A common link between Politics, Religion, and Science

The main reason so many people argue about Politics, Religion, and Science is because they all are standing on hypocritical grounds. I will deal with this rather vaguely and stereotypically for the purpose of ease. This is not meant to be a balanced comparison of these views, but an objective look at the clear hypocrisy present in ideologies that are supposed to make sense.  

There is a major separation in America which some may call Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, God-believing and Self-believing, Workers and Hippies, you get the general idea. Some people may cross over these barriers, but there are very definite distinctions, and from now on I will refer to the two groups unbiased as G1 and G2.

G1 are the people who believe that God created the world (most believe it was not that long ago: 6-20 thousand years); If systems and laws work good they should not be changed; people are responsible for themselves and what they do, and others should also be held to these high standards; peoples choices affect others, and sometimes should be restricted for the betterment of all; and government restrictions and limitations result in restrained companies and people who do not have the freedom to work to their fullest potential, create wealth, benefit others, the economy, and their employees if they have them.

G2, on the other hand are the people that believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old; systems and laws should be changed and updated constantly when anyone starts complaining about them; people are responsible for the wellbeing of others and all should be reliant on those who have more than them, and everyone has their own standards and should not hold anyone else to them; people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does not clearly and presently hurt others; and the government should limit and restrain all companies and people to help distribute wealth and stop corruption and abuse.

So, where are these two distinct ideologies hypocritical? They appear to be completely opposite of each other, which seems to logical make them, in a sense, fluid. True, but they also do not agree with themselves. First of all, for G1, if the earth is 6-20 thousand years old, drastic changes in the environment now could very likely be from human intervention. For there is no certainty of its long survival and people should care for it in respect to this and because the God they believe created it called them to be caretakers of it. G2, who believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old, also seem to think that in the last hundred years (1/46 millionth of its existence) humans are completely destroying the earth and under their normal living conditions will drastically change its natural cycles. They say this even though they say the earth naturally used to be only hot gases and magma, and yet still produce 90°of pollutants like C02 naturally through Volcanoes, fires and other natural occurrences. These scientists also believe in Evolution and that harsher environments promote evolution and specie development. Logically following, the degradation of the earth would promote evolution. If this is not becoming clear; these views do not work together. They would logically make sense being switched with eachother.

The next issue is a more economical/political one. The G2 think that companies and peoples freedom should be restricted and the Government should restrict businesses and charge more taxes in order to balance the economic population out and imply social programs with the money taken to care for the less fortunate. Now, follow me on this one: as I was in a Zoo in Belgrade, I thought about all the animals trapped in the cages with their little food bowls and realized it was a type of communist/socialist rule taking place there. The animals were all being taken care of, had the appropriate and calculated amount of food, adequate medical care and all equal privileges and rights. The Communist utopia, if you will. But this is at the price of their freedom. Yes, this example may be a little extreme, more than just socialist programs anyway, but the funny thing about it is, G2 is the adamant group AGAINST animal life in zoos. For animals, G2 supports “free-animal capitalism”, or “survival of the fittest”. Here all animals are free and in competition with each other, brutally killing each other for food and territory- some of the negative consequences that can spawn from free-market. But in the animals case, this would be without the benifits such as new inventions, progress, and wealth creation like in the human free-market. G1 seems to not be bothered by animals in zoos or free, possibly due to their greater distinction between animals and humans.

I believe that because of these clear hypocrisies, the majority of people can not and do not trust politics, religion, or science. The solution: isn’t it obvious! The G1, who believe in a young and fragile earth that they are subject to take care of, should… take care of it and worry about its destruction and pollution. And the G2 should change their many flawed philosophies in evolution. Or they should avoid saying that we have the power to change the cyclical environmental patterns, but should lessen polluting just because it can not be good thing to pollute in any extent. As far as the economic/political part, G2 quite clearly needs to be willing to apply to humans what they want for animals, and accept the freedom in measure of the benefits. Of course, government also still holds a position in the human spectrum. I believe people sense these contradictions, but have not made them publicly clear or offered a reasonable solution. I don’t expect these revelations to change any systems, but at least to help people understand why they are confused and rethink where they stand.