Well, Riginslinger, if you think religion has outlived its usefulness, I think perhaps that you see only one kind of religion - the religion of the fundamentalists. That's the kind of religion that gets the attention of the press, and many nonreligious people seem to think it's the only kind of religion possible.

That sort of religion is based on xenophobic fear, seeking to exclude and condemn all who see things differently. That kind of religion seeks personal salvation, the assurance that those who belong, are saved. That kind of religion seeks moral certainty, the assurance that those who belong are right, and all others are wrong. That kind of religion sees "immorality" as something that other people do, which proves that they are damned and deserving of destruction - and so they protest against abortion and homosexuals and Muslims and "secular humanists."

That's the religion of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, except for one thing - the focus of the Bush-Reagan "religion" is America, not God. God only exists to validate the rightness of America. Religious fundamentalism is frightening - the Bush-Reagan "religion" is far beyond that.

But there's another kind of religion, a kind of religion that exists in many denominations. This kind of religion is based on shared ideals and values like peace and justice and love and family and ancestral tradition. While the fundamentalists think they have all the answers, this kind of religion is full of people who have mostly questions. These are people who seek to explore the mysteries of life - not define those mysteries into doctrinal certitude. This sort of religion tends to be very self-critical and self-aware. People like this are not even upset to know that some of their beliefs may be based on myth, particularly if those myths are helpful to them in exploring the mysteries of life. This sort of religion sees the individual as being "saved" as part of a community, by serving and healing the community, the earth, and humankind.

There are two radically different forms of religion, and they just can't be lumped together and dismissed with a blanket statment that they have "outlived their usefulness." Perhaps they have, but they need to be considered separately.

Perhaps "religion" is not the proper term to describe these two opposing phenomena. "Belief system" might be a more accurate term, but it's not quite accurate, either. I'll stick with "religion," but I think you will find that these two "religions" transcend religions denominations, and may even exist among those who consider themselves nonbelievers. The fearful, doctrinaire, control-oriented type seeks certitude and protection and exclusion. The idealistic type of "religion" seeks to explore and to serve - not always successfully, but always seeking to understand and to heal. I'm sure we all know both religious and nonreligious people of both types.

-Joe Offer-