I read today that in the Kordestan district of Iran the authorities there are scheduled to execute three men for the crime of "enmity against God", apostasy is clearly alive and well in Iran and people are still dying over it. For those unfamiliar with this medieval crime it essentially means that a person has decided to abandon their religion. In the case of Islam the punishment for this is unambiguous, it's death. Clearly there are regional politics wrapped up in this case as these men are Kurds from a region with a long history of violence and disagreement with the central government. So, should we just put this down to politics and leave it at that, or is it permissible to raise the issue of religion's role in this case, does it even have a role?
Then we have the case of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who gunned down 13 people at Fort Hood in the USA last week; having studiously avoided any mention of his religion when this story initially broke, the main stream media are now slowly relenting, the guy was a religious maniac. So, should we all tiptoe carefully around this delicate matter keep it under wraps out of respect for all the non-homicidal Muslims in the world?
No, religion is the elephant in the room, it really doesn't worry me how many moderate believers and apologists feel "uncomfortable" in confronting these issues, they are real and affect real people in this world (as opposed to some imaginary one) Contrary to what people thought in the 60s and 70s the influence of religion has been steadily growing and with it ever more extremism, division and tension. If religion is being used as a smoke screen to obscure political mischief then it should be exposed, if religion is being used to justify or cover-up abuse then it should be exposed, if religion is providing cover for extremists then it should be exposed, if religion is making false promises then it needs to be exposed.
There is a social "spell" that has been cast over us all in the West, it perhaps has its roots in the post modernist haze in which we find ourselves, the spell says that religion is above criticism, that we should respect it unconditionally and carefully avoid any hint of offence when it followers step out of line and "go postal". You hear the term "bad apples" quite a lot, oh that Hasan he was just a bad apple, most Muslims wouldn't dream of doing anything like that, whilst this is statistically true it's not an answer. How many bad apples does it take before humanity seriously scrutinises how it cultivates its apples?
The spell needs to be broken, for everyone's sake, anyway we can.
7 comments:
Nutters are nutters whatever they say they believe in.
But why is what they say they believe in more serious than what they do?
Or is it because you have automatically inferred a causal link between the lunatic behaviour of an individual gunman and his personal beliefs and that you wish to insinuate that this somehow says something about all belief systems in general?
Maybe you could expand your theory with some evidence to avoid any conclusions being drawn that you are subjecting the case to your own confirmation biases.
I mean you wouldn't want to suggest all religion is a just a big conspiracy, would you?
Hi OP,
Evidence old boy, evidence, (as Bertrand Russell famously used to say)
I'm not saying its "more important", I'm suggesting there is often a causal or an enabling link between the faith based thinking and such objectionable actions. Not in all cases and nor is it necessarily the only cause, but in a population, in the median, I think there is.
If a bunch of guys make a video explaining that the reason they are going to fly a plane into a building is because they truly believe that they are taking a moral stand and will be rewarded in paradise by 72 virgins then I would not be so arrogant to say "they don't really believe that". Especially when thousands of people claim similarly ludicrous things day in, day out.
Why do Catholics oppose condom use in Africa, is it:
a) They think that God wants them to because God owns souls.
b) They object to big business exploiting the 3rd world.
Why do Baptists in the USA not want evolution taught in schools is it
a) They believe that their holy book was authored by the creator of the universe.
b) They have evidence the post Darwinian synthesis is wrong.
Why do Jewish settlers feel they have the right to turf Palestinians out of their houses?
a)Because their God promised them land rights 4000 years ago.
b)Because Palestinians don't watch location, location, location?
Is religion a big conspiracy?, perhaps, I think of it more like a scam that no one has the guts to admit they've fallen for.
This is not to say that some of the ideas aren't good and moral, they are; the rituals can be quite moving and the songs and architecture is generally marvellous, but at the root of it all is the principal that when a bunch of people want another bunch of people to do something then they insert "God told me to tell you" in front of whatever it is and hey presto, you've got religion.
Yes Steve, evidence.
And the facts are that not all catholics oppose contraception in Africa, not all Baptists in America are anti-evolution and not all Jews are settlers in the holy lands.
You are talking about actions you disagree with and trying to find a reason behind why you disagree. You've come up with 'religion tells them'.
But why does it matter that it is religion which is telling them? People do objectionable things because they are told to by all sorts of people. So for me it's not who tells them, it's that they are told in the first place and then go ahead even where what they do would otherwise contradict their principles.
I disagree entirely that there is necessarily a direct causal link between religion and any objectionable actions - if there were, it would be impossible to differentiate any heirachy of objections or identify any qualities in it - it'd be all bad and all only bad.
By saying there is necessarily a direct causal link then you are saying what people think is more important than what people do.
No, it is a certain type of political attitude which is harnessed by certain religious forces for particular ends that is willing to incite violent confrontation or increase harm in various ways that is the problem.
So let me pin you down on the use of the word 'often'.
If there is only 'often' a link, then you are accepting that there is not necessarily any causation - and you explicitly deny singularity of factors are at stake in the wider public.
So you admit religion isn't your real underlying target, but still you take aim at it!
Maybe you can see that I get a bit annoyed with the constant negativity - it is only half the question. And it also ignores any counter evidence.
For example I know several catholics who distribute condoms and other forms of contraceptive in Africa in the name of their religion with the support of their organisation, and I know several jews who actively support normalisation of relations with their neighbours (can't say I meet many evangelical Baptists though) - which goes to show that underneath the headlines the reality is always much complex.
Don't get me wrong though, I encourage constructive criticism of everything, and especially the motivations leading institutional mechanisms.
However to be constructive it is incumbent to propose a positive alternative - it's not enough to say instead of restricting health education or historical education or access to resources that people should just be content with the status quo.
People are concerned with living longer, more peacefully and productively, so any criticism really needs to add in how to foster greater access too.
The three examples you give are very good examples of precisely this - if we can deconstruct each of them to discover what those people are really trying to achieve then we can also reconstruct thier objectives in a way which is more positive.
So Jews and Arabs want to live in security across the middle east - doesn't that require a negotiated agreement which both sides will stick to?
So Africans want to provide a better future for their families - doesn't that require a better power relationship between sexes?
So rural hicks in the middles of America want to have a clearer picture of the universe and all existence - doesn't a better scientific education require a wider range of employment opportunities than is fed by the fat of the consumer society?
It's easy to say what an answer is not, but our creative energies do need channelling and given outlets for expression - or they will turn in on themselves.
If it is only half right to say religion may be misguided and is capable of giving misdirections, then it is completely wrong to take away any mechanisms by which direction can be found.
So the (road)map doesn't make sense... we don't throw away all compasses, and nor do we burn all maps for the sake of it!
You know I'm interested in politics and I see democratic politics as a form of fetishised decision-making (with rubber stamps not rubber suits): I think it is important to recognise politics could be described as our modern religion but in order to do so this requires us to understand how the processes involved in democratic government are comparble with those used by religions.
We need to understand how forces shape processes for the benefit and at what cost to different groups. And by understanding how different forces operate we can cultivate better behaviour.
Is any of that objectionable?
OP, The fact that some Catholics are bad Catholics is not evidence that Catholicism is good or bad? The Pope was a Nazi does that mean the Nazi party was OK?
I haven't come up with "religion tells them" religious people come up with that!! To counter your point, you've come up with "they don't really believe what they say they believe", equally tenuous no?
It matters because it affects us? I'm proposing that if certain parts of religious thinking were removed from the equation then our overall "problem entropy" as a species would decrease. I think our society would be better with LESS superstition in it, simple as that.
I'm not saying there is necessarily a causal link; I was very careful to say there is "often" a link and it is not necessarily the "only" cause. This is amplified if the link turns up in power somewhere, like Israel for example.
You assert that politics ALWAYS underpins religious belief, I dispute that, sure we can find specific examples but what evidence do you have for the generalisation? I think there is plenty of evidence that religion underpins politics in many (not all) cases. Stem cell research, abortion, sex discrimination, homophobia, all originally religiously inspired.
As I have said before religion is not my primary aim, "faith" is my primary aim, however the political manifestation of faith is often religion and so that's what appears in my sights most often.
Incidentally I also criticise non-religious "faith" based nonsense, like Astrology, homoeopathy and crystal healing for example, what about those?
I agree with you that some religious people say their religion tells them what to think, but just because they say it doesn't make it necessarily true for any or all - especially whilst there are others who take the exact opposite view (ie that the same religion tells them to be sceptical of people who have deaf, dumb and blind faith, as do schools of thought within each religion).
So, carrying through the logic of that argument, if one were to believe those who say their religion tells them what to think, it would be to conclude that they believe what they are told because they are told to believe what they are told.
That is circular logic and a formal fallacy. It is invalid as an argument, and therefore cannot be reliably used as proof or disproof of the proposition.
Yes, it is no grounds to hold the belief, but it isn't proof that the belief isn't correct either.
Would you believe it if I told you I have a loaded gun on the table in front of me? Either way, does such a statement alone make it an impossibility?
Anyway, the ability to accept any argument requires a political outlook by which different facts can be evaluated.
This is because all decisions are inherently political by nature whether we like it or not: politics is the process by which decisions are made (whether at an individual level, societal level or any level in between).
To choose head over heart or vice versa is a political decision: to make or avoid making a decision is to take a political position.
And so, to say you support or oppose any particular policy is to have made a political choice - whether conscious or subconscious.
Religion is a social force and different religions do use different arguments to push certain types of politics as a way to create decisions in-keeping with their thinking. But at its' heart is still a political conception and evaluation of the facts as they see them.
Politics comes before intelligence and before religion - it comes when we look right or left or up or down.
In fact one great line I used in response to a mormon who said 'god is creation', was 'it says a lot about gods politics that he isn't into destruction'. They got confused after that because they said they agreed with Bush on Iraq...
Religion - REGARDLESS of what the fuck - should be exposed... ALL of it.
Post a Comment