Tempest in a Washbowl

Biologists teach the idea that Homo Sapiens evolved it's characteristic, prehensile thumbs so it could grasp things, like the shanks of clubs, for the purpose of bashing neighboring possessors of less flexible digits and inferior brains. Thus, through the law of Survival of the Fittest, it became the dominant primate on Earth. But any critical thinker knows that doctrine is untrue. Homo Sapiens--or humanity, for the uninitiated--evolved its prehensile thumbs in order to more ably point the condemning index finger at the hapless victims of its withering accusations. And humanity's unique faculty of speech? Why, its highest purpose is obviously castigating those at whom the index finger unerringly points. Many ignorant commentators assert the dubious belief that Man is the religious animal because he is unique in his pursuit of the Supreme Being and an afterlife. Of course, while man is obviously the religious animal, his reason for being so must conform to the above stated evolutionary law. Thus: Man is the religious animal because his prehensile thumb-enabled index finger and his faculty of speech enable his religious mandate of verbally raping other faiths. Ralph Waldo Emerson's relationship with the Unitarian church is a case-in-point. Emerson, the humanist's humanist, as well as a Unitarian clergyman, threw a verbal rock into that denomination's ecclesiastical hornets nest when he delivered his "Harvard Divinity School Address." In it, he derided the traditional Christian teachings of Jesus' divinity and his miracles. Why, the more "conservative" Unitarians were outraged, and for two years engaged Emerson in a battle of religious mud-slinging. The Unitarians, who were liberal in comparison to the Evangelical church, found themselves in the unenviable position of defending Christian teachings in which they, themselves, held little confidence. Of course, everyone knows the post script of this story. After all that bickering about doctrine, the Unitarian church's teaching evolved to exactly the sort of thing Emerson was castigated for proclaiming. All this proves one thing: Religion, when practiced for its own sake, is vain. It serves little use but to provide small men a venue for exercising what petty power they can usurp from other small men. It also, by rashly claiming to speak for God, dashes sinners hopes for finding forgiveness, discourages them with useless rules and disillusions them with the hypocrisy of thinly rationalized, ungodly behavior. The problem with such a broad indictment of worldly religion is every religion accuses every other religion of ungodliness. So how can one sort it all out? The answer involves hard work, but since it leads to God, the process is worth the effort. The seeker must first devote himself to defining, understanding and cleansing his motives, clearly understanding the true "why" before the "how" of discovering God. He must realize that spiritual principles consistently counter worldly principles, and judge the worldly by the spiritual rather than the more natural opposite. He must open his eyes to the historical context of each religion he studies and the fruit it has born. But he must also recognize that studying a religion's proclaimed history and teachings leads only to a superficial knowledge of its public image. And every human religion tries to project the most positive image it can get away with. God, however, is not in the religion business. He has nothing to hide behind history's short memory. That fact narrows the search, as God's way has no arcane, "inner" doctrines, secret orders or privileged knowledge. He only requires that the seeker humbly go directly to the Source, fall on his face and pray for reconciliation to Himself. Such a prayer is the only one a sinner can expect to be answered.