Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

Julius Caeser · 2004-09-16 12:10:22

Should religion be part of a new Martian society and to what extent is it allowed to influence martian politics?Any comments would be appreciated!

RobS · 2004-09-16 23:16:23

There was already a discussion of this subject on another thread somewhere, so you might want to take a look.

A google search on the United States astronaut corps will reveal something that is hardly surprising: American astronauts have the same range of religious sentiments as the American public at large. Some are very active in their churches. Some even lead bible study classes.

So assuming American astronauts go to Mars, we can be sure there will be some religious people among them. We can be sure that if European astronauts go, there will be fewer religious people among them, but that religious sentiments will not be absent. Europeans tend to be less religious than Americans on average, but some individuals will be atheists and others active Catholics or Protestants, because of individual variation.

We can probably assume that no Martian settlement, as it emerges, will be dominated by a single religion. This is an important difference from the early American colonies: New England (except Rhode Island) was Puritan, the southern colonies were nominally Anglican, the middle colonies a mix (New Amsterdam was Dutch Reformed, then Anglican after it became New York; Maryland was Catholic; Pennsylvania was Quaker; Delaware started out Swedish Lutheran). Even Rhode Island was Protestant in sentiment, as was Maryland (the Catholics quickly became a minority).

How religious the Martian population will be cannot be judged in advance. One might be inclined to think that scientists are likely to be atheists, but this is not always the case; statistically, there are also a number of scientists who are Fundamentalists (this seems especially true in math and physics, for some reason). My advisor in planetary geology at Brown University, who with Carl Sagan was co-leader of the Viking imaging team, was active in the local Congregational church, and was a tolerant, honest, caring Christian gentleman. Carl Sagan, of course, was an agnostic or atheist of Jewish background.

So we can assume there will be religious people on Mars, but we don't know the percentage overall or the relative portions. We can probably say that Mars will not be in the position to claim it is a "Christian nation" the way evangelicals dubiously claim the U.S. has always been a Christian nation. Most likely, there will be Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'is (there has already been a Baha'i astronaut who flew in space), agnostics, atheists, and a few other things on Mars.

How will all these people mix? I was speaking to someone in South Africa once, and they said the rule there is that everyone must explain and justify their beliefs in public in publically accessible ways. In South Africa there is separation of church and state, but that does not mean the state ignores religion; it means that if it encourages religion or humanistic values, it must encourage them all equally. I would hope that Mars does something like that, that is, Martian society recognizes that everyone believes something and has a set of values (even if that set of values does not include God), and encourages a society where those values are discussed and debated, not ignored or derided.

-- RobS

Palomar · 2004-09-17 08:15:41

*I think it'd be interesting to watch the progression/unfolding of nature-oriented religions on Mars. Gods and goddesses of various pantheons will likely be taken to Mars by nature-religion/spirituality adherents. But as those gods/goddesses are attuned to Earth's cycles and our natural world, it'll be interesting to see how these archetypal entities evolve and change on another world. Likely new god/desses will come into being in the minds of nature-religion adherents, reflecting their new environs, Mars' weather patterns and the planet as its own peculiar natural world. Would also be interesting to see how terraforming -- if it commences -- impacts on nature-oriented religions (and no, I'm not trying to take the thread off-topic regarding terraforming; it's just part of my comments).

The effect of the new world and its environs on the human psyche, especially in completely unforeseeable ways, would be fascinating to watch unfold.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-09-17 09:49:39

Something that popped up in my mind...

The Roman Catholic Church is pretty wealthy, AND has a history of actively going out and converting the masses of 'heathens,' so i think it will not be too far-fetched, once there's a permanent settlement of a fair size on Luna or Mars, there will be sent up a priest one day... Ticket paid by the Vatican...

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 13:23:42

Likely new god/desses will come into being in the minds of nature-religion adherents, reflecting their new environs, Mars' weather patterns and the planet as its own peculiar natural world.

Such as a goddess of fine red dust that gets into everything or a god of big friggin' rocks. I can see that as a cultural development on some level.

I periodically must pay homage to the god of duct-tape, for example.

But that gets me wondering if it would really be considered "religion" in the presently understood sense. In fact I've often wondered just how many Greeks actually believed that Zeus lived up on a mountain with his crew versus how many saw the story as a myth useful for conveying certain ideas and as a common reference point.

In any case, get a plastic Zubrin for your rover's dashboard.

Palomar · 2004-09-17 13:36:28

Likely new god/desses will come into being in the minds of nature-religion adherents, reflecting their new environs, Mars' weather patterns and the planet as its own peculiar natural world.
Such as a goddess of fine red dust that gets into everything or a god of big friggin' rocks. I can see that as a cultural development on some level.
I periodically must pay homage to the god of duct-tape, for example.
But that gets me wondering if it would really be considered "religion" in the presently understood sense. In fact I've often wondered just how many Greeks actually believed that Zeus lived up on a mountain with his crew versus how many saw the story as a myth useful for conveying certain ideas and as a common reference point.

*Lol!!! :laugh:

::shakes head:: You're something else, Cobra.

Oh yeah -- I definitely see your point in the last paragraph I quoted.

I'm referring it (my previous comments) to Jungian archetypes, neo-(modern) paganism, etc.

I'll stick with Tao; it's the only spirituality I feel comfortable with. Thanks.

--Cindy

Aetius · 2004-09-20 17:53:07

I'm an Olympian pagan, and I would love it if a pagan community took root on Luna or Mars.

Mount Olympus is a obviously a place here on Earth, but theologically I view it in the same way that Christians used to believe their Heaven really was up in the sky.

The Gods and Goddesses rule the Universe in my religion. Mars, Earth, anywhere.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-21 13:40:25

I'm an Olympian pagan

What's your opinion of the god Mars and his traditional affiliation with our planetary body of interest?

Aetius · 2004-09-21 17:30:18

Mars (the God) rules over the cosmic forces of destruction, in my belief system. Be it a bloody battle, or a Gamma Ray Burst, anything that involves violent disruption is at least partly under Mars' control.

The pagan Romans may have looked up in the sky and literally seen their God of War, but what I see is a ball of rock and metal and ice. We've no way to prove it, but I'm confident that there are a thousand worlds in the Milky Way that resemble it. The apparent color of Mars, as seen from Earth, made it easy to link the God to the planet.

These are my opinions alone, and other pagans may vehemently disagree with them.

BWhite · 2004-09-23 18:39:55

Something that popped up in my mind...
The Roman Catholic Church is pretty wealthy, AND has a history of actively going out and converting the masses of 'heathens,' so i think it will not be too far-fetched, once there's a permanent settlement of a fair size on Luna or Mars, there will be sent up a priest one day... Ticket paid by the Vatican...

Don't change that channel, sports fans. . .

mr mirana · 2004-09-28 06:30:01

'Religion in the future will look like science fiction.' - Timothy Leary.

clark · 2004-09-30 07:50:33

The priests will be robots?

Ian Flint · 2004-09-30 08:55:19

In any case, get a plastic Zubrin for your rover's dashboard.

We need some bobble-head Zubrins! :laugh:

The Roman Catholic Church is pretty wealthy, AND has a history of actively going out and converting the masses of 'heathens,' so i think it will not be too far-fetched, once there's a permanent settlement of a fair size on Luna or Mars, there will be sent up a priest one day... Ticket paid by the Vatican...

I bet the Mormons will beat the Vatican...and they send two at a time! :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-30 10:17:16

We need some bobble-head Zubrins!

With comb-overs, or without?

I bet the Mormons will beat the Vatican...and they send two at a time!

I think I know someone who'll take that bet.

However, speaking from experience one tired and mildly belligerent reformed fascist is worth at least two Mormon missionaries on the ground.

What a race that would be.

Morris · 2004-09-30 11:09:28

I have no doubt that Catholics and Mormons will be there early on as well as a wide variety of evangelical Protestant sects. Also, with the recent rapid increase in paganism in the U.S. (at least) we can reasonably expect that as well.

I would be astonished if the simple processes of production of scientists and engineers didn't produce some staff/settlers of the Jewish faith, though I understand that there are wide variations in religious observance there.

Classical guy that I am, I see only one problem with lots of religions - attempts to put down other religions through active violence or through government. Following the classical liberal (capitalist, libertarian) principle that your rights stop at the end of my nose I believe that every person who lives on Mars, and every religion that supports settlement, must swear an oath that their particular religious faction disavows extension of their religious beliefs via violence or government intervention. Violent actions to the contrary are dealt with locally by the usual laws against violence (assault and battery, murder, etc.) and attempts to intervene through government action will result in the offenders being deported or executed immediately. The legal shields which protect government officials from prosecution in most cases should not apply with respect to religious intervention. My position is that any religion which cannot compete for followers on a non-coercive basis by that very fact admits doubt as to its truth, since anyone convinced of the truth of their position and power of their God will also believe that they will inevitably win any moral contest conducted on "level ground".

Members of all religions which can truthfully make the disavowal backed up with appropriate documentation from their various church bodies should be allowed to practice their beliefs without hindrance.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-30 13:52:47

What about indigenous religions? Will the Church of Mars get a blank check for conversion by the sword just because their name's not on the contract?

Even if they don't, I'm not fond of this idea. Keeping my religion out of politics sounds very un-Episcopalian to me. :;):

Ian Flint · 2004-09-30 14:06:10

I believe that every person who lives on Mars, and every religion that supports settlement, must swear an oath that their particular religious faction disavows extension of their religious beliefs via violence or government intervention. Violent actions to the contrary are dealt with locally by the usual laws against violence (assault and battery, murder, etc.) and attempts to intervene through government action will result in the offenders being deported or executed immediately.

I think John Lennin said it best, "Violence begets violence."

The government sactioned violence we call 'execution', or the even more PC 'capital punishment', should be the first form of violence to outlaw. But that's probably just my religious ideas getting in the way.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 15:34:54

"Violence begets violence."

and so does nonviolence... humanity being the bastards that we are.

Morris · 2004-10-01 08:45:25

What about indigenous religions? Will the Church of Mars get a blank check for conversion by the sword just because their name's not on the contract?
Even if they don't, I'm not fond of this idea. Keeping my religion out of politics sounds very un-Episcopalian to me. :;):

ALL religions, indigenous or not. And all individuals must make the avowal as part of their oath of citizenship, either upon attaining legal age or becoming naturalized. Resident aliens would also have to swear to that part of the oath.

As for it being non-Episcopalian, though I do not know the relevant doctrinal details, I have no doubt that you are right. I think that most Christian denominations would have to do some real soul-searching to be sure that they could take the oath in good faith.

The problem is that most religions were formed prior to the development of the American idea of religious tolerance. This was a "better mousetrap" and rapidly became so popular that most churches have adapted to it and even churches with the most savage histories SEEM to have adopted it, at least within the context of the U.S. However, a study of their basic doctrines would probably reveal a number of beliefs contrary to this idea.

The unmitigated savagery of Christian religious wars (including the wholesale slaughter of emphatically peaceful "heretics", e.g. the Cathars) prior to the Enlightenment was, of course, one of the driving forces behind the Second Amendment. The remnants of these conflicts, e.g. Northern Ireland, give a modern reminder of the dangers of allowing religions to have any direct role in politics.

Of course, the trade-off is that others can't, under penalty of law, interfere with your practice of your own peaceful religious beliefs. Naturally, your religious beliefs will color many decisions in civil life, including who you will associate with, which businesses you may choose to patronize, etc. In those cases your beliefs may conflict with other considerations, e.g. Company X does a better job and is cheaper but Company Y is owned by someone of my own faith, etc. And, as men have in all times and ages, you will have to make the ultimate decision about how to deal with these conflicts.

Morris · 2004-10-01 10:17:15

I think John Lennin said it best, "Violence begets violence."
The government sactioned violence we call 'execution', or the even more PC 'capital punishment', should be the first form of violence to outlaw. But that's probably just my religious ideas getting in the way.

The point you raise is a very good one and a tough one for me philosophically. Certainly loads of studies show that children are very sensitive to demonstrations of real or simulated violence and tend to imitate aggressive actions very quickly. In the ordinary conduct of life, violence is certainly a negative and we want to emphasize non-violent means of solving problems in civil life.

Unfortunately, this leads to foolish over-generalizations such as that children should never be physically restrained, spanked, etc. And discussions about the alternatives typically lead to "more heat than light".

Only rarely do people descend from their abstract beliefs about these matters and get down to relevant facts. I remember one very articulate advocate of physical discipline, a faithful and active churchgoer, productive citizen who proudly discribed himself as a "redneck", and successful parent who vividly described his mother taking him to the barn and using a bullwhip on him. He pointed out that this did nothing to harm him. Further discussion revealed that he was physically punished only 2-3 times during his entire life.

OTOH, there are many parents who support physical punishment who state that they use this punishment "occasionally". When asked what they mean by occasionally, they respond "once or twice a week". Well, any parent who has to use violence that often is simply an incompetent parent as the parent mentioned in the previous paragraph was quick to recognize. Truly abusive parents have defensive systems very similar to alcoholics and must always be pinned down to specifics.

I have a friend who has been a top child/adolescent psychologist in the area for many years. Over the years he has described several cases of young (age 3-4) children who terrorize their households by throwing tantrums whenever they are told to do something that they don't want to do. While the specific actions used vary according to the specific circumstances, he has had a great deal of success by simply not giving in to the child, no matter how persistent the child is. At times, when the child is physically violent, this has involved actually holding and physically restraining the child for hours at a time, letting them go free for periods of time until they cause a fuss again and restraining them again. The child's behavior is usually brought under control in one or two sessions and the parents taught how to use the technique. For some children, he recommends that the parents spank them when the child disobeys. Yes, Aunt Nellie, done properly this can work very well!! (As millions of our parents and grandparents were well aware).

Most important, there are some people and groups of people who have no qualms about using intimidation and violence to achieve their ends and MUST be physically and sometimes violently restrained.

So the issue becomes one of discrimination between proper and improper uses of violence. Most people seem to believe that violence should be used: when no other reasonable alternatives are available and the use of the violence should be constrained by a carefully developed set of rules which specify when and how it is to be used and identification of the limits of how far it can go in specific settings. This is the way it is typically used in the justice systems of developed countries. One especially interesting system is used in Singapore where a number of minor crimes are punished by caning. The rules are very explicit, e.g. a cane is used which is specifically designed to break the skin. In fact, if the stroke doesn't break the skin, it doesn't count. On the other hand, the number of strokes is strictly limited. I forget the maximum number now, but it is less than 10 (I vaguely remember perhaps 6) so you don't get into the habit that sailing ship captains and slave overseers used to use of dozens, if not hundreds, of lashes for minor offenses. Naturally medical assistance is on hand if needed. The advantage of strokes is that they are fast, make a big impression in a short time, and inexpensive. Singapore also makes heavy use of the death penalty and that is the usual penalty for serious crimes, e.g. drug distribution, violent crimes, etc. They also strongly support the justice system. For instance, if a foreign businessman is the victim of a crime, the government pays the businessman her travel and living expenses to come back and testify in court. Courts are deeply respected and corruption is nearly non-existent. They no longer have jury trials because of experiences similar to the O.J. Simpson trial in the U.S. As human justice systems go, the system works pretty well despite it's unusually high use of violence, properly considered and restrained violence. This consideration and restraint are important social lessons in themselves.

Because history has shown that religious differences are so prone to generate profound social discord and the development of violence, it is perfectly reasonable that capital punishment be used in cases of violation of laws against religious preference when deportation is not an option (i.e. there is no money for return passage).

clark · 2004-10-01 13:57:14

Why, I do believe Morris that you have articulated a price upon life!

it is perfectly reasonable that capital punishment be used in cases of violation of laws against religious preference when deportation is not an option (i.e. there is no money for return passage).

Your base claim assumes that capital punishment would act as a deterent against such crimes. I wonder what the literature says about the effectiveness of such punishment on the criminal element in their determining to commit a crime? Of course I know, and I think you know, so I'm a bit surprised you end up here at your logical conclusion.

Perhas I am mistaken, but isn't the failure of the capital punishment based as a detterent based on the fact that the criminal choice to commit crime does not evaluate the associated punishment with breaking a law, but merely the chances of succeeding in breaking the law without consquence? Those with the mind to break a law don't worry about the punishment, they worry about getting caught.

Need proof? When you speed in your car, or you jay walk across the street, do you think of the punishment for your crime? Or do you look to see if there is an officer to enforce the law and catch you?

Capital punishment is nothing more than satisfying the blood lust of the social group and to empower the State as the ultimate power above individual. You speak elequotently about the rights of Man, inherent and all that, yet somehow hold the contrary view that the inherent rights might be violated by the group construct.

In a matter of self defense, of course, we have as much right to use as much force as neccessary to protect ourselves. But a man in chains poses no such threat.

And as for Singapore, would you subject your children to a city that used such laws? If it works for them, more power to them, but I think it's rather needless all the same.

Morris · 2004-10-05 12:57:56

Why, I do believe Morris that you have articulated a price upon life!
it is perfectly reasonable that capital punishment be used in cases of violation of laws against religious preference when deportation is not an option (i.e. there is no money for return passage).
Your base claim assumes that capital punishment would act as a deterent against such crimes. I wonder what the literature says about the effectiveness of such punishment on the criminal element in their determining to commit a crime? Of course I know, and I think you know, so I'm a bit surprised you end up here at your logical conclusion.
Perhas I am mistaken, but isn't the failure of the capital punishment based as a detterent based on the fact that the criminal choice to commit crime does not evaluate the associated punishment with breaking a law, but merely the chances of succeeding in breaking the law without consquence? Those with the mind to break a law don't worry about the punishment, they worry about getting caught.
Need proof? When you speed in your car, or you jay walk across the street, do you think of the punishment for your crime? Or do you look to see if there is an officer to enforce the law and catch you?
Capital punishment is nothing more than satisfying the blood lust of the social group and to empower the State as the ultimate power above individual. You speak elequotently about the rights of Man, inherent and all that, yet somehow hold the contrary view that the inherent rights might be violated by the group construct.
In a matter of self defense, of course, we have as much right to use as much force as neccessary to protect ourselves. But a man in chains poses no such threat.
And as for Singapore, would you subject your children to a city that used such laws? If it works for them, more power to them, but I think it's rather needless all the same.

Clark,

The topics you raise are very critical and I will respond to them. However, it may be some time because I must go out of state to take care of my parents.

Catch you when I get back.

Julius Caeser · 2004-10-10 11:41:45

One thing's for sure,there wont be any diversions as to what the Martian Holy Grail is as on Earth!Ask Da Vinci.

mr mirana · 2004-10-17 05:57:56

GETTING to Mars is the Holy Grail, all the other stuff is a bonus!

Trebuchet · 2004-10-18 12:47:20

Why, I do believe Morris that you have articulated a price upon life!
Quote
it is perfectly reasonable that capital punishment be used in cases of violation of laws against religious preference when deportation is not an option (i.e. there is no money for return passage).

Your base claim assumes that capital punishment would act as a deterent against such crimes. I wonder what the literature says about the effectiveness of such punishment on the criminal element in their determining to commit a crime? Of course I know, and I think you know, so I'm a bit surprised you end up here at your logical conclusion.
Perhas I am mistaken, but isn't the failure of the capital punishment based as a detterent based on the fact that the criminal choice to commit crime does not evaluate the associated punishment with breaking a law, but merely the chances of succeeding in breaking the law without consquence? Those with the mind to break a law don't worry about the punishment, they worry about getting caught.
Need proof? When you speed in your car, or you jay walk across the street, do you think of the punishment for your crime? Or do you look to see if there is an officer to enforce the law and catch you?
Capital punishment is nothing more than satisfying the blood lust of the social group and to empower the State as the ultimate power above individual. You speak elequotently about the rights of Man, inherent and all that, yet somehow hold the contrary view that the inherent rights might be violated by the group construct.
In a matter of self defense, of course, we have as much right to use as much force as neccessary to protect ourselves. But a man in chains poses no such threat.
And as for Singapore, would you subject your children to a city that used such laws? If it works for them, more power to them, but I think it's rather needless all the same.

Actually, I agree with Morris's point, but out of sheer expediency: on Mars, someone who has been convicted of a serious crime should just "be shown the door", so to speak. The deterrent effect is irrelevant; corpses don't commit crimes or soak up scare resources while penned up in a jail cell. As for Singapore, I personally don't mind their legal system except for the nitpicketyness of their laws.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-16 12:10:22

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#2 2004-09-16 23:16:23

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#3 2004-09-17 08:15:41

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#4 2004-09-17 09:49:39

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#5 2004-09-17 13:23:42

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#6 2004-09-17 13:36:28

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#7 2004-09-20 17:53:07

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#8 2004-09-21 13:40:25

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#9 2004-09-21 17:30:18

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#10 2004-09-23 18:39:55

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#11 2004-09-28 06:30:01

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#12 2004-09-30 07:50:33

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#13 2004-09-30 08:55:19

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#14 2004-09-30 10:17:16

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#15 2004-09-30 11:09:28

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#16 2004-09-30 13:52:47

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#17 2004-09-30 14:06:10

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#18 2004-09-30 15:34:54

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#19 2004-10-01 08:45:25

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#20 2004-10-01 10:17:15

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#21 2004-10-01 13:57:14

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#22 2004-10-05 12:57:56

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#23 2004-10-10 11:41:45

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#24 2004-10-17 05:57:56

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#25 2004-10-18 12:47:20

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

Board footer