# Religion without the dogma

- Link: https://www.andreidraganescu.info/2016/09/08/religion-without-the-dogma/
- Published: 2016-09-08T15:37:35+03:00
- Author: Andrei Draganescu

#### 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,

A