Dogma vs. Being Nice

A large chunk of the world's population (I wouldn't want to estimate the exact number) believes that their fellow humans should be viewed and judged, not by the way they act, or even the words that come out of their mouths, but by their opinion of the nature of spiritual beings and their interpretation of books purportedly about these spiritual beings. Now to be fair, a lot of these people, with the circular reasoning that only true hardcore dogma can inspire, equate good behavior with evidence of correct belief, but many others look strictly at dogma. I think that I can speak from a position of authority; I was one of those people for a several decades.

In the Christian sub-group that I was a part of, 'right believing' was a huge part of the doctrines that we adhered to. In fact, one of the most important (to us) indications of whether we were true Christians or not was belief in two positions that were antithetical to mainstream Christian belief: that Jesus Christ was not God, or an aspect or "person" of the godhead, but a mere man and that the dead did not go to heaven, hell, purgatory or some other "afterlife", but were truly dead, inanimate and unconscious until a future resurrection. Of course, most mainstream Christians looked at us, as well as other Christians who believed similar things, as heretics, or not "true" Christians. Both sides had quotes from their "ultimate source of truth", the bible, to back up their positions, and both were equally adamant of their correctness. I was pretty arrogant about my own claim to the spiritual high ground, as were those who held the opposing view.

While my own intransigence about salvation was merely annoying to those around me, similar thinking in other arenas has higher stakes. In the Republican presidential primaries, Mitt Romney's religion is something that many people consider as relevant, even though the other candidates for the most part are wisely steering clear of it. As far as how Romney acts - his family values, conservative habits, and just in general how he lives his life, he is the poster boy for how social conservatives say folks should live. Yet...yet...yet...since his beliefs about the nature of Jesus Christ, creation and countless other little details differ from mainstream Christianity, he is viewed as "not a true Christian" and therefore suspect. It doesn't seem to matter how he lives and how he treats others, he doesn't believe the same, so he's one of them. I don't have to wonder at the firestorm that will erupt the first time somebody really different, like a Hindu or a Buddhist, or somebody scary, like a Wiccan or another pagan...or even an atheist steps up on the public soapbox. (For some reasons Jews get a pass in the intolerance sweepstakes; they are looked as "other", but don't really bring out the worst in people - maybe because the hard cases think of them as the chosen people, or something)

Of course, political idiocy is nothing next to jihad, and since the crusades of the Middle Ages, the militant Muslims take the prize for most intolerant group. I have heard more than a few Americans justify their own religious bigotry by invoking the excesses of the horrors of the sectarian violence of Iraq, Palestine or Pakistan or even the institutionalized prejudice in places like Saudi Arabia. But this isn't Americastan; this is the United States - and despite what some think, we don't have an official religion.

So here's my opinion: make your judgments about how individuals behave, not according to what group they belong to. Not that all stereotypes are 100% wrong, sometimes there is some truth in there somewhere, but they are at best generalizations, individuals make their own choices and that's who we interact with. How do people act when they don't have to be nice? How about when under pressure? Or after a few drinks? How do they behave when they think that no one is watching? That's a more realistic measure of a man or a woman than what god they talk with.