shape of humanity’s eternal struggle to discern between right and wrong, just what we asked for when the snake advertised the famous apple. Even the sanctions and punishments in the laws are an attempt to discern when the punishment is becoming a bigger wrong than the wrong that generated it.
Basically, it is not the traditionalism that keeps progress at bay, but fundamentalism. Traditionalism is a way to let generations know that before them there were countless others whom by trial and error concluded that what we currently do is good. There is nothing wrong with this — humans, plants and animals have been taken care of traditionally, with no scientific explanation of either success or failure, for thousands of years. Yet fundamentalism tells generations that there is only one way to do each thing. Disrespecting tradition leads to social rejection, but disrespecting the fundamentalist dogma leads to loss of life or of dignity and any real opportunity ever to fix the eventual mistake made.
The world needs religion without dogma.
We’d use maybe a religion based on a body of spiritual knowledge — which is the most abstract philosophy of mankind — a body which should be studied, interpreted and lived, individually by each member of the congregation. In fact the whole use of congregations is the common understanding of the experience and of the individual attempts and tribulations.
If you’ve read this far, this thing is also about another thing, the mandatory overtness of individual religiousness imposed by dogma.
Overt religiousness is a kind of proselytism That is why it is considerate to keep it as a personal experience.
Don’t pepper your identity with religious artefacts on display, because you become a living, breathing, walking billboard advertising your faith. From burkini at the beach to crossing yourself in public, it is the same idea.
And no, religion is not culture. You cannot hide overt religiousness behind cultural heritage. Religion is part of culture as a heavy influence, but when the two become one we’re going medieval on our frail progress. You are neither a progressive, not a feminist if you defend overt religiousness by using misleading interpretations of obvious dogma.
Also, anything religious can be appropriated, because that is why it is religious in the first place, to be appropriated. I’ll say it again, cultural appropriation does not include religion or dogmatic values and artefacts.
Love me, I double dare you,