SECULARITY: the pruning process that restricts the rampant growth of religion

Without a vigorous coppicing and pruning regime, there are weed-like species that would take over the world. Enlarging, suckering, rooting and seeding, many species of the religious genus demonstrate a growth habit that attempts to smother and suppress any and all competition. In the democratic garden, where poisoning is officially banned, the only practical option is to keep all rampant growth in check by regular aggressive cut-backs.

An uncompromising pragmatic secularity is probably the only realistic strategy for the human species to alleviate the consequences of ethnic bias, religious incompatibilities, and unconstrained greed. To date however, the commendable and altruistic efforts of numerous groups seem incapable of dealing with the various prime causes of war, famine and exploitation. Nevertheless, there remains an aspiration that aggressive and practical policies, devoid entirely of the pseudo-motivations of self-interest, could grasp seemingly intractable problems and initiate trial correction procedures. Perhaps is it possible... to devise birth control strategies that actually can counter religious and cultural absurdities... to take action against the rapacious and counter the exploitation of resources... or to introduce programs that will counter the generations of ethnic hate, subjugation and killings.

Some form of progressive multi-generational strategy is needed to ameliorate the ongoing absurdity of parents perpetuating their own ethnic and religious delusions in the minds of their children. Very few individuals are allowed to develop and mature without having at least one of a multitude of religious fantasies assiduously nurtured into an organic mind set. The structure so induced, partitions the brain in such a manner that any pragmatic everyday evidence of the senses is effectively excluded, so that the individual functions essentially as a schizoconceptual. Numerous entirely inconsistent concepts are incorporated into separate existential models, which are utilized in a contradictory manner without the slightest sense of the absurd. For example, the daily life and death of a multitude of diverse creatures and plants can be observed, and yet the absurdity can be imagined that for humans there is some sort of after-life. Whole cultures pray for success in a war, to a supposedly all powerful god, whilst knowing that the enemy is doing the same to exactly the same god. There are even powerful politicians and military leaders, who can utilize all their skills of deception and intrigue in the real world, but are still able to retain a significant commitment to the religious contradictions of their culture and nurturing.

Generally speaking, the individual is unable to comprehend the bias of their perspective. The nurturing process has been so effective, that they are unable to grasp the weighted circumstances of their individual upbringing, and are totally incredulous at any suggestion that their model of existence is grossly distorted. Besides sustaining a belief in a variety of virtual entities, like gods, ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, saints, devils and similar ilk, the inertia of religious structures is totally incapable of coping in any realistic manner with the advance of technology and the mutations of social and cultural evolution. Religions are of no use whatsoever in helping the individual cope with the multifarious developments of physics, biology, psychology, economics, politics, or whatever one likes to think of... although there is no shortage of fervour in attempting to justify the relevance of each and every promulgation of nonsense.

From the point of view of the state, there is no justice in attempting to suppress what is already the result of a dedicated nurture process. Aggressive suppression in fact, official or otherwise, has always tended to be counter productive. Whilst it would be pragmatic within the secular state to justify freedom from religious persecution, never-the-less the action of attempting to gain adherents or converts should be actively discouraged. There should never be state support for religious education... for instance... since this simply sustains distorted world views and invites future social conflict and disaster.

The secular state should not sponsor a blanket protection from ridicule. The perpetrators of absurdities need to be subjected to the barbs and satire of evaluations. If their feelings are hurt then that is just too bad. Everyone however, needs to be protected from an aggressive ridicule that becomes a sustained intimidation. The objective of this type of behaviour has gone well beyond just highlighting the ridiculous. An effective and efficient institution would of course be a democratic and secular media, free of intimidation and censorship, wherein the intrinsic comic absurdities and self-serving behaviours could be exposed and ridiculed. Ironically, because of the power and resistance of vested interests, the free expression of secular ideas is probably not absolutely possible in a democracy.