I've gotten into a huge online argument on Facebook recently. It started out as a rebuttal to a "friend"--actually a high school acquaintance--who was jubilant about the "Yes on 1" victory over gay marriage in Maine. I wasn't pleased, to say the least, and said so. But it devolved, as these things always do, to a discussion on religion. Which also always become a tangled mess.
I don't know why the very religious try to get us to all live by their rules. They'd hate it if we tried to pass pro-Muslim laws or pro-Mormon laws, and they had to live by them (unless they were Muslims or Mormons, of course). But that's what "Yes on 1" boils down to, codifying a religious belief. One that isn't 100% backed up by doctrine, in this blogger's opinion, but I digress (again).
But I got to thinking about religion in general. Everyone believes theirs is the best, the only, the correct one. And without fail, they also believe that everyone else's is wrong. With no evidence. But arguing that point is impossible. You see, people are so convinced that their own religion is right, they find it difficult to put themselves in another person's shoes. They can't step inside an agnostic's shoes (mine are 9-1/2 Ds, by the way) and even see where I'm coming from. So I'll explain it to you.
There are many ancient religions. Most of them have faded away, or morphed into new ones. Many of the newer ones even crib from the older ones, in order to sway new converts (or maybe due to lack of imagination). And nobody in the newer religions gives one ounce of credence to the fore bearers. A religious person is basically agnostic or atheistic as it pertains to all other religions but their own. I simply believe in one less than they do. I posed this little example in my argument, and was met with metaphorical blank stares.
I look at today's main religions as sort of a movie franchise. Judaism was the first one in this analogy, think Superman: The Movie. We've got the origin story, all the set up and backstory. It solidified the franchise, and was a big hit. So big, that somebody decided it would be a great idea to have a sequel.
Christianity is Superman II. It carries over some of the same themes, adds some new bad guys and characters. It fleshes out the story, adds some new elements (some sort of out of place in parts), and turns this baby into a blockbuster. It should also be noted that Superman's mother takes on more prominence in this one. With me so far? Many of the fans of the original aren't moved. They think it betrayed the original, and they just are not buying it. But the fans of the sequel swear by it. It's the best! And the only one worth watching. Until. . .
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut shows us what the story could have been like, with some different scenes (some not fully finished), with a very different interpretation of the story. This would represent the schisms in Christianity. Fans of this different version will swear that it's better than the previous edition, and in fact, the original sucks.
After Christianity came Islam. That's Superman III. Here's where my analogy gets a little bit strained, I'll admit, because that edition wasn't a hit. Pretend it was, and go with me. It was part three of a series, as Islam is. Part I and II had huge fan bases, and were totally put off by part III. It had its cool parts, but it just doesn't work for the Jews and the Christians. They ain't buying it.
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was a low-budget, incoherent flop. This we can slot in as the Jehovah's Witnesses, which might be too easy, but you can't say it isn't accurate. Superman Returns would be of course, Mormonism. Pretty popular, but largely not considered to be a "real" part of the series. The characters are there, but they're different, and they don't even try to reconcile the continuity. And don't get me started on Superboy, Smallville, Supergirl, Lois & Clark. . . There you have even more schisms.
My point? Each installment has its fans. Few will like them all. And nobody who thinks theirs is the best can be swayed to accept the others as better than theirs. "Nice story," they'll say. "But mine is the best." Unlike religion, there are those of us who like some or all to a degree, or even none of them. But people like me see them all as just basically stories. Stories obviously told in their own time to their own audience. Stories that were built on what came before with little attention given to internal consistency. Go ahead and believe in Krypton. I'll just consider them all stories.
