It Really is a Business

I've never failed to notice that religion is as much about power and influence as it is spirituality. I find it interesting that devout believers are staring to hint at such even if it is half-hearted and frequently inadvertent. David Gibson's "Catholic gift stores see a (papal) bull market" is decent example. Even though he is focused on the Roman Catholic church most of what can be read between the lines applies to all religions.

I have been to numerous religious sites and not one lacked some sort of gift shop or vendors area. The money these places generate is certainly nothing to scoff at but even that isn't the only dubious aspect of them. The cheap frivolous trinkets and doo-dads, most that have nothing to with anything, are a nice symbol for the faith that hawks them. They tend to be as devoid of substance as the religion. They are simply a means to create a false sense of connection to something greater. In a way, it is a win-win scenario for the sect/denomination that sells them. They get the financial benefit and manage to exert more influence, if somewhat subtle, over their patrons.

I have no way to prove it but I am reasonably sure that many purchases at these sites have more to do with a sense of emotional obligation than any genuine desire to have the items. Much of what gets sold when never be purchased outside a religious venue/context. To some degree this is true of most products at any "tourist trap." However, he religion adds emphasis and acts as a reinforcement to a disturbing type of "brand" loyalty.

Even Symbols can be Hamful

Caption reads: "Symbol of eternity, this 'mother tree,' a pine in northern Mongolia draws pilgrims from all over. It gave under the weight of cloth offerings, the blue ones representing everlasting heaven and piece."

I couldn't resist posting this from the December issue of National Geographic. It demonstrates too well how idiotic and potentially destructive religion is even in symbolic form. How many theists will see the irony in one symbol of eternity being killed by another symbol of eternity.

The Snake as a Symbol

"Was the Snake in the Garden of Eden Satan?" It is potentially a very interesting story in terms of symbolism and the underpinning philosophical stances that early Judaism and other ancient religions may have taken. There are a variety of ways the storyline itself can be interpreted and then there are the individual components that can further be scrutinized.

Personally, I see only two meaningful interpretations coming from the overall story. In one view it clearly shows what an incompetent "father" the God of scripture is. If you put God in the role of father and Adam and Eve in the role of toddlers (having been recently created but showing the tentative ambulatory and curiosity level just beyond an infants) then most of the story that follows should horrify any responsible parent. The garden of Eden is essentially a "play-pen". Rather than making it safe God creates an environment that is rife with all sorts of potential hazards. He also changes the rules without any rhyme or reason. Not a smart thing to do with any child let alone toddlers. If you don't recall (or never read it to begin with) God initially tells the pair that they can eat anything they want, then amends it that they can eat all but the fruit of one particular tree, and then adds the fruit of a second tree as off limits. So when the snake show up they probably already had some doubts about what to go by. Think about the situation. Why not remove the trees if you thought they would cause problems? Also think about what the trees are suppose to represent. One of them was a source of "knowledge of good and evil." If these toddlers had no knowledge of right or wrong why would you put them in a situation where they would need such knowledge to make the proper decision? And how'd the snake get in, anyway? Bad parenting!

Then there is the snake itself. If it is Satan that would lead to a couple of questions right up front. Is Satan and independent agent with his/its own will and power or is he/it simply an errand boy doing God's dirty work? In the case of either answer it does not bode well for the God of Scripture or the believers who favor this version of the God concept. If independent then this cannot be viewed in monotheistic terms. You have essentially created two gods. God would not necessarily be all that mighty if he can be thwarted by an outside force. If an agent of God then there isn't much reason to be that concerned with Satan. it also makes God look pretty bad. He would be little better than a toddler prone to temper tantrums. God created the setting and rules that Adam and Eve had to operate within and then blamed them when there was no way they could mature successfully. God needlessly causes problems (sin) that would later need to be "solved" (people still "sin" so it really didn't work) in an equally disturbing way (Jesus crucifiction) later. So in terms of the symbolic story God is not only incompetent, God is also vindictive and sadistic.