I'm currently reading a book by Kevin J. Anderson called Hidden Empire. It is science fiction and I have a great deal of interest in science fiction because it reveals much about the mindset of what various authors hope for or dread in the future. Of course, one can't put too much stock in what's said and I do read it as much for leisure. A theme I often notice is how authors treat religion. In this specific case, there is a religious body for the humans called the "Church of Unison". This "religion" is described as the "United Nations of religion." This comment led me to some interesting thoughts about both how SciFi authors use/abuse religion and about the United Nations.
I don't think Anderson is a religious person of any deep conviction based upon the existence of this Church of Unison in his book (or wasn't at the time of this writing). I could be wrong, but the idea that the great religions of the world would some how come together and promote a universal one religion leader is preposterous. I find the idea offensive in the extreme as should any person who refers to them self as "Christian," "Jew," or "Muslim." Hinduism and Buddhism and many other religions may allow for a variety of paths to divinity, but Christianity, Judaism, and Islam specifically denounce any other path to God (though, some sects naming themselves under one of these might disagree with that statement).
In the book, the goal of this one world religion is to strongly discourage religious fervor. I again find this pretty unbelievable. I religions have their fanatics. Even a one world religion will gain a priesthood of dedicated individuals that would trade their life for their belief, even if such were officially discouraged. One need only look throughout history and note how every religion has had its strong fanatics, often by sub-sects that fail to follow orthodox doctrine, but also frequently with officially condoned fanaticism.
On the other hand, there is nothing to say that various religions can't build a council to help encourage understanding and cooperation despite official doctrinal differences. That is, I can see such an organization as working to provide a context for arbitrating disputes and promoting a few common themes, but not to provide any kind of doctrinal agreement. Only when a religion is so liberal as to be able to have little doctrine or where the followers are willing to ignore its doctrine would anything more be possible. However, such wouldn't satisfy a large percentage of strongly convicted believes who insist that there is Truth and refuse to allow it to be diluted.
I then turned the analogy on its head and realized that this also helps to explain why I consider the United Nations to be a fairly worthless organization. The title itself, "United Nations," is completely false. There is nothing united about these nations. In fact, most of the representatives don't even represent nations. The U.N. consists of democratic republics, socialist democracies, communists, autocracies, oligarchies, monarchies, fascists, theocracies, and all the shades in between. The vast majority of these are some form of autocracy, whether that be communist, fascist, or the plain, bald-faced dictatorships. Therefore, most of the members don't even represent the people of the country sending an ambassador. They represent the government or even just a small segment of the bureaucracy that makes all the decisions by force. Admittedly, it is possible for an autocrat to represent his people, but that's not the norm. In general, autocrats only represent their people just enough to keep them from thinking hard enough about revolution.
One can argue the same of the elected representatives of our government. However, it's much easier for us to have a "revolution" ousting a representative from office via the ballot box making them pay much closer attention.
The idea that the U.N. can somehow build consensus among so many different interests is completely absurd. Giving the U.N. power is like trying to put a lion, an elephant, a monkey, and an ant-eater in a cage and asking them to come to a consensus on what to eat. The lion will want to eat whichever of the others is closest, the ant-eater could care less what the others eat as long as there's an anthill near the cage, and the elephant and monkey will argue over what kind of vegetables or fruits taste best. You won't get anywhere. If you watch the U.N., they don't get anywhere. To expect grand solutions from this body is a good laugh at best and just plain pathetic at worst.
Leave a comment