ON THE PRIESTHOOD
Fight the real enemy. Sinead O’Conner, while ripping up, on national television, a color photo of His Holiness the Pope, an as yet unprohibited splendid example of the exercise of both protected speech and symbolic speech, an act roughly analogous, in public outrage, to flag burning.
Someone (who, I can’t remember and apologize), observed that the priesthood originated when the first con artist met the first fool. Con artist, Priest, tells Fool what to do because Fool believes the world is run by gods, and Priest says he speaks to one or more gods who tell him what to communicate to Fool. All Fool has to do is obey the gods, i.e. Priest, and Fool will have better fortune, go to a pleasant immortality or indulge whatever fantasies Fool thinks can only be satisfied by Priest, acting in loco deus. Fool is happy, and Priest has the roast sheep, wine, treasure or whatever Fool offers to the gods through Priest.
When this senerio first began is uncertain, both in religion involved and location. It doesn’t really matter. All Priesthoods work roughly the same. Certain absolutist views are held by a group of people. The Priests teach, spread, and reinforce the given myth. Every religion has its priesthood, persons learned in the often highly complex system of belief and practice that, long repeated, become the creed and ritual of the faith. Priests acquire specialized knowledge in the secrets or “mysteries” of their religion, and in manipulation of the believers through cultic magic presented and accepted as coming from the gods.
Understandably, this power is enormous and the priesthood knows it. “Priesthood” means a collection of priests, the females sometimes called “priestesses.” No matter how humble a priest may be, the ability to instruct on the thoughts of gods and deliver the will of the supernatural carries a lot of clout.
In some societies, religions have been, and still are, one with the civil government of nations. That means the priesthood runs the country and controls people’s lives. The law is the religious law, revealed to, and enforced by the priesthood. Disbelief is a crime that can get one jailed or killed. Such a government is called a theocracy. That’s what some religious nuts want established in our country, and that’s why we have the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights to stop them.
It is probably comforting to many to have on their side a select group of the elite who communicate with the deity. The system is so transparently paternalistic that some practitioners of religion actually address their priest as “father” or “mother” and a priest may respond “my children,” “my son,” etc. This artificial family may be necessary to satisfy the yearnings for family of priests, many of whom are celibate, and the need of their flock for the authority of religion and for faith in something beyond the natural world. Maybe some people are born to lead and control others; maybe some are born to follow. The con artist and the fool are found in different forms in all human interaction. The inability of the sheep to be sure which shepherd to follow leads to thousands of contradictory enclaves of religious thought. Wouldn’t it be nice if any gods that be were to give a clear sign of their existence and will, like a message written on the moon, or the sky indisputably filled with angelic hosts singing hosannas. Maybe the gods enjoy watching the confusion of mortals.
At any rate, why choose any priesthood at all? What true leadership can these folks who claim to talk for gods really provide? Is there evidence of moral superiority in any priesthood that makes its members better qualified to advise on earthly and eternal matters? Actually, the behavior of many priests ranges from laughable to criminal. What claim can a religion have to any ethical high ground when its leaders are hauled off to jail for everything from fraud to rape? How can religious leaders who suppress the human search for knowledge and repress the human spirit really claim to represent the best within us?
Of course there are priests who are decent, caring human beings. But such persons are not confined to any one religion, so these individuals are not proof of the correctness of a particular belief system. Further, there are plenty of non-believers who, in their private and public lives, better exemplify the humanistic principals found in a given religion then do the acknowledged priests of that religion.
Living with uncertainty can be tough, but may be better than following a mythical system that is demonstratively absurd. Priests certainly have a legal right to do their thing, but don’t hold them up as models of correctness and virtue, and don’t give them the power to control what you do with your life and your body. There are worse things than ripping up pictures of Popes. These worse things include religious authorities ripping up lives.
Be your own person. Don’t be an “ite” following an “ism.”
Edwin
Edwin Kagin
The Fool, Court Jester, Loki, Trickster, Coyote, Raven (and in myriad other guises) is far more valuable than Priest.
The system is so transparently paternalistic that some practitioners of religion actually address their priest as “father” or “mother” and a priest may respond “my children,” “my son,” etc. This artificial family may be necessary to satisfy the yearnings for family of priests…
I doubt this is really about the Priest at all. The power of using familial relationships is perhaps more about using early childhood programming to assert dominance. Somewhat like a dog, which never really matures into a peer in the human pack. By submitting to a “father” or “mother”, the fool regresses into a childhood authority style relationship and never really grows into an adult peer, able to question, comment and decide for themselves. The individual who accepts this likewise trusts that there will be comfort and care coming from those in charge, and places a child-like faith in the goodness of the authority. Children love their parents, even when abusive, often staying even when mistreated because it still feels safer than change, accepting responsibility, and the danger of being alone. They surrender freedom for a promise of safety and familiarity (if they behave and are good enough, they won’t be punished).
The parallel between most religious dogma and abusive parental relationships is remarkable in terms of the lies the parents tell to keep the child in line and silent about the abuse. Be good; do the work; if you get punished it’s your fault; don’t question; if your bad I’ll kick you out; if you tell, the outsiders will take you away and you’ll never see your sibling or mom again; they hate you out there; they’re not like us; it’s bad here because outsiders evil and make it that way, etc. The emotional cost of leaving is immense for most.
I believe this is why raising the sanity level by teaching critical thinking, cognitive bias, and broadening someones world view with experience is more effective at deprogramming than directly challenging deeply held beliefs (not that it’s not important to point out the games religions play). People acting under emotion, especially fear, are rarely capable of being rational.