seeking knowledge and laughter, putting a bullseye on inaccuracy

Thinking Again on God

Foreign Policy magazine has a regular feature where an expert on a subject refutes common wisdom on a given subject - it is called "Think Again." In the Nov/Dec 2009 issue, Karen Armstrong discusses religion in "Think Again: God." Well worth reading - I find her to be one of the most insightful people on matters of faith and religion.

Her points really hit home for me in the discussion of whether God breeds violence and intolerance. She writes:

But "religious" wars, no matter how modern the tools, always begin as political ones. This happened in Europe during the 17th century, and it has happened today in the Middle East, where the Palestinian national movement has evolved from a leftist-secular to an increasingly Islamically articulated nationalism.

This is my view as well - religion does not cause people to become intolerant. Rather, when times are tough (when the economy falters or diseases break out), people become intolerant of each other. This happens irregardless of religion but often expresses itself via the religion because it is a convenient dividing line. In the case that religion is not a convenient dividing line, ethnicity, skin color, or cultural differences (damn long haired, hippies, for example) become the dividing line between warring parties.

Belief in God provides a justification for intolerance, but mostly does not cause the intolerance itself. As someone who continues to believe human behavior is more shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary selection than by logic and recent developments in human history (changes to how we organize society since the industrial revolution, for instance), I believe it was an evolutionary advantage for people to become intolerant when resources were scarce.

There are times when all Muslims feel united - as when they watch the a Palestinian home being bulldozed by the Israelis because a member of the family was suspected (or proven) to be a terrorist. Then there are times when the Sunnis and Shia are united amongst themselves in hatred of the other. Then there are times when a city composed of Shia and Sunnis are united in their fear and hatred of the political leader - Saddam Hussein, for instance.

Thinking back over our own history, religion often fails to explain how groups will react to each other. During the Jim Crow era, black Christians were prohibited from worshiping in the same church as the whites. Religious dogma provided justifications for that. Now, religious dogma tends not to be used to justify racial discrimination.

Belief in God and religious teachings are used both to encourage and discourage intolerance and hatred, which is to say that religion is a tool that some use to further their political ends. Humans will continue to search for meaning and some will hijack that search in order to further their own power -- not always cynically, but often. In the absence of religion, people will still war over perceived cultural or ethnic differences.

What I find fascinating is that there seem to be as many religions as their are people. How many Christians are there in the world? Depends on who you count as "Christian." Different people have different criteria for whether one is a true Christian and I suspect that if pressed, most people could find ways of disqualifying everyone outside of their church and 3/4 of those in it as not being true Christians. Everything is a continuum and context defines where we locate ourselves along the continuum and how far we can see in both directions.

Comments

False logic

You act as if the Palestinian question is the cause of all Muslim troubles. The Afghan issues actually have nothing to do with Palestine and everything to do with religion. They certainly are not defending their 'country' as they do not accept there is a country. They are not defending their political system, as they do not accept the existence of any political system other than their religion. Their religion tells them to destroy in infidels and so they do.

Umm, no?

Wow, I wonder if others got that impression because you totally missed the point I was making. I am not at all suggesting that the Palestinian question is the cause of all Muslim troubles. The point is that identity is shaped at any current moment by context.

I wonder if a Fox commentator has stolen your identity in posting "Their religion tells them to destroy in infidels and so they do," because that was the same bullcrap we heard about Iraq and it was totally wrong. Turns out if you pay someone who has no job to kill occupying soldiers, he will do it. If the occupying soldiers pay him not to kill them, that works too. Religion barely enters into it when it comes to 80% of the population. Sure there are some fanatics but the vast majority of people are looking out for family, clan, etc.

Report after report of people on the ground in these wars suggests that people are motivated more by monetary rewards than ideas of infidels.

As for what their religion tells them - there are more than 1 billion Muslims, who apparently are told to destroy infidels, that are doing a pretty poor job of it. One would think that with 1 billion infidel destroyers, there would be fewer infidels left at this point.

As for logic, I don't see how logic is helpful if you are premising your logical conclusions entirely on faulty arguments about what motivates a person to act.

Iraq is not Afghanistan

There you go again. If you pay a person to do a job, they will do it. Hence the Sunni awakening. What happens when you stop paying him? Oh yeah, they go back and do what they were doing before. But Iraq is very cosmopolitan compared to Afghanistan. There is a theory that if you pay Afghans to fight for us rather than the Taliban, they will. As far as I know, this is disproved. In Vietnam, we paid South Vietnamese to fight for us; later we found out that they still supported the Viet Cong at night. Pretty sure we will find out the same now. You talk about 1 billion Muslims - take a look back at the Satanic Verses. When a fatwa was declared against the author, most of that 1 billion were firmly behind it.

Oh yeah, and fuck you very much for calling me a Faux commentator.

If you make the same arguments...

Like it or not, you are absolutely lined up with Faux on the talking point that all Muslims are these unreasonable people who are programmed to kill infidels (much like all Jews are programmed to cook and eat Gentile children, I believe).

You are right about the "if you pay a person to do a job, they will do it." And many people who are in Afghanistan report that the Taliban is paying people to fight the U.S. I don't know why they should have to pay them to do something they are programmed to do already, but I guess inconvenient evidence should be discarded.

Ideally, we would not be paying the Afghanistan folks not to shoot us because they would have other jobs (also, ideally, not growing poppies as that job is artificially supported by stupid drug policies in Europe and U.S.). Somehow Rushdie is still alive despite 1 billion people trying to kill him?? No. He is alive despite a few fanatics trying to kill him. Just as Christians don't actually stone adulterers (as instructed by the Bible), the vast majority of Muslims are not going to kill an author because of a fatwa. The comparison is not exact, but makes the point that being a Muslim is one part of a person's identity - just like being a contrarian prick is only one part of other people's identity. =)

All muslims

You might want to check on the above.

1. I did not mention all Muslims, you did. Therefore, I am not lined up with Faux Noise.
2. I never said that religion was the only driver.
3. During the Satanic Verses flap, I never heard anywhere that a Muslim condemned the fatwa. If there had been a critic, the MSM certainly would have found him or her to get "the other side". There did not appear to be "another side" when it came to Muslims. That does not mean that they would have actively sought him out and try to kill him.
4. And, just bye the bye, most of the white power, hate groups are still based on their take on religion, so your quote, "Now, religious dogma tends not to be used to justify racial discrimination." is not strictly true. Or in other words, have you tried to date a Hasidic Jew lately?
5. Byte me!

checking on above

1) You wrote "Their religion" in the first post and I must have misunderstood what "their" referred to. I thought you meant all Muslims.

2) Many of your arguments suggest - as I understand them - that religion in the primary driver.

3) I don't think for a second that the MSM would have sought out a Muslim critic of the fatwa just for "balance" any more than MSM was interested in covering Palestinians holding vigils for the victims of 9/11. There are some things that do not require balance in the MSM popular imagination. That said, Islam has not had a reformation period which leaves it with far fewer loud critics and public disputes on matters like this, so I would not expect a public debate on such a Fatwa. This is not to suggest that all Muslims think he should be killed - I suspect how people would react to the Fatwa would be largely determined by the culture in which they live (as in, whether they are in Indonesia, Iran, or Pakistan).

4) People who are driven to white power tend to be convinced by political arguments and then they find religious reasons to justify their hatred. If you take a kid who grew up surrounded by different racial groups and tried to convince him - using religion - that he should hate those other races, you will have a far more difficult task than convincing someone who is angry because they cannot find a good job. Religious hatred is mostly used by those with a pre-existing axe to grind. Though insular communities like Hasidic Jews and certain Mormon enclaves in Utah act as you explain, I would respond that this is due to the culture surrounding them. Understanding where culture ends and religion begins is not possible in some situations and those are perfect examples. If you create a crazy secular group unable to mix with a larger population and teach racial discrimination, you will get the same result.

3 & 4

3. The MSM sought out Muslims to comment on the fatwa. I remember a CNN clown having his gast flabbered because Cat Stevens refused to condemn it. For you youngsters out there, we are talking about a singer who sang Peace Train! The same CNN face interviewed several American Muslims including several from Academia; same outcome.

4. Culture <--> Religion. You say tomato, I say fuck 'em all.

Culture <--> Religion?

I hope you aren't suggesting they are interchangeable. One cannot escape culture. The very way you express yourself has culture stamped all over it!

I am not suggesting it...

I'm saying it right out loud. THEIR RELIGION IS THEIR CULTURE!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may post PHP code. You should include <?php ?> tags.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options