During my first semester as a psychology major at Sonoma State University, I wrote a paper about how Freud might handle the topic of homosexuality were he still alive. While I do not remember what I wrote, I do remember the comment on the first page from the professor: “Intolerance has produced its opposite in you, not its twin. That’s great.”
I am not sure what happened to the version of me that wrote that paper. It seems I started becoming jaded by my mid-30s. The rise of social media no doubt contributed to its exponential increase, as well as the frustration that resulted from my own insights into how religion is used as a form of social control and manipulation. As with this post, the ability to see what other people think is right in our faces on a daily basis.
Even if I don’t follow people with notions that go against my grain, it’s only a matter of time before something obnoxious is tweeted into my timeline, shared by a friend on Facebook or spoken during a favorite radio show.
As is often the case with any minority, I found myself asking how they could hate me so much if they never met me, and resentment toward them started to build in me
Indeed, in having so much free time after dealing with health issues, I turned a lot to alternative media both for knowledge and entertainment. I felt the thorn punch into my side when listening to guys that I liked on the radio and on podcasts not simply jesting about gay people but openly despising us and blaming us for the ills of society. More than just an “ew, that is gross” sentiment, they were expressing hatred. People cannot control what floats their boat. I get that. However, to many of them, my being authentic is but another sign of the downfall of society. As is often the case with any minority, I found myself asking how they could hate me so much if they never met me, and resentment toward them started to build in me.
People cannot control what floats their boat. I get that. However, to many of them, my being authentic is but another sign of the downfall of society. As is often the case with any minority, I found myself asking how they could hate me so much if they never met me, and resentment toward them started to build in me.
Feeling as if enough was enough, I started writing posts about the pitfalls of religion. Then I started sharing them with groups on Facebook where I knew the very people who I felt had wronged me could see them.
Backfire.
I should know better. Push someone and they push back. I have no idea how many read the contents of my posts, but the headlines were designed to make a point themselves.
Rather than getting any magical feedback about how much insight people gleaned from my own insights, the message that came back to me was that taking issue with people’s religion was in itself divisive and it was making me a part of the problem.
I confess. There is truth in that. And yet, even understanding that, I had the nagging thought that something else was still off, that it was bugging me, and that I needed to get to the root of it.
I was able to do just that when I began this post by attempting to point out the folly of taking scripture as literal. Such an attempt is folly of its own. Even so, it helped me to get at what was bugging me.
“Not being tolerant of my intolerance is just to fall for the tricks of the douchebags who seek to keep us divided”
The pisser, in short, is this: Despite claiming the importance of accepting differences, some people with strong religious beliefs will often attack or disparage other groups of people, directly or indirectly. When it’s pointed out to them and they come back with statements about the importance of accepting differences, I am confounded.
Or, when pointing out that people are not being very respectful of differences – that disrespect for some is at the heart of their doctrine – people are told that they need to be respectful of others’ differences! They are told that it is they who must be the bigger person. “Not being tolerant of my intolerance is just to fall for the tricks of the douchebags who seek to keep us divided.”
Ta-da!
That was it. That’s the seeming hypocrisy that was really bothering me.
I posted that thought to Facebook and toward the end of the day, I realized that a burden had left me. I decided that I wanted to finish this post but with a different tone. It may not be obvious, but take my word for it. The original draft was quite different.
How to move forward?
Finding balance between “protecting” others from the harm of religion without creating more division is a huge challenge. What really sunk in for me when processing this information is how doggone strong and ingrained beliefs are. I mean, I knew this but it felt as if I had stumbled upon this awareness for the first time (the hows and whys of that could be blogs of their own).
Religion is mind control.
My responses, while seemingly justified as responses to acts of aggression, did not get me anywhere. Rather than getting in people’s faces, gaining a better understanding of their experience seems a better approach. It’s becoming a cliche, but the only person that I can change is myself.
As David Mathisen, author of “The Undying Stars” notes:
“The threat of eternal punishment in hell has been used for centuries as a powerful form of mind control, employed as a sanction to exercise a ‘terrible tyranny in the mental domain,’ in the words of the brilliant analyst of ancient history and spiritual matters Gerald Massey (1828 – 1907).” NO HELL BELOW US . . .
My original follow-up to that quote:
There’s no hell below us and despite good intentions, many people do a great disservice to humanity by perpetuating such notions. It’s a crime – it’s wounding others by the wounded. It’s mind control. So when I rail against it, it’s out of my desire to be of service and to bring back together that which has been divided. Question my delivery, but not my motivation and purpose.
Even though I remain aware of the harm that can be done to people via religion, the subscribing to a literalist paradigm when it comes to scripture, and speaking out with the best of literalist intentions, I do not feel the pressure to “rail against it” that I was feeling. Like any form of mind control, the controlled are not aware of it. They believe that they are doing what is right and no amount of facts and evidence will penetrate such walls. They have a tendency to view any criticism as a sign that they must be doing something right (confirmation bias).
Alternative media provides an excellent example of how deep this stuff goes, as many people who claim to be awake and aware will still try to fit the unplugging from the matrix stuff into their belief system, which is just another part of the matrix (this was the original focus of this post, which was titled, “The Literal Problem With Alternative Media”).
If ever you are listening to a host interview someone who challenges their literalist paradigm, it is quite likely that despite the evidence that is damning to their case, the religious person will at some point interrupt the show to state that despite everything that has been said, “the bible is still true”, meaning that many of the events portrayed in it literally happened and are historical events.
The bible is mythology that has been historized, not history that has been mythologized but good luck pointing that out. The near impossible task of this is why I changed the focus of this post.
Note: I’m not saying that sacred texts are not of value. Far from it. The point is that the literalist perspective obfuscates their metaphorical, allegorical and esoteric beauty and the real messages are lost.
Moving along…
Rather than view the rigidly religious as active assholes, understanding that they are victims of mind control softens the blow. It’s not personal.
Using the leading the horse to the water analogy, I can present people with information, but I cannot make them read it or understand it. Perhaps doing so is a violation of their free will, as much as what they do seems to be a violation of mine and others.
Although the path I am on is not clear, it’s a different path than I was on yesterday, as I noted in another post “After Every Point Has Been Made“.
Finding more diplomatic ways to address when people are being hypocritical as they put down groups of people while they lecture others to be tolerant is one idea, although I have no clue at the moment what form that might take. What’s clear is that acting as if people have never heard the obvious and simply drawing their attention to that fact does not serve anybody.
I have been kicking and screaming my way into the classroom. Despite seeing injustice and hypocrisy and pointing it out, I need to return to the “me” from my undergraduate years and not be their twin. It may take some getting used to, because when I wrote that paper I was in a liberal environment where the majority of students sought to be free of many social limitations and restrictions (my thoughts went unchallenged).
Will trying to obtain feelings of unconditional love and never pointing out the errors of others somehow magically transform the planet? I have no idea, but I can certainly work on having more peace of mind, myself. I can choose my battles better and beef up my screening of the information that I expose myself to.
Perhaps I will revisit this topic in future posts. After all, what sits well with me one day does not always sit so well the next.
I conclude with another quote by David Mathisen. This is from the inside cover of his book, “The Undying Stars”. It’s a bit scary that we are faced with this problem, but perhaps his wording will be of value to others when they run into powerful religious walls and dogma, instituted thousands of years ago.
“Note of caution to literalist readers: This text examines evidence and arrives at conclusions which may be extremely damaging to the foundations of literalist belief. Some literalist readers may not wish to know this information, preferring to believe in a literalist paradigm in which they have a significant personal and psychic investment, rather than examine the evidence that might undermine that paradigm. Some readers, however, may decide that if the arguments and analysis presented herein are in error, that they can be safely ignored, but if they are correct, then it is preferable to know the truth than to build one’s life upon a lie. Those taking this view can safely read on.”
In addition to the work of David Mathisen, readers may find Truth Be Known to be an invaluable resource for religion, history, mythicism and addressing the problems of the literalist paradigm.
Cheers…
Filed under: Mind Control, Perception Management & Social Engineering, Religion, Society & Social Engineering Tagged: Alternative Media, Astrotheology, Be The Change, Beliefs, Bigotry, Dogma, Homosexuality, Homosexuality and Religion, LGBT, Literalist Paradigm, Mind control, Mythicism, Perception Management, religion, Tolerance 
