Double Threat
Tony Blair sees trouble if Christianity and Islam can't get along. I think most people are with him on that. But he sees similarities between Jesus and Mohammed that might help the religions "get on":
Each was made to feel an outsider. Each stood out against the conventional teaching of the time. Each believed in the universal appeal of God to humanity. Each was a change-maker.
Is anyone convinced by this sort of vague happy talk? You could say the same things about Jim Jones or David Koresh. I support attempts at outreach, but those who believe in religious warfare tend to feel their religious figures are unique, and comparing them to others only slights how special they are.
Blair sees another problem--the dreaded non-religious. As he puts it, "We face an aggressive secular attack from without." Maybe things are different in Europe, but how many people have been blown up lately in the name of atheism?
I can see how atheists threaten Muslims who believe in a religion-run government, but doesn't Blair think it's a good thing for politicians to generally stay out of religion? Atheists want that too, as far as I can tell. I'm aware of the "new atheists" making intellectual arguments against faith, but if all religious radicals did was write books and make speeches, most of the problems Blair mentions would be solved.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:03 AM
15 Comments:
Well Tony Blair's foresight doesn't seem to have been terribly reliable when he was in office, what makes anyone think its any better now.
This current religious culture war (burning Korans, opposing mosques, attacking conservative Romney for not being Christian) might herald not the downfall but a heavy backlash against so-called "faith" Its not that big a jump from Islamofascists to Christofascists and Judeofacists or religiofascists generally ("fascists" for this purpose I guess simply meaning those who would impose beliefs by force and violence). Funny-sounding Mormon founding myths highlight the inherent weirdness of other religion's founding myths. Of course all the shouting and killing doesn't help much either- now the communism and other secular belief systems have become less important and been largely overthrown, we can now spend more time on overthrowing religious ideologies.
"...but how many people have been blown up lately in the name of atheism?"
Great line.
I would agree suicide bombers must be quite rare among atheists. If you don't believe in an afterlife or greater good you serve, tossing away your one life must be a tougher sell.
But here's a note from Dinesh D'Souza:
Writing in the Christian Science Monitor recently, Dinesh D'Souza makes the point:
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
I've quesioned the weak logic of D'Souza in the past, but even for him this is egregious. I asked who's being killed in the name of atheism. When it comes to communism, and even non-atheists-whom-religious-people-insist-on-calling-atheists (like Nazis), the number is zero. Yes, they killed many, but not in the name of atheism, whereas religious warriors proudly kill in the name of their faith.
Interesting, but isn't the argument that atheists often consider communism or government *to be* their faith? If that is so, and I'm not sure it is, then it seems like you're needlessly parsing.
You end up pretty dead either way. I suspect many more people have been killed for worldly reasons than for religious ones. (Even many times when the killers claim religious motivation, it can be just a screen for grabbing power, land or resources.)
If atheists have a faith (and they don't), it's not in any specific form of government, but in naturalism.
Rigid dogma, especially the kind that doesn't respect basic human rights, can be dangerous, whether it's based on religion or not.
Atheism is simply not believing in supernatural explanations for big mysteries, or demanding others who do prove their case. It has nothing directly to do with supporting one form of government or another (though I suppose it would naturally oppose religion-based government).
I think you are right that mass murdering atheists do not kill in the name of or to further atheism. When you get down to it, atheism is a lack of belief in "something bigger than oneself," so it would be hard to rally around the cause of not having something.
But there are two valid points to observe. First, of those who have claimed to be murderers in the name of a religious belief, it is likely that a only a fraction actually held the belief they professed. The Medici Popes or Henry the 8th, for example, were likely not true believers, and committed their crimes for personal gain. Of course, some murderers for the faith do hold a strong belief. I'm not sure about the 9/11 attackers, who reportedly went to strip clubs before carrying out their attacks.
The second point that seems evident is that, whatever number of killers assert that they kill in the name of their faith, the death toll for those who assert that they do not have any faith is far greater. This does not mean there is a causal relationship between these two fact - just that on the face of it, history tells us more carnage is perpetrated by self-professed atheists than self-professed men of God.
Religion can be one of those beliefs that people kill over--in facts, often is. I find it odd that anyone would deny this, or claim, with such a high toll occurring throughout so many periods in history, that most killing came from people only pretending to be religious. (I'm not even sure if claiming some did what they did for personal gain even matters--it's easy to claim most things people do are motivated by personal gain, including being religious.)
What I oppose, as noted above, is rigid dogma that denies basic human freedoms. Religion is an excellent source of this, but any plans about things "bigger than ourselves" can lead to the sort of activities that mean mass slaughter. (They can also lead to more noble things, of course)
As to the numbers, it's hard to measure exactly who's killing for what, but when it comes to grand ideological death tolls, I don't think it's close--adjusting for population, I'd guess that the carnage perpetrated by the self-professed faithful is far greater than that perpetrated by the self- professed atheists. However, it may not be a fair comparison in that there have been so many more religious people.
Religion can be one of those beliefs that people kill over--in facts, often is.
Could you clarify exactly what you mean by this?
Certainly we will all stipulate that if Person X privately believes and publicly professes Religion R, and the tenets of that religion explicitly command X to kill someone, and person X does this killing because the religion commands him to (and for no other significant reason), and publicly proclaims that this is the reason, then Person X has indeed killed "because of" and "in the name of" and "over" Religion R.
And obviously my example is overly narrow and we need to widen it.
But how to do so?
1. Suppose Person X is a member of Religion R. He falls under the influence of Preacher P, who publicly espouses this religion. X sees P as a noble example of Religion R. So when P commands X to kill, he does. Was that killing done because of Religion R?
2. Suppose Religion R is the official state religion (and majority religion) of Nation N. Nation N is at war with Nation O, which has a different state and majority religion, with different customs than R. Many members of Nation N fear that if their country is conquered, their faith and culture will be horribly changed. So they join the army of Nation N, and fight and kill the soliders of Nation O.
The soldiers of Nation N fall into many categories. Some are comforted by their beliefs in their religion, and in its superiority to that of their foes. Other soldiers are primarily motivated by their fear of the changes that would take place if the other religion took control of their hometown (which, rightly or wrongly, they think is a real possibility). Still others joined for money or because of a draft; but even they often find the customs of the strange religion odd and their hometown faith more "normal". Are all three groups of soldiers killing "because of" religion R?
I'm not asking these questions to argue that religions haven't led to killings. In fact, in my opinion, any answers to these questions can be justified given the right definitions. My purpose is to determine what definitions you yourself are using.
One more:
3. Nation N (whose primary religion is R) attacks Nation O (whose religion is S). The leaders of Nation N do not claim that religion is the reason for attacking -- perhaps they even falsely claim it is a defensive war. Nonetheless, when the leaders of Nation N tell their people how horrible Nation O is, they often use images and stereotypes that seem drawn from their enemy's religion. A huge number of religious leaders in Nation N support the war; most publicly claim that their support is not religiously motivated, but some use religious arguments. Although the generals in charge of the war focus on purely military objectives, a significant number of soldiers commit atrocities and desecrations when they encounter buildings, landmarks, objects, and even people who are obviously associated with their opponents' religion. In some cases, after Nation N's army passes through, the churches/mosques/synagogues/whatever of Nation O are just as destroyed as they would have been if that had been the goal of the war. Is this killing and vandalism "caused by" or "in the name of" (or whatever your preferred preposition) Religion R?
I don't think I'm what I'm claiming is particularly controversial. History and current events are rife with examples.
All I'm talking about is killing or causing harm (or ordering others to do so ) primarily because you believe you're doing what your religion commands.
Of your examples, 1 and 2, mosly yes, 3, mostly no.
So when the atheist anarchists and atheist Communists in the Spanish Civil War burned churches and killed priests and nuns, were they "killing people over atheism" or "in the name of atheism"?
I agree that it would be a distortion to call Communism a "type" of atheism, in the same sense that Catholicism is a type of Christianity or Christianity is a type of monotheism. That being said, Communism (in its early 20th century form) was an explicitly atheistic ideology / faith / philosophy, which often (e.g., in Spain, in Mexico, in Russia) saw religions as its competitors and deliberately fought against them. Thus, even if Stalin's purges can't be seen as a kind of atheistic religious war, the burning and closing of churches sure seems to be.
Atheists have many beliefs, just not religious beliefs. They rarely do anything on behalf of atheism itself, which, after all, stands for a lack of something. Rather, they do things on behalf of beliefs they have which aren't required of them by their atheism.
But it's not like atheists get off the hook. They're treated with suspicion by religous people all the time--even today it's not uncommon to hear arguments from religious people that atheism leads to immorality (or is immoral).
But it's not like atheists get off the hook. They're treated with suspicion by religous people all the time ...
Stipulated. But the fact that there are unfair beliefs about atheists doesn't mean that one should overcompensate by mutating ones' definitions to avoid asserting that anyone has done anything bad in the pursuit of atheism.
Atheists ... rarely do anything on behalf of atheism itself, which, after all, stands for a lack of something. Rather, they do things on behalf of beliefs they have which aren't required of them by their atheism.
Religious people rarely do anything on behalf of "religion" itself, which is a catch-all term that refers to many different beliefs. Rather, they do things on behalf of specific beliefs and specific human leaders that aren't required by "religion" per se.
The Crusades were not launched by "religion", nor by "monotheism", nor by "Christianity", nor by "Catholicism". They were preached by Pope Urban II and organized by a number of secular rulers. Certainly there is nothing in the Christian Scriptures nor the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church that required or even suggested these wars. Can we say that these wars were not due to religion? I don't think so. A war can be "due to" religion even if it's due to a specific person who motivates specific people to specific actions.
My own Catholic faith doesn't impel me to start wars, but that doesn't mean the Crusades weren't in a very real sense Catholic. I'm not personally responsible for them, but I do recognize that my Church (or parts of it, or certain of its leaders) has been responsible (directly or indirectly) for a variety of bad acts.
I recognize that your atheistic beliefs don't impel you to burn churches and outlaw religious education, but that doesn't mean that the atrocities committed by the Hebertists in the French Revolution, by the Bolsheviks in Russia, and by the Left in the Spanish Civil War -- all of whom saw themselves as warriors in the cause of atheism (and additional beliefs which they understood to go firmly hand-in-hand with their atheism) weren't just as motivated by their atheistic beliefs as the Crusaders were.
That being said, atheism deserves a specific praise: explicit public atheism became a political force only as recently as the 1790s, and only two centuries later the militant violent strain in atheism seems to have vanished. That's pretty quick compared to many other worldviews.
Post a Comment
<< Home