A rant brought to you by the good Reverand Chuck Swindle

I have a paper due soon about why I think objective morality is to "queer"(how the proff has it on the sheet) to believe. So as a way of studying (ok fine I was procrastinating) I have been watching the religious channel. It never fails to get me angry and pissed off to the point of rolling on the floor frothing at the mouth while shouting random obscenities about dinosaurs at the TV. While recovering from one such episode I began to think there might be a connection between my inability to take seriously objective moral codes such as Kant's and Mill's and my utter distaste towards formal religion. It comes down to belief and what belief means to you and how it shapes the way you act. If a person holds that their beliefs are objectively true then they act as if they were for everybody else as well. Their is almost a sense of domination involved where what you believe, if it is objectively true, is what I have to believe to. In fact what you are believing should be self evident to me as a rational human being according to people who give their beliefs such standing. This kind of thinking has built into it a sense of arrogance and entitlement. It could be argued that much of the violence of this world has been caused by such rational. From Bush 2 "bringing" democracy to the middle east, to battles between Shiites and Sunnis. There is always an element of "I know what is true and why the hell cant you see that" to the whole thing.
In a perfect world it would be possible for everyone to accept and understand that what they experience and know and believe is exactly that theirs. Yet we don't live in a perfect world so the theory has to account for the fact that people are forced to come together and interact in ways that create society through necessity. In doing so people have to reach agreements and understanding. They can agree on the things that make up our common practices within the group. That isn't to say that they all agree on the things that make up the big picture like what happens after we die and what does it all mean etc, but the small things that make it possible for people to interact and function in a society. The ideas that make up a persons core beliefs are theirs and theirs alone. others may also share beliefs like it but it is still shaped by the fact that it is yours. Once everyone realizes that the most subjective thing in the world is beliefs then perhaps the world can move on to a new age. How diverse and utterly bizarre would such a world be. I don't know how to bridge that gap. I am caught by the logic of my own argument. It seems self evident to me to the point of despair and frustration that the world can only be seen subjectively and should be by everyone else to. Maybe if we moved tolerance into the position in our beliefs that is now held be equality. Instead of seeing all beliefs as equal because we do seem to agree that some ideas are better then others, why not just be tolerant that difference exists. It is this difference that helps define what we are, for without it we are all the same and therefore are nothing. Embrace difference and subjectivity and revel in the fact that it makes possible existence.

wow that was a lot more writing then I had planned on doing. I will have to read this later when I am not strung out on energy drinks and bong hits and see if it still sounds as interesting.