This is only my second post in this site (and the first one was pretty short anyway), but I hope to be more active in this site as time goes by.
Returning to the subject at hand, I voted for Paganism. I think that it is quite difficult to say that you are 'X' (resembling an established religion), because in the end it is impossible to conform completely with every rule it has.
Firstly I must explain what I define as 'God' or 'gods'. I couldn't care less about who or what created all existance, but if I did, I would surely not attribute it to any higher being or anything of that sort. I think that it is a waste of time to think about the origins of existance because a mere human will
never be able to answer this question. Ancient Greek philosphers seem to have understood that they were wasting their time on this question because we witness a shift from 'existential' philosophy (Thales, Anaximender, etc...) to a more scientific (Pythagoras, Aristotle, etc...) and politically oriented philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc...) as time went by. I find this shift very rational. Unfortunately, the philosophical vacuum left after the fall of the Roman Empire was filled by a religious philosophers who persecuted any people who tried to promote scientific development and who supported any institution which hindered any dream of political development.
Returning to my definition of God or gods. I do not believe in one omni-potent God. I believe that humans exist to rule themselves and to create their own 'commandments' on which to live. I consider as a god a person who has done such great things that are inconcievable to any normal human being. Those who know me surely know to whom I am referring to
(for those who are in the dark on my leanings, I worship Napoleon Bonaparte
).
Paganism is also a very flexible belief, every individual is free to have his own idols. I wouldn't consider Pagainism as a religion because it depends on the angle it is looked at, for example Sunni Muslims consider Roman Catholics as Pagans because they 'worship' their saints in material forms (statues, paintings, etc...), while the Roman Catholics say that they are worshiping the one same God as the Muslims. I could go into more detail on this subject but I think that my point is quite clear already.
Now, on my opinion on religions in general. I would exclude every religion from any connections with the running of the state and I would limit the public practice of all religions. Citizens would be free to follow their religion privately, but public practices would be limited to a bare minimum if not suppressed altogether. I consider the public practice of any religion as a useless dividing factor in a society. I'll take the Catholic Church as an example. In my opinion, a mass is just a group of people who listen to readings which they can do on their own at home and a lot of repetitive praying, which can also be done at home. In the past, when a large number of the lower class citizens were illiterate (as in Malta's case), many people could only know the 'word of God' by having it read out to them (after Vatican II) but in our times this need has almost disappeared.
Better stop now before I bore you to death or offend anyone else's beliefs
.
Spread the Word
Revolutionary