About god, the UN, and the faults they have in common

Her finder De den danske udgave af denne klumme

I have earlier, in the entry “The Religious Principle”, argued against the concept of sacredness: The sacred becomes tabooed, indisputable, gets pulled out of its original context and is regarded as valid in all contexts without exception. Had it been possible to predict all possible social developments through time and space, than such a concept could have been very practical to have, maybe even sensible. As this is unfortunately not the case, it takes quite a bit of arrogance, for not to say stupidity,

to make up rules and expect them to be invariable and omni-valid.

Democracy – the unholy is the best, even if not total, substitute to violence

This is one of democracy's greatest strengths: all laws and rules can in theory be revised. The different groups that constitute the legitimate disagreement taking place in the parliaments of democratic countries, guarantee that hardly anything will at any point be agreed upon by such a broad consensus, that it would become sacred. This is democracy's superiority: one can discuss almost anything without having to result to violence. Far from being infallible, democracy is still the best form of governance invented, and is what I would call nearly sacred. Nearly sacred, as in some extreme situations it is necessary to partially or completely eliminate democracy.

The strength of democracy lies therefore in its comprehensive rejection of the concept of sacredness as fundamental for social coexistence. Nevertheless, most of the world's democracies have signed numerous conventions that sanctify themselves by using rhetorical strategies which claim eternal validity.

Never say never - the ticking bomb scenario

The following example would probably be seen by many as politically incorrect, criminal, maybe even... blasphemous? The United Nations' convention against torture determines that -  

              ”No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. ”

UN's convention against torture, §2

According to this text, no circumstances, does not matter how extreme, can ever justify the use of torture. The ban on torture is hereby being sanctified.

Let us consider the following hypothetical situation:

On September the 10^th 2001 the American intelligence agencies discover that a massive terror attack is about to take place on American soil the following day. They even capture the brains behind the action, some mysterious Mr. B. During the investigation, Mr. B. refuses to cooperate with his interrogator. Without the UN convention against torture the interrogator would face a serious dilemma whether to practice violence against Mr. B. and compromise the suspect's physical and mental health in the name of saving innocent people's lives; or to let Mr. B. keep his inviolable integrity and loose precious time and the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands of people. Luckily, the UN convention against terror saves our law abiding officer from such a moral dilemma: he pays a negligible professional price for never getting on with the investigation, perhaps looses out on a good promotion, and the next day the world changes tragically. However, thanks to the UN's convention against torture, Mr. B. is still totally unharmed, perhaps apart for being slightly shaken by the whole episode.

The example above is of course pure fabrication. Men far from unrealistic. Unfortunately, situations similar to the one described above take place regularly, and more than just a handful of states chooses to ignore the UN's convention against torture. This of course does not mean that torture should be allowed in any sort of interrogation, but a total, sanctified ban on torture is clearly out of touch with reality. Such a ban may simply not exist. Its consequences are self-evident: there are no clear rules as to when torture is legitimate, and therefore, when torture is necessary, it is being practised in great secrecy. As the practitioners of torture avoid all forms of control, their natural tendency is to use it more frequently than necessary. In stead of abolishing the phenomenon of torture, the total ban on torture contributes paradoxically to the phenomenon's spreading and it weakens the controlling bodies' ability to perform their duty. There is an infinite amount of Examples of such ways of dealing with social problems, that all yield the same non-results at best, but are as a rule simply counter productive. Only think of the most common strategies of managing the war on drugs and prostitution.

The United Nations – have we learnt nothing from god's mistakes?

Such declarations as the convention against torture, out of touch with the world we live in, yet legally binding, can never serve their purpose and often prove counter productive. The highest worldly authority on this planet, The United Nations, has named itself a global guardian of morality, a secular god-substitute which, just like other gods we know of, issues rules which are detached from reality. The very notion that all of the UN's member states should relate positively to all UN declarations out of their own interest or due to pressure from other member states, is completely unrealistic. Thus, the UN settles for issuing populist rules and watching afterwards with indignation and resignation as the different member states pick and choose freely between the different statements, regulations, rules and declarations.

The UN and 'god', or at least god's representatives, both use similar rhetorical strategies, which are of invaluable symbolic value and incomprehensible, often catastrophic consequences. As long as the religious way of searching after all-encompassing, omni-valid, tabooed, sanctified rules, prohibitions and rituals can be traced in our secular governments, we render ourselves incapable of making this world a better place.