Are we stupid? This isn't a frivolous question, you know. I believe that most humans like to think of themselves as an "intelligent" race -- species, for those who take evolution seriously. And one certainly could make a bit of a case for it. After all, it's not all that rare for humans to act intelligently, at least as individuals. But when it comes to making decisions on a large scale, we appear to be abject simpletons.
Here's why I say that. I think that one of the most important hallmarks of intelligence is the ability to learn from past mistakes. I mean, why else would we think that history was at all important, if we didn't think it had some value to us? But what do we do with the knowledge we get from history? Not a damn thing! We let history repeat itself over and over... we're like lab rats that can't get it through our thick skulls that pressing the red button will result in an electric shock.
Take America. Please!
In 1791, America established the current constitution, making sure that the basic rules for the country didn't mention God. Later, the Bill of Rights was added, codifying the separation of church and state. The leaders of the day had learned a valuable lesson from history -- the mixing of church and state leads inevitably to tragedy. They stated this lesson to everyone they talked to. Did that make a difference? NO!
From the moment Jefferson coined the term "Wall of Separation," the religious nut cases of this country started working to tear it down. They couldn't bear the thought that their government might not help support their favorite religion, let alone allowing other religions to have equal standing before the law. Heaven forbid that they would have to foist their religion on future generations without government assistance!
But you'd think that people would be interested in growing up. One would hope that they might enjoy learning new things, like the fact that people with no religion might have some good ideas to think about. Or that homosexual people are just as capable of settling down to form families. Or perhaps that it's not really necessary for people with terminal illnesses to struggle in vain to live a few extra months, only to increase their suffering and medical bills and other hardships for the rest of the family.
Let's look at these things.
Atheists having good ideas? Imagine that! In August of 2004, an atheist was invited to give an invocation to the town council meeting of Tampa FL. Three members of that council walked out before the visiting atheist could say a single word. Why? One member said that listening to what an atheist has to say is the way to start on the road to destroying society. He likened such a thing to "unprotected sex."
That attitude was prevalent in the 14th century. What the HELL is anyone doing saying something like that in the 3rd Millennium? Obviously, this person hasn't learned a vital lesson from the past. Unbelievers have made important, even major contributions to humanity, in science, ethics, literature... you name it. I wonder if this meat-head has ever read something by Mark Twain? What about Isaac Asimov or Bertrand Russell? Maybe he's had more "unprotected sex" than he ever realized.
There's a lot of shouting going on around the world these days, regarding the idea of gay marriage. Nearly every person I've ever heard from on this objects to the idea based on a few passages from the Bible. EXCUSE ME?!? That book was written at least 2000 years ago, by people who were guessing, and who were trying to put together some stories that would help hold together their societies -- IN THE BLOODY BRONZE AGE! Maybe folks ought to re-think this. I mean, trying to force a modern, industrial society to conform to the norms of a bunch of desert nomads and goat herders. Or maybe they should try to think about it the first time around.
Now, honestly... what's the problem here? In my opinion, I see two issues.
First, what the hell is a supposedly secular government -- one that has never had the word "God" in its constitution -- doing regulating and sanctioning a purely religious institution? I got married in 1978. My wife and I couldn't just ask our church's pastor to perform a ceremony. No, we had to get a bloody license from the state... then we went and had the ceremony. It sure seemed to me that we had two separate things going on here. Government acceptance of a legal relationship, and a religious rite that allowed our church to proclaim that my wife and I could now go to bed together.
But what is the nature of this chest-beating about gay marriage "ruining a holy institution"? Let's say you're in your home, married both in the eyes of your church and your government. You're happy, all is well with the world. Then, you see that 2000 miles from your home, a pair of women are getting married. I ask you... what harm is that doing to you? Has their newly-minted relationship made any change in your family arrangements? What harm could such an event possibly do to anyone? You feel sick, thinking about what the two brides will be doing this evening as they start their honeymoon? Sounds like a personal problem to me. Try to concentrate on your own sex life, you sicko.
And that's the point. It's a personal problem. Not a social problem. You don't want your church to recognize that sort of marriage? Great. Don't recognize it and get on with your life. Just don't go whining about your problems until you can come up with a valid, rational reason that the government shouldn't accept those two women as a new family.
Then, there's the issue of good old Dr. Kevorkian. Imagine this -- here was a man who didn't like the idea of watching people die of Alzheimer's Disease. He thought it just might be a good idea to keep people with hopeless, deadly medical conditions from suffering for months or years before they died. Wow... what a concept. We could start being as kind to each other as we are to animals. I don't know about you, but it sure sounds like a good idea to me.
But it sure doesn't sound like a good idea to the Pope. To him, all of human life must be prolonged as much as possible. Why? Well... that's never been made very clear. I can't help wondering what the hell is the Christian objection to death in general, when they see this life as a stepping stone to heaven. Weird.
But no matter. Life must be prolonged at all costs. This includes the cost of the suffering of the patient, months and even years beyond all hope. It includes the cost of the family that must stand to one side and agonize over the suffering of a loved one, while doctors plug a mother or brother into a huge complex of machines, with the only goal being to make that heart beat the greatest number of times that can be managed by science.
That's disgusting, if you ask me. There's such a thing as quality of life. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I've seen cancer patients wither away and die. In the end, they are on their backs, on so much pain medication that they're barely conscious. What's the point? Is it really a sign of love to make someone experience pain hopelessly? Does it show how much we value someone when they are forced to drag their existence on, even when they can't remember a single person around them?
Don't get me wrong... if a cancer patient or a person suffering Alzheimer's wants to stick around as long as medically possible, that's cool. Suffer all the pain and indignity you want. I have no problem with that. But. BUT... what if a person doesn't want to slide slowly into a night of no memory? What if a person can't bear the pain of his cancer any more? Why shouldn't we allow such people to say "goodbye" to friends and family, and end their lives on their own terms, in a way that is painless and without social stigma?
My point here is that humanity should still be growing up. We should be taking stock of our lives and finding ways to make things better for all concerned. We should be figuring out new ways for people to get along peacefully, without getting too bent out of shape over things that don't affect us. We should be adjusting our ideas of ethics, to handle the discoveries our medical science keeps finding.
But do we do these things? Only a few of us do, it seems. Far too many of us are keen on trying to stay with the morality of a book that hasn't changed in hundreds of years. "If it was good enough for John Calvin, it's good enough for me!" If that's your attitude, fine. You have fun with persecuting and increasing others' suffering all you want. But do be a good little caveman and let the rest of humanity use its intelligence to figure out new ways to live together and increase the quality of the life we have in this new age.
