The young woman in marine drab was not quite ready to give up. “Okay, like, 207 is real high, but it doesn’t exactly warrant a paper from the Mayo Clinic.”
“No,” said Louis Frazier, “that’s not what the paper is about. It’s about what happened to him after the score was figured out.”
“And what was that?”
Before Frazier could continue, Reese cut in, “Excuse me. This really is my lecture, Ms. Mislin. If you or any others actually might care, as you can see, all of this is readily available on-line. I don’t care to have any more of our time taken up with it.”
Both Mislin and Frazier took their seats. Johnson continued, “I would prefer, before resuming the lecture, to answer a few questions on point. Is there anyone with a question pertaining to our topic?”
Hands came up, he selected, and the questioner rose. “Professor, I’ve noticed in your lecture thus far, as well as in the name of the class, you choose to refer to all of the various faiths as simply ‘religion.’ With the variety of faiths in the world, especially those with differences as broad as Islam and Judaism, how practical is that?”
“Thank you for asking, for that answer is central to our discussions. Throughout most of our history there has been a recognition that all of the faiths are different religions. I know that sounds like a tautology, but I think it will become more clear soon. Granted, there was frequently a dominant religion. Granted, most religions believe and teach that theirs is the one true religion. Oftentimes the dominant religions attempted to convert the others to their belief systems. Sometimes the attempts to convert were rather benign…at other times, more forceful, occasionally violent. And much of this benign, forceful and violent proselytizing was done under the guise of ‘saving’ the souls of the unbelievers or infidels. Occasionally, as in the case of Great Britain, an alternative church was created out of convenience, and then conversion to the Church of England was mandated for all subjects by the Crown. It was to escape this mandate that the first Americans came to this continent.”
Megan Mislin’s hand shot into the air. “Ms. Mislin, I guess you need a reminder as to how a lecture works. With many professors, there is no opportunity for questions at all. I choose to allow them, but only at certain points, which I will make clear by extending an invitation.”
Mislin, undaunted by the admonition and fired by her convictions, nearly shouted back at Reese, “How can you refer to the Europeans arriving here as ‘the first Americans’? The Native Americans were obviously first.”
Reese sighed heavily and, leaning forward, he propped his elbows on the podium. “Okay…we have several items to address here. Megan, please remain standing.”
Having halfway lowered herself down, she jerked back up. “That’s Ms. Mislin,” she snapped.
“Actually, no, it’s not. The formal salutation is intended to be used by the speaker as a sign of respect.” There was a brief pause; then a murmur of laughter bubbled throughout the hall. Reese immediately regretted the harshness of his comment.
Continuing, he asked, “Megan, what word do you use to refer to a homosexual?”
“Gay.”
“Why?”
“What do you mean?”
“Why ‘gay’? Why not ‘homosexual’? Why not any of the other terms available?”
“It’s what they want to be called. It’s what they call themselves.”
“What do you call blacks?”
“African Americans.”
“Why?”
“Same reason.”
“American Indians?”
“Native Americans…for the same reason.”
“Mexican Americans?”
“Uh, Hispanic…no, Latino.”
“Gets a little confusing sometimes, doesn’t it? But you’ve made my point. Please have a seat.” Looking uneasy, suspecting she had been had, but not yet sure how, Megan Mislin sat down.
“When the settlers arrived in America, they encountered Indians. They called them ‘Indians’ because Christopher Columbus, when he discovered America, thought he had found India. The various tribes called themselves many things: Iroquois, Apache, Hopi, et cetera. None called themselves ‘Indians’ or ‘Americans.’ As a matter of fact, none of the indigenous people in North, Central, or South America called themselves ‘Americans.’ The first group to do so were the European settlers, who wanted to separate themselves from the land and people they had left behind. By Megan’s own method, logic, or rationale for nomenclature, they were the first Americans, because ‘American’ was what they wanted to be called.
“Incidentally, Megan, some of the oldest fossilized hominid remains, discovered in North America and claimed as ancestors by the American Indians, have had their DNA remnants amplified by polymerase chain reaction and were apparently identified as most likely being ancestors of Europeans rather than the American Indians.
“The second item I guess I should cover at this point is political correctness. Political correctness is not a path to enlightenment, as some would have you believe. Enlightenment does not occur in an environment of rampant taboos. Political correctness is nothing more than a term used to disguise a true intent. And the intent is mind control, mind control as in brainwashing. As many of you know, I recently came here from Harvard. I was a member of the faculty when one of our administrators was fired for just this issue. Too much has already been said about this subject for me to waste your time by adding more. But I will say this: he was fired from an institution founded on the principle of intellectual freedom, of unfettered thinking and questioning, for the offense of thinking and questioning. I will get further into the concept of brainwashing later.
“Finally, before I return to my lecture, let me note that this is a society of rules. It is also a society of social norms. When someone deviates from a social norm, the people around him let him know by gentle or not so gentle ostracism. Rules, on the other hand, are rarely enforced. Probably ninety-nine percent of the time, people just follow them, out of habit, respect, or fear. If this was not the case, society would be in complete disarray. We do not have nearly enough police to control the population if we all became unruly.”
Pausing and staring directly at Megan Mislin, Reese continued, “If you do not respect the rules of conduct for this class, leave. If you are here to disrupt, leave. If you see yourself as someone who is self-appointed to keep my teachings in line, leave. We are going to frequently step outside the boundaries established by the political correctness crowd. If you are so frightened that your ideas, principles, and philosophies are not sound enough on their own merit to stand up to the harsh light of brutal analysis and candid discussion, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate those beliefs.
“The students in this room did not sign up to be lectured by Megan Mislin or the other ‘Megans’ in this hall. They signed up to learn something from me. This is not to say I will not want your input. It is also not to say I want you to leave your passion outside in the hall. And I definitely do not want this lecture hall to be filled with only those who agree with me. But if you disagree, have a reason. Do not begin to discuss unless you have a foundation of thought; otherwise, you are simply shouting out slogans.
“Getting back to rules for one more moment…I’ve asked you to respect them. If that fails, then I promise you that here, in this class, they will be enforced.
“To continue…throughout all of this give and take, ebb and flow, dominance and subjugation, there was a tacit recognition by many people that each of the faiths was a religion – maybe not the ‘right’ religion, but a religion nonetheless. This concept flourished in the twentieth century, with most of the western world acknowledging the variety of beliefs and restructuring to accommodate them all peacefully. Proselytizing by the edict or the sword was replaced by the bicycle and pamphlet. This peaceful coexistence, this tolerance, was a long-held dream which was close to coming true. We have a country where a Catholic church, a mosque, and a synagogue can all share an intersection in m
any major cities.
“To finally answer the question…it is this concept that I have embraced for the purpose of this course. Religion, to me, is a group of faiths or beliefs, each of which describes itself as ‘a religion.’ There are several major beliefs in the world and literally thousands of smaller ones based upon the size of the group of followers. It would surprise many of you to find how many key tenets among these faiths are shared.
“There is one additional criterion we will use to define the group which we will call ‘religion.’ Those who have declared a war on religion have their own method of selection. They include in their ‘hit list’ Evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. They currently exclude the Islam faith – not for any logical or idealistic reasons, but simply because a faction of Muslims has declared its own war on the Jews and Catholics, and to a lesser degree on the others mentioned. So, like the uneasy relationship between Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s, the secular community has a powerful ally. All of the teachings and beliefs as expressed by the Quran and practiced by the strictest Islam countries are anathema to the secular. Their treatment of women, homosexuals, and children is as far from the espoused beliefs of the secular as humanly possible, and yet we are being told to tolerate, understand, and accommodate them. A valedictorian, during her graduation speech, dared to thank God, and the school administrators pulled the plug on her microphone. Had she thanked Allah, she would have been praised for her courage.
“And so, in short, I am allowing my definition of religion to be shaped by its enemies.
“Another question?”
Reese acknowledged a middle-aged woman near the back of the hall.
“Professor Johnson, it is a pleasure to have you teaching here at the U of A.”
“Thank you. It is a pleasure, so far, to be here.” Another slight murmur of laughter rippled through the hall.
“My question for you is this: is the secular opposition to religion based upon our beliefs themselves, or something else?”
“Excellent question, Ms. ….”
“It’s Mrs., Mrs. Louise Friedbrock. And, by the way, I am old enough to have been given an IQ exam and my score was 124.”
Chuckling, Reese answered, “Thank you, Mrs. Friedbrock. As I said, an excellent question. It is not the beliefs, in and of themselves, which cause the secular to react as they do. They have demonstrated an immense capacity for tolerance and, in fact, tolerance is nearly a mantra of the secular. Everything is to be tolerated, from extreme lifestyles to bizarre paint colors on the exteriors of their homes. They expect everyone to tolerate terrorists who kill three thousand Americans, and they expect all of us to take the time to understand what we have done in the past which would drive these people to such extreme acts. We are supposed to tolerate serial killers and rapists and understand that they had no choice in their actions because of their upbringing. In fact, tolerance is to be applied to all things except religion and, of course, obese people and smokers.
“So, they certainly should have no problem tolerating the religious, except for one issue: the common theme among all of the issues and things to be tolerated is a removal of limitations. The reason religion is intolerable is that it is intolerant; it is also judgmental; it follows an inflexible set of rules; it creates morality without regard for the existence of a scientific explanation or justification for the rules. Religion doesn’t care whether it can be proved empirically that having sex with a six-year-old is wrong. Science has a long history of finding support for every side of an issue. Religion, on the other hand, does not care whether studies have shown that polygamy may be biologically or socially superior to monogamy. Rules are not situational for religion. Although it can be proved that lying is more advantageous than telling the truth, religion says it is a sin to lie. In short, morality is not relative; it is not subject to study and interpretation; it cannot be challenged, even by what may appear to be ‘facts.’ Morality simply…is.
“I am not saying the religious are perfect. I know there are many of you who can cite countless examples of so-called religious individuals who have committed heinous acts. You can also cite numerous cases in which some of the major institutions of religion have performed horrible deeds – sometimes in the very name of their faith. No, it is not that they are perfect or claim to be. It would be far too easy to explain the animosity were that to be the case. Most people dislike anyone who is perfect, and we all hate anyone who claims to be and is not. The problem is…the religious are not imperfect enough. They continue to struggle against the base instincts of greed and self-gratification, frequently slipping their morality into our legal system. They have created an environment where if we transgress, we not only have to answer to God, we also have to answer to the local magistrate. If the religious would only give in to the very instincts within them that they fight to oppose, they, too, could be embraced by the secular.
“I may appear to contradict myself. It was, after all, the nonreligious who were the most vocal when the spectacular indiscretions of prominent evangelists were revealed. It was also the nonreligious who most harshly criticized the priests for having sex with young boys in their congregations. However, I suggest that their words expressed not moral outrage but vindication of their own beliefs.
“If you are seriously considering this argument at all, you might be wondering what the mechanism is which has created this conflict. It has actually been fairly well explained and predicted by Abraham Maslow and his thoughts on the hierarchy of needs. That book, as you will notice on your class syllabus, is your first required reading for this course. The basic concept is that when mankind lived in a primitive environment without the benefit of a tremendous infrastructure to provide food and security, we were all-consumed with survival. Finding and preparing the next meal dominated our thoughts. Ensuring that we and our biological offspring were safe from attack, by beast or human, was also paramount in our thoughts. Please take a moment to visualize a life such as this. As societies developed and infrastructures were created to provide for a steady supply of food, and as cooperative groups formed to establish armies to protect the group, these basic needs diminished in importance.
“Religions flourished during this time, by the way, because men and women were suddenly thrust into tightly knit groups, providing both a need and a medium for religion. Without religion, there existed both a moral relativism and a brutal Darwinian natural selection process. Might made right. If you could clobber your neighbor, then his hut, store of food, wife, and children were yours for the taking. This activity was obviously not conducive to the maintenance of a stable society. Religion conveyed to the people the message that this was bad. It not only explained that clobbering your neighbor would get you sent to hell for eternity, but it also established a social construct where your bad behavior was condemned by your peers. And if your behavior was bad enough, you were cast out of the village, losing access to the steady supply of food and the protection of the army.
“Scientists, i.e., secularists, insist that the necessary rules for a functioning society are logical and inevitable, and that the natural, biological urge to survive and reproduce will result in the same basic set of rules promulgated by the religious. In fact, this is not the case. With mankind, there are glaring examples of the collapse of societies which have rejected religion, even though they already possessed the benefit of the knowledge and sophistication of the centuries. The most extreme example would be the communist Soviet Republic, where religion was banned.
“Returning to Mr. Maslow…after the basic survival needs were met, people were less preoccupied with them, eventually taking them for granted. At that point, we were able to express a need for art and music and, eventually, literature. Again, under the guiding hand of the religious, the civilized world experienced the Renaissance. There was virtually a flood of beautiful art, magnificent symphonies, and breathtakingly exquisite poetry and books. All of these were ravenously consumed by eager multitudes who had reached this level in
the hierarchy.
“But the production of great art, music, and literature is time-consuming, as is its distribution. Operas and symphonies were performed at great halls. Paintings only existed with each being one of a kind, displayed in galleries. Books were tediously copied by hand. As the population grew and the need intensified, the technology to deliver art developed to the level of photography, movies, television, radio, and mass-produced books. I’m certain it can be argued that as the ability to distribute all of the forms of art accelerated, the quality of the output diminished. Laverne and Shirley was hardly on par with Macbeth. But as society raced to quench each thirst, the masses moved up another notch on Maslow’s ladder.
“We now have all of the great art of the world at our fingertips. The books can be read on a screen or printed at home, as can the images of the paintings hanging in some distant gallery. The music is downloaded onto MP3 players. Our cell phones will play Macbeth or the latest Adam Sandler movie. We have achieved a degree of gratification on this level verging on the absolute. And, in case you didn’t notice, somewhere in the rapid evolution of this distribution network, the religious lost control. What started out during the Renaissance as absolute control devolved into a legalistic, de facto control. The movie studios had censors, as did the television networks. The music industry had the FCC to satisfy. The book and magazine publishers wished they had a single authority in their loop. They were forced to meet ‘local community standards,’ which ran the gamut from extremely conservative to relatively moderate. The common thread among all of these choke points was religion. There has never been a scientific study successfully defining pornography. The Supreme Court struggled with the concept for years, finally settling upon dumping it back to the local community. Obscenity or pornography cannot be defined in any rational, logical way. Thus, for a long time it fell to the religious who couldn’t define it either, but definitely knew it when they saw it. Unfortunately, the sands of society gradually shifted out from under the feet of the censors.
The Harvest Page 2