People have made it very clear to me that Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Murrah Federal building in 1995 was not a Christian, the connection between that vicious, inhuman act and the Waco, Texas incident notwithstanding. He couldn't be, you see, by virtue of the fact that he did such a thing.
It's too bad that Muslims who are horrified by terrorism aren't given the benefit of the same rationale, but I'm still waiting to hear about Anders Behring Breivik. Despite the initial prejudice that had the Oslo bombing and the murders at a Summer camp as the work of al Qaeda, it looks like Breivik, identified by a survivor as the attacker, was a Christian Conservative disturbed by the presence of other cultures, other religions, in Norway. Would he fit in with a spectrum of Americans, from the Aryan Brotherhood to the Tea Party, trying to promote our intentionally secular Republic as a "Christian nation" and perhaps an exclusively Christian nation?
How long can we go on pretending that religious tribalism of any denomination hasn't been and doesn't remain a potentially destructive, oppressive and communicable human vice?
It's not "Terrorism" because it's not a Muslim who did it so says Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs blog and resident expert on all things islamic terror related...
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's not religion but conservatism...
ReplyDeleteI would think that, by definition, conservatism rejects anything radical or extreme. But then, we now speak a language with a dictionary that only spells and doesn't define.
ReplyDeleteBut humans have what appears like an instinctive antipathy to outsiders. You'll see that dressed up as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and others -- dressed up as politics and philosophy and historical imperative, but it's an original sin shared with our furry ancestors and hirsute cousins and you'll see it in anything people and chimps do, despite their religious/tribal/ethnic/narcissistic claims. Hell, half the biblical prophets yelled themselves hoarse telling the Jews to reject anything foreign, anything outside: other religions, other tribes and even to the point of violence and genocide. I guess you could call that conservative, but perhaps, as with faith, there needs to be a test of worth that doesn't rate intensity or intransegence quite so much, else we make a hero of this bastard. What you're willing to do to further your mission is the best judge of the faithful. This guy decided that to look alike and think alike and believe alike was more important than respect for life itself. It's a common failing. We can call ourselves Liberals; we can call ourselves all kinds of nice things and still share it.
This man is a terrorist, plain and simple and if we can't allow that fact because he's blond or goes to a church rather than a Mosque, then we're hypocrites.
So I'm not sure what conservative means anyway in our new rule-free tongue. But I do know what a terrorist is, what a mirderer is -- and what an excuse is.
Religious fanatics are basically alike. Whether they're Christian or Muslim is a detail.
ReplyDeleteJudging from the early news reports (correct me if I'm wrong here), it sure sounds like a terrorist attack fueled by a Christian conservative or fundamentalist's hatred of all things secular, diverse and humanistic. Just consider the biggest target: an institution of Norway's Labor Party. Many religious people are generous and peaceful, but there's clearly a strain in just about all religions that tends towards anything but those qualities. Some of our own nuttiest Christian religionists betray a distinct hatred of the secularity of our institutions – one gathers that they can scarcely hear the name "Tom Jefferson" uttered without feeling sick to their innards, and there's little doubt that in a heartbeat they would take away any of the people's freedoms that don't accord with their narrow, fanatical, and perhaps even psychotic outlook. In my view, they obviously hate the very idea of America – to them, this is a land of pagan symbols and ideas, a place where "sodomites" are not only tolerated but respected, etc. -- it is not the "Christian" City on a Hill that exists only in their vile, ignorant, fearful, cultic little imaginations.
ReplyDeleteThere's also the fact that the killer on that island was able to walk around gunning innocent children to bits for over an hour. That is hard even to imagine, but it appears to be so. Yes, it was a remote, idyllic little place, but was there no security at all? The Scandinavian countries are renowned for their trusting quality, their openness, but this instance, I think, suggests that a nation can take those things too far for its own good. A small armed security presence might have saved almost a hundred lives yesterday, might have at least allowed them to fight back in time enough to matter. I may be wrong there – perhaps there were some guards and the killer took them down at the outset, I don't know, and in truth these kinds of attacks are so ferocious and sudden that some are bound to succeed. Either way, I'm saddened to hear that so many kids' lives were cut short by a determined, hate-filled lunatic, of any religion or no religion whatsoever.
Religious fanatics have done more harm throughout the centuries than all the plagues put together. No matter what the religion, a fanatic is a fanatic. We certainly have more than our share of them here. Some of them are in Congress. Sigh!.
ReplyDeleteDarlene, with all due respect, that's simply wrong. Think Hitler, Stalin, Mao in recent history. The ongoing African slaughters. The Khans of Mongolian history, etc., etc. Political fanatics have a far worse history than the religious variety. Even relative moderates such as Bush II are more dangerous, Bush erasing over 300,000 Iraqis by most counts...
ReplyDeleteEdge,
ReplyDeleteIn terms of sheer numbers, that's probably correct -- Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and a few others combined murdered a remarkable number of people, and none was religious but instead did what they did in the name of a cultus of the Volk, the People, or the State. Of course, any kind of fanaticism could, given the "right" circumstances, have similar results, and organized religion remains a powerful motivating force if one is trying to get people to hate and kill others they've never even met....
I remember an appropriate point from old Ziggy Freud, who wrote that the sort of violence and hostility we're addressing here is innate in humankind: even if the circle of benevolence keeps widening, he wrote (a favorite theory of eminent Victorians like Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley), the savagery perpetrated against any poor S.O.B. left outside that circle would only increase in its intensity. Leave it to Freud to make you feel good about yourself, eh? I thank Great Mother and Father T-Rex that I'm not even remotely human....
Dino, one could also postulate that religion has 'saved' as many lives from savagery as not, citing the original Christian ethic of love, Confucian wisdom, Hindi acceptance and non-violence and present day Tibetan Buddhism. Then again, these things are difficult if not impossible to quantify.
ReplyDeleteZealotry, violence and intolerance exist in all social and cultural strata, of course. Snipers in university belltowers. Columbine kids. Fathers imprisoning daughters in bunkers. Serial killers hunting down women and children. Rednecks bashing gays. Loners assassinating public figures to become famous. And, yes, religious zealots, too, including the James Jones types.
So I'd have to agree with what you say. It's simply in our nature. But it's the institutionalized ones (the politicians and the powerful) that terrify me the most, as they can rationalize and 'justify' their actions and rewrite history.
That said, the Oslo event is another needless tragedy.
There is no evidence as yet that this guy thought he doing the ‘will of God’ – he just happens to self-describe as Christian.
ReplyDeleteUnless something startling emerges about the perpetrator’s motives, it is entirely reasonable to infer - from what we do know - that he was a psychopathic time bomb who followed the secular ideas of the far right (cultural bigotry, xenophobia… etc) to their atrocious end.
Far right inspired violence occurs frequently in Europe – but it just gets lumped in with ordinary street violence. Skinhead stuff.
I want to be clear about that: it seems pretty clear that what passes for ‘thinking’ in the far right about multiculturalism seeded the tree of evil is this bastard. Maybe now security services will take the far right as seriously as militant Islam.
He might well regard himself as a patriot, his government as traitors, and his victims as immoral losers (not a lot different to some bloggers I’ve argued with…). I am nauseated to my core that this has happened.
Just wanted to point out to those who brought axes to grind that my point is not about the danger of religion or even the danger of fanatical faith, but that we in the US wave the proud banner of Christian exceptionalism as though it were a grand old flag rather than a dirty whorehouse bed sheet.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter whether this bastard was a Christian in your eyes or anyone's eyes or whether the shitbags that blew up the Murrah building were either. It matters that we don't see that it isn't about Islam or Zoroastrianism; it isn't about sweet Jesus or Allah the merciful and compassionate, Jumpin' Jupiter or the resurrection of Osirus -- it's about humans finding ways to hate, punish and even kill other people for their freedom in the name of some entity or some doctrine so as to absolve themselves of responsibility.
If anyone doesn't see that Stalin or Hitler were religious leaders whose followers were furthering the inevitable course of history with a little torture and murder and a splash of genocide as well, just as the inquisition furthered God's will, then I suspect distinctions are being made improperly and that the undefined term "religion" could stand some definition before the guns and Bibles come out and everyone gets all huffy and offended.
And while we're on that tired old subject. . . religion as a private conviction or intimation or hunch or hope is one thing. Religion with codes and laws and a heirarchy and buildings -- and with both hired and volunteer staff dedecated to steering people's thoughts and enforcing those laws and all of that is another. It doesn't do to treat grandma's private hope the same way as we treat the crusades or the murder of heretics. I don't think anyone gets off the hook by insisting that without an anthropomorphic and all powerful god, it's not a religion. Marx and even Hitler's historical imperitives are godlike and god enough and as far as I'm concerned all we need is a doctrine and a throne to place it upon for people to bow down and rise up do do evil in its name.
Magpie,
ReplyDeleteIsn't self identification as a Christian the definition of a Christian? I may agree with Jesus sometimes, but that doesn't mean I am one unless I accept him in a Christain way: as the savior of something I don't have. But of course the point is that if we were to question Mohammad Atta's Islamic credentials we would stress his self identification, accept it as sufficient and not pay much attention to the fact that his acts are condemned by Islam.
And don't you think that if this psycho had been a self identified atheist, the air would be filled with "ya see - atheists are the real evil ones?"
Edge,
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But you forgot to mention the Dinosaur Gods....
Capt.,
I agree with your basic point about the dangers of religious fanaticism as always, but -- ahem! -- I think you've just defined "religion" so broadly that practically anything would qualify. (In the broadest possible sense, it's perhaps something that "binds" or connects -- ligare -- one possible Latin root of the term religio, another being legere, read/choose.) Stalin and Hitler were surely not religionists by the ordinary, accepted definition that has been with us for a long time: organized belief in a deity of some sort. Communism in particular shouts its secularity and atheism from the rooftops. As for Hitler, he wasn't above using anything that would serve his wicked designs, no doubt, but basically the Nazis were the nastier sort of Machiavellians (not to be confused with Niccolo himself since the man was a Renaissance Humanist) masquerading as Germanic neo-pagans. I think the man was too cynical to believe in anything but power. My point isn't to undermine your view, but only to suggest that definitions must be narrow enough to make relevant distinctions possible. Religion is one reason why people kill one another, but there are others as well.
Magpie,
I don't mean to be rude, but what you're saying sounds a bit murky to me: isn't the the accused said to have called explicitly in his writings for a "Christian War"? That's about as clear as it gets, and I don't see how one ends up setting forth the idea that he is somehow an ultra-pseudo-libertarian militiaman, or anything of that sort. As with many nut cases, we've probably got a weird mixture of ideas all balled up into a dreadful, toxic quantity of hate, but there you have it: religious sentiments, however perverted and twisted so that good people can hardly credit them, seem to be part of that toxic mix.
Desmond Tutu once said,"One day we are going to wake up and discover we are family."
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for the world to wake up. I probably have a LONG wait...
All,
ReplyDeleteSheesh! Whenever the words ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ appear in the same sentence, tempers flair and we almost always end up marooned for the night at the Hotel Impasse. Perhaps the cephalopod should say a few words.
Understandably, we are all shocked and horrified by the massacre in Norway, and understandably, there will always be angry villagers brandishing pitchforks to slay the monster … and punish the mad scientist who created it.
When hot emotions demand condemnation and justice, let us apply the cool reason of Venn diagrams to religion and politics to avoid overbroad generalizations.
In several comments here, it has been rightly pointed out that the Venn diagram of religion contains subsets of saints and sinners, do-gooders and zealots, and every shade in between. Similarly, a Venn diagram of politics will contain subsets of statesmen and despots, do-gooders and demagogues, and every shade in between. Even a Venn diagram of the Republican Party will reveal subsets of political practice ranging from Abraham Lincoln to Joseph McCarthy (although I am willing to concede that the progression of the former into the later seems to be current evolutionary course of the GOP).
With respect to the intersection of religion and politics, we must still exercise caution. This intersection is likely to contain subsets that include the Reverend Martin Luther King and the far less revered Jerry Falwell. My point: Let us be extra cautious in how we brandish our categorical pitchforks.
If we are in search of a common thread that characterizes all monsters, again, we must be cautious. A Venn diagram of all monsters and murderers is likely to contain subsets of authoritarians, bigots, religious and/or political extremists, schizophrenics hearing voices in their heads, tyrants, and sociopaths. No easy and definitive answers here.
Nevertheless, we owe ourselves a heartfelt discussion of this painful subject, but we should keep these caveats in mind.
Captain, I hear far more about atheism from self-identified atheists than I do from self-identified Christians.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about religious beliefs, which by the way encompass far more than Christianity, this is about someone who has disconnected from society, declared himself outside of the boundaries that society imposes and in doing so has engaged in extreme violence for what he apparently believes is the greater good, in other words a sociopath. It is likely that whatever ideology he happened to embrace, he would have distorted to justify his warped perspective. I'm not defending Christianity; my point is that it is extremism coupled with deviant thinking that fosters this type of violence.
By the way, I've never seen a headline that touted anyone's atheism as a basis for a crime. Perhaps I've just missed it. Believe it or not, fundamentalists Christians are way too busy worrying about satanic rituals, abortions, gay marriage, and demonic possession to make atheists a priority. Oh yeah, there is also a great deal of sermonizing about hell fire. My parents converted to Catholicism and raised me and my siblings in the Church, but the majority of my family members are Baptists or Pentecostal Holiness,most are balanced but there is a family branch that speaks in tongues and definitely qualifies as fundamentalist. They don't worry about atheists. Quite frankly, I don't think that any of them can imagine that there are people who don't believe that there is a God.
Isn't self identification as a Christian the definition of a Christian?
No. Being a Christian has nothing to do with declaring that you are one. Anyone can declare herself to be anything, doesn't make it so. Perhaps that's the biggest misunderstanding of all. Christianity is about actions, not self declarations. Dr. King and Desmond Tutu are Christians. Their actions have been consistent with the fundamental themes of Christianity which has nothing to do with power, judgment, or trying to control others. Christianity is not superior to other beliefs, and modern day theologians fully acknowledge that, however, if you look to Falwell and his ilk for models of Christianity then you're going to find crap because that's all they pedal. It's the same as look as Al Qaeda as a model for Islam. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity and a myriad of other beliefs all share core teachings of the need to love one's neighbor and treat others as you would be treated, a good philosophy whether it stems from religious beliefs or personal ethics or the man in the moon.
Captain, you know that I'm quite fond of you, but come now, religion isn't an undefined term. Check it out. Stalin and Hitler weren't religious leaders; they were zealots in their beliefs but that doesn't make their beliefs a religion. Is every leader of genocide and mayhem a religious leader? You throw out these broad generalizations and insist that they are facts; they are not; they are opinions, your opinions.
Correction: It's the same as looking at Al Qaeda as a model for Islam.
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg
ReplyDelete“And don't you think that if this psycho had been a self identified atheist, the air would be filled with "ya see - atheists are the real evil ones?" “
Absolutely correct. That’s sort of my point, which apparently I haven’t stated very well.
As soon as we get into what religion he is... everything gets obfuscated.
I do not give a toss what religion he is. He could have as easily been an Odin worshipper. What matters is he is FAR RIGHT, not all of whom are religious.
I have just come from a neocon site where a commenter insists that the Norwegian police are not telling the truth and that this scumbag is in fact a liberal, a progressive, an Islamist... what have you...ANYTHING other than right wing extremist even though he ticks every box in the definition of the latter.
Further if there was but the faintest suggestion that this guy had even had been associated with a socialist group FOX would yabber about it ad infinitum.
Bloggingdino
“isn't the accused said to have called explicitly in his writings for a "Christian War" “
Yes he did. I hadn’t come across that detail at time of writing.
But again that’s all clothes on a wolf, and that wolf is pure prejudice.
Much like the far right in America and elsewhere calling themselves “patriots”.
Magpie,
ReplyDeleteYes, understood. There are always people who bandy about religious affiliations so broadly that it doesn't mean much, as in, "We must uphold Judeo-Christian civilization against 'others'!" They might as well add the eminently British, "and all that sort of thing, you know" after the word "civilization." I don't know where the accused might belong on that spectrum, from deadly earnest to absurd fig-leaf generality. We can say with certainty that at the bottom of any act of violent extremism has to be a radioactive core of prejudice, ignorance, and hate.
As for defining Christianity or any religion, that's an interesting question, which Sheria has brought up as well. I suppose you could look at it from the perspective of a believer, so that there would be at least a few basic "musts" without which a person wouldn't qualify. I.e., if a person doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah, it's pretty hard to see how that individual could possibly be "Christian."
But there's also the broad, sociological way of defining a group as consisting of a whole spectrum of attitudes and practices: in that sense, religions and their set of beliefs/practices may change over long periods of time and across geographic areas, so that one would have to account for a very broad spectrum, perhaps including "believers" whose belief isn't necessarily or mainly invested in the original/mainstream core convictions of the religion to which they say they adhere. In that sense, it's possible that "fringe" Islam, and "fringe" Christianity, for example, are still in a non-trivial sense related to or part of Islamic religion or Christian religion and tradition.
We have an interesting example of this uncomfortable difficulty of definition here in the United States. Certain "out-there" mostly ultra-Protestant strains (and some extreme conservatives within Catholicism, too) have become very powerful and have influenced a great number of Americans; they've affected the public discourse on education, women's rights, and politics generally. Millions of Americans seem quite sheepish even admitting to any hint of belief in evolution, for instance, which is ridiculous given that it's been considered solid science ever since 1859, when Darwin published The Origin of Species. But tens of millions here in the States outright reject not only Darwin but, by implication, the scientific method. We could say that these ultra-ignoramuses aren't "genuine Christians," but that would be to discount their organized, vociferously exerted power over our culture. They surely think of themselves as Christian – in fact they probably think everybody else fails the Christianity test miserably and is going straight to hell – and one has to reckon with their influence, especially when their fringy notions go mainstream and even threaten to become hegemonic.
Magpie;
ReplyDelete"As soon as we get into what religion he is... everything gets obfuscated."
You noticed? and here we go again with people defending religion again when it's not under attack -- again. Why did I mention his professed religion? Once again: when Muslims denounce bin Laden as not being Muslim we scoff. When people assert that Christians can be terrorists, despite massive historical proof to the contrary, we say "well, they're not Christians." Were that true, I'd be able to count up all the world's Christians on the fingers of one elbow.
I'm talking about hypocrisy, not about the merits of one religion over another or of religion in general.
Don't you think Muslims are smiling at our trying to disassociate our Judeo/Christian culture from violence while we won't let them disassociate their religion from violence? Don't you know they're smirking about how we're so obsessed with Islamic terrorism that we ignore the home grown variety?
I'll try to make it even more clear: any religion can,is and will be co-opted for foul purposes because people are what they are: apes trying to sanctify their instincts. Nasty, selfish hate-filled things looking for justification and absolution - and power and dominion. And here people are agreeing with me once again while think they're refuting me. Islamic terrorism isn't about Islam, it's about Muslims. Christian terrorism: Jewish terrorism, Hindu terrorism -- it's about apes with weapons and scriptures.
If anyone wants to continue to take issue with that, or continue to defend what's not under attack, perhaps they can do it without my further participation because they're not arguing with me but with someone else and I've got enough words in my mouth without anyone needing to add more.
Dino:
"organized belief in a deity of some sort."
I've long been frustrated at the inability of Western commentators to understand non-western religions and it all seems to stem from the need to make such assertions as though our Western Customs were carved into the fabric of the universe. They're not. We're just in the habit of making dichotomies which cause dilemmas which don't actually exist. Man/God good/evil God/devil Soul/Body matter/spirit particle/wave -- these distinctions, these dualities may not exist and for millions, they don't. For me, they don't.
I would consider deity dependence a feature of primitive religion, but that's just my Zen showing. Were gods necessary, Buddhism wouldn't be a religion nor would Secular Humanism, yet both are recognized as such by the public and for what it's worth, the US government as well.
I'm not so easily dissuaded from thinking that extreme devotion to a principle or to a hero who embodies that principle, or even to insipred scriptures is religious enough of a thing to invite comparison and to sometimes be used to sanctify the deeds of humans. It's OK to imprision landowners because the prophets of Communism say so and it's OK to persecute witches and Jews and heretics because the prophets say so - what's the difference?
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteIf I accept Jesus as the Christ and as my personal savior, am I not a christian by the lights of most other people even though the Pope or the Metropolitan may say I'm not? Am I saved by good works or not saved by good works? Depends on your Christian denomination. There is no universal judge of who is or is not Christian, no consistant criteria and we've had two thousand years of vicious, bloody fighting over that question. It's not a question that can be answered without asking God and somehow everyone who asks gets a different answer.
But this isn't a theology blog or a Defense of Religion Society. I'm attacking mankind as hypocritical and nasty and tribal and you missed my point by a mile. Let me write it once again, and large: the same words I wrote above -- It's too bad that Muslims who are horrified by terrorism aren't given the benefit of the same rationale. That's what I said. We've all been weighed, counted and judged.
As to the status of disbelief in America: I've heard racists assert that there is no more racial bias and that people who say there is, are just making excuses. We both know that's not true, but maybe it's easier as an atheist to see the huge prejudice against the godless. It's been a long time since we've had a president say one can't be a citizen if one is black or Chinese, but not that long since that's been said about non believers. People still blame us for bad weather. I still can't hold office in some states, would never be hired as a teacher and I know I'd have been fired from certain companies or at least squeezed out for having expressed such doubts as I have. People won't trust you, won't accept that you know right from wrong or have a sense of morality and that's a fact.
I just bought a pair of polarized sunglasses. I can see clearly now.
ReplyDeleteHmm - sunglasses. Horizontally or vertically polarized -- or maybe bipolarized like the 3D movie glasses? Does one get mood swings with those? I wear Ray Bans myself - never trust anyonw who wears Dolce & Gabbana. They're not like us and they're out to steal our precious bodily fluids.
ReplyDeleteDino:
"They surely think of themselves as Christian – in fact they probably think everybody else fails the Christianity test miserably and is going straight to hell – and one has to reckon with their influence "
And sometimes with their bombs and guns. For what it's worth, and as you know, there are analgous groups of Jews and of course Muslims.
Appropos (I think) of what I said above, Ed Brayton writes on Dispatches From The Culture Wars http://bit.ly/ruZFhc :
"Ideology has consequences and when you build your ideology on the notion that you are in a battle to the death with the forces of evil, you justify all sorts of extreme behavior in order to win that battle."
Whicn to me, ties together that apparently disparate family of things political/religious/economic/cultural/ideological which, like the forces of nature, look different at low temperatures but when taken to their extremes, start to look pretty much alike.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteThere's no need to lump me in with eponymous "commentators." Especially since I am 40 feet long, I probably wouldn't fit in. Yes, of course, not every single "religion" involves belief in a deity ir deities. Most do, but not all. I myself am a saurischean polytheist.... We have our own Olympian-style Pantheon, you know.
I think it's important to maintain distinctions: if you define religion broadly enough, being a really devoted Yankee fan amounts to a religion. (Probably a satanic one, if you like the Mets.) I think that kind of definition quickly becomes worthless. Yes, when people are passionate enough about practically anything, they're at risk of denigrating or even killing others over it, but I wouldn't necessarily call them "religious." I'd call them deluded and unbalanced and leave it at that. Human beings are basically hostile, competitive and violent -- I'm with Freud there, it's just part of their makeup, and it's why even initially good impulses so often end up being perverted to evil ends.
I lump thee not, sirrah. I'm not big enough to play in the Jurassic league anyway, but I've been reading western writers on Eastern religions for 50 years and few seem to be able to discuss it without letting the tired old terminology get in the way; making it all seem like a great pegboard where you just plug in Buddha and the Boddhisattvas and Arhats and Nirvana and you get something just like we're used to with our God(s) and saints and heaven -- and isn't enlightenment just like salvation and don't you go to Nirvana when you die? It's possible to define it too narrowly and I think most of us do. Tom Paine said his church was his own mind. I think there's something to that, the inherent solipsism of faith maybe, but it pains me to go on like this.
ReplyDeleteYet the Buddha didn't think such things as gods were worth talking about and Buddhism is still a religion withal.
Some old guy with a name like Wittgenstein said that if a lion could talk, we still wouldn't understand it. Perhaps there's more to that than is dreamt of by Dr. Doolittle.
"but I wouldn't necessarily call them "religious." I'd call them deluded and unbalanced and leave it at that"
Hmm, is there a hook in that bait? I've already had lunch you see and . . .
Hence from the straw where Bedlam's prophet
nods
He hears loud oracles and talks with Gods.
And sometimes makes bombs?
Sports fandom isn't a way to evaluate right or wrong, to achieve eternal life or extinction of the self or to escape the wrath of some petulant, paternal and patronizing deity -- or to explain nature or history or the meaning of life or to further a historical imperitive. Most importantly, it has no priests and such prophets as it does have talk more about the odds and point spreads than rules about sex.
I think we can distinguish between a jihadist or crusader and a sports hooligan without much of a strain, but since I've been saying much the same thing as the other detractors of mankind, whose busts adorn the shelf above my door -- quoth the Captain, Nevermore.
I'm not going to argue about what religion is because I don't care for or about it any more than old Buddha did and because it's too amorphous and too specific to the individuals involved. A sloppy, solipsistic soup.
I'm only here to say that anything that arouses human passion can arouse too much human passion and of the wrong sort.
I'm here to talk about about what hippocrits Americans are for thinking our most popular family of religions can't be used as the Devil's battle flag, just like al Qaeda does. War or Football, isn't it all the war of all against all? asks the Hobbster.
Bad as he is, the Devil may be abus'd
Be falsely charg'd, and causelessly accus'd
When Men unwilling to be blamed alone,
Shift off those crimes on him
Which are their own.
Way to go, DaFoe.
Trust me when I say I don't want another déja vu experience. But things seem to get really heated up here on the Zone at the intersection of the state and religion. But not so much at the intersection of the state and the corporation. I think maybe we're chasing the wrong rabbit (and the rabbit may be set out as bait by the very ones with the most to gain...). Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteEdge,
ReplyDeleteAn astute observation proven time and time again. Whenever the Republicans are losing their axe, they dredge up scary bogeymen from the bottom of the sewer to rile the village idiots (please pardon my mixed metaphors), i.e. a different hate-de-jour fit for every occasion. Hells bells, they are so skilled at it, they even get us squabbling amongst ourselves. This we must avoid at all cost.
and BTW, did I forget to mention that the Rethuglicans do this just to create a diversion!
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and no kidding; they are really good at this sewer-dredging gig. I'm pretty sure they're fomenting a mass psychosis, either consciously or unwittingly that will not end well... What should concern us here is how we might reach out to those valuable 20% to 30% of swing voters who really need to wise up before they—and we—lose it all.
ReplyDeleteCaptain,
ReplyDeleteIn the next post above this, I was remiss. There were numerous comments in the referenced CNN article expressing an anti-atheist bias. Why i chose not to include them? I can only attribute this omission to a mental block. It is as if I have spent so much of my writing life railing against anti-Semitiism, I didn't want to be persecuted again for my atheism. I have become soooo private in this belief, I keep most of it to myself. Generally I live life as as a passive-avoidant cephalopod who avoids conflict .... unless, of course, there is a wingnut to kick around.
Edge and Octo,
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that rhetoric about "heatedness" is unnecessary. I haven't seen much anger in the current discussion. Wouldn't worry about it.
Too true, Dino. Though some heat is OK; we all seem to enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteCaptain, I don't generalize about Muslims and I don't believe that every radical lunatic who declares that he or she is acting in the name of Allah represents Islam. It's not your problems with religion that disturb me; it's your sweeping generalizations. I certainly have my moments when I'm weary of humankind but I still believe that we have as much potential for good as we do for evil. I haven't given up on us. We destroy but we also create great beauty.
ReplyDeleteI really am surprised that you've encountered so much anti-atheist feelings. Maybe its a bible belt thing, but the focus of fundamentalists in my neck of the woods is warning that sinners are going to burn in hell and a fixation on the possibility of demonic possession. When I was a teacher, I had friends who were also teachers and atheists. We also had a couple of Buddhists, some Mormons, Hindu, and a Catholic nun on our faculty. No one was asked about belief or non-belief when they were hired. I don't doubt your differing experiences; it's just that they are totally alien to me.
It seems to me that your concern isn't about being an atheist but frustration that everyone doesn't share your perspective. You tend to sweepingly assign all the ills of the world to those who believe in a God, a spirit, a force outside of the self. If your point is that there is hypocrisy in religions, then I have no argument. There is. Humans are good at being hypocrites. Of course Christianity can be and has been used to justify horrific acts. The folks who bomb abortion clinics are just as much terrorists as any Al Qaeda suicide bomber. That's a non-argument for thinking people. Guess what, most people that I know who are religious are just as intelligent as the folks that I know who are atheists. But everyone who is religious or spiritual or whatever one calls it, is not dangerous and bound on forcing all who don't believe to believe. The noisy voices that are always shouting their religious beliefs from the roof tops are a minority. The people that I know who are trying to make a positive contribution to the world don't take direction from such voices. They run soup kitchens, work in nonprofit legal offices, are teachers, do volunteer work in the community and see it as their duty to make the world a better place. They're not all believers; some of them are agnostics and some are atheists. There's no singular reason why people engage in service to others. The world is a scary place but we can choose to create our own little oasis of light.
"It seems to me that your concern isn't about being an atheist but frustration that everyone doesn't share your perspective."
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't. My concerns are clear to anyone who will read them. I do feel frustrated at seeing the same tendencies in Liberals as I see in conservatives when it comes to defending ideas deemed sacred to the cause. I think we're as likely to go on advocating things that don't work as they are, but that's for another day, if there is one.
My concern, as expressed in my apparently still unread post, is that nice people refuse to see the same cancer growing in their tribe that they see in other tribes. You know, Muslims and Jews run soup kitchens and actually give more to charity than Christians do on the average. This secular humanist has given far more than most, yet the average American sees Islam as synonymous with terrorism and Christianity as synonymous with charity, good works and civilization itself. Did you fail to see that in my post? Should I have put "tribalism" in flashing neon lights? Should I have to swear that when I address religious tribalism, (perhaps I should have called it Chauvinism) when I admonish the religious right for it's pride and intolerance and dishonesty I'm not trying to burn your pastor or Sunday School teacher at the stake or crucify Jesus all over again?
Nominal Christians blow up buildings, as do People who call themselves Muslims or Jews or Hindus - yet I'm yelled at when I point out the hypocrisy in the way we associate Muslims with terrorism while Muslims answer "but we're nice people who give to charity and condemn violence." Isn't my 'concern' obvious here? What's anti-Christian or anti-religious about asking for humility while the Tea Party is holding a circus of Christian chauvinism just like that Norwegian nutjob?
All that lengthy encomium to religious people is unneccesary and superfluous and distracting and inapposite, I'm talking about religious "tribalism" -- it's so often hand in hand with National tribalism, racial tribalism -- the kind of thing that prompts someone to kill other people he finds are diluting the ethnic/religious 'purity' of the country he thinks is desireable. I'll be damned if I know why you object to this.
Yes, nearly all Christians are good people but not all good people are Christians. Isn't that true? No one has a patent on goodness or charity or human kindness. I can't imagine anyone seeing that as an attack on anything but proud hypocrisy - and yet. . .
and yet I'm actually advocating a more humanistic religion, whether theistic or not, that includes everyone, that recognizes everyone's basic inalienable humanity and worth without reference to race, religion or political affiliation or nationality, and if you don't think that was the large part of Jesus' message, then you don't know him like I do.
Would he fit in with a spectrum of Americans, from the Aryan Brotherhood to the Tea Party, trying to promote our intentionally secular Republic as a "Christian nation" and perhaps an exclusively Christian nation? Yes, he would and that should scare the hell out of all of us.
I ask again.
How long can we go on pretending that religious tribalism of any denomination hasn't been and doesn't remain a potentially destructive, oppressive and communicable human vice? I didn't say the "only" vice, now did I?
I ask again: where is the attack on anyone's freedom or religion? and yet I have this long farrago of accusations -- I get accusations of blaming all evil on religion and calling all evil religion and I have to hear that my own religion isn't a religion because I don't believe in gods. Let's try to be slightly fair, OK?
There is no hope for any of you, unless ye testify to the omniscience and omnipotence of The Dinosaur Gods Who Dwell in Perpetual Ease upon Mount Gondwana. You can take it to the bank (if there are any banks after the GOP gets through with us). That's all I'm going to say.
ReplyDeleteCaptain, it is you who don't listen. I said nothing about Christians being incapable of evil nor did I assign doing charitable works only to Christians nor only to people with some type of religious belief. You go around i circles insisting that the problem is that " is that nice people refuse to see the same cancer growing in their tribe that they see in other tribes."
ReplyDeleteThat's pure crap when it comes to everything that I've said. You are so busy looking for imagined attacks on you for being an atheist that you totally ignore my very clearly stated agreement that any belief system, religious or otherwise may be used to perpetrate violence and harm against others. I don't generally quote my own comments but, "If your point is that there is hypocrisy in religions, then I have no argument. There is. Humans are good at being hypocrites. Of course Christianity can be and has been used to justify horrific acts. The folks who bomb abortion clinics are just as much terrorists as any Al Qaeda suicide bomber." Now what part of that passage is a defense of Christianity?
You state the obvious as if it were a revelation. Religious beliefs, including Christianity are used by some as tools of violence and oppression. Thinking people recognize that.
The term religious as I used it is inclusive of every faith. I specifically included atheists and agnostics or if you prefer, secular humanist. I never once suggested that only Christianity motivated people to act in the best interests of others.
Humankind's propensity for violence, for destruction predates many organized religions, including Christianity, which is a relative newcomer in the pantheon of organized religions. Remember that entire peaceful era known as B.C.E., when neither Islam nor Christianity existed? Neither does anyone else because it wasn't all peaceful and rosy. The human capacity for violence, anger, and destruction came long before Islam and Christianity; the two religions that have the most believers worldwide are also the newest. Islam was born in 610 CE and Christianity started around 30 CE.
Hinduism and Judaism precede Islam and Christianity. If we're not specifically talking organized religion, the oldest from of worship is Paganism Mother Earth worship dates back to Paleolithic times (about 30,000 years ago).
No, my point isn't that Christianity or Islam is superior to these older belief systems. My point is that it's sort of like the chicken and the egg. Humankind's vices existed long before some religions; are the religions the source of our destructive and violent impulses or just the reflection of those impulses? Nasty behavior didn't start with religions so I find your logic flawed as to the role that religion plays as a catalyst for the foibles of human nature.
Humans will find a way to covet, destroy, and put individual needs above the good of the many. However, we also create art and music, we write poetry, we sometimes make order out of chaos. Of course, we also invent weapons that kill the people but leave the building standing. We are neither good nor evil; we're simply human. We screw up badly; we're hypocritical; and we can really be damn mean.
Tell you what, read what I actually write and stop insisting on specious arguments over points on which we don't even disagree.
If we agree than why call it specious?
ReplyDeleteI'm as confused at that as I am with this comment as a whole. Seriously, I was not writing about religion in Norway or the US or anywhere. I was writing about intolerance for multiculturism, intolerance for Muslims being as nasty as what the intolerant accuse Muslims of being.
This shouldn't be controversial and since I wrote it, I've read dozens of learned articles saying the same damned thing, nor have I had any similar criticism in other places it was posted.
For what it's worth, some estimates put Atheists in Norway at over 70%. That's not an uncommon figure in Europe or the Far East. Sweden is higher. It's hard to tell in the US because most won't admit it except in private. Where I live, it's worse than admitting you're not a Republican and as I've mentioned, people say AMEN when making the pledge of allegiance here. We've talked before about laws in some states excluding atheists from office. Imagine getting away with that with any other group! You're welcome to think I'm exaggerating, but you'd be wrong. Just look at how people with grade school education go after Stephen Hawking because he mentioned that we don't necessarily need a god to explain existence. Only in America.
But why are you making an issue of my beliefs when I'm not making an issue of yours and I never have done?
My reason for mentioning that the shooter was part of Norway's Religious Right is that such gropus, even if they don't actively do violence, attract and perhaps incite such people and European countries recognize this and have criminalized much of the rhetoric we have to endure. I can understand it, even if I'm of two minds about it.
Is it fair to mention that abortion clinic bombers are usually Christian Fundamentalists? It's certainly not an unfair generalization since I didn't and would not would ever say that all Christian conservatives weren't mostly good people, yet I get the impression that's what a couple of people read in my post.
Maybe there's some other generalization hidden here, but I don't think so. I think it's a misreading and I think I can support anything I've said with sufficient evidence and I stand by my dislike of intolerance, religious or secular.
And plese stop insinuating that I'm somehow sorry for myself if America doesn't much like atheists. I have no sane reason to be sorry for myself even on a bad day. The only think I'm sorry about is that I've somehow offended you.
Capt., the crux of your position in the post was:
ReplyDelete"How long can we go on pretending that religious tribalism of any denomination hasn't been and doesn't remain a potentially destructive, oppressive and communicable human vice?"
That clearly states the view that religious tribalism is a vice.
This gets pretty cloudy without some definitive guidelines. Is atheism a form of belief? Are all religions tribal? Is tribalism a vice? Are atheists tribal? Are lone gunmen the product of tribes?
We may actually be talking about sociology here, not religion vs. secularism. Sociology can apply equally to church, state, corporate and mass behaviour.
The question is, how do we moderate our propensity toward violence? Both religion and the state have offered the moral and legal structure and the ritualization of behaviour to counter at least some of these tendencies.
It's the deformation and deflection of morality and legality that seem to be the issue, not the manner of belief. In my opinion.
So I would disagree that tribalism, in of itself, is a vice. Though I will grant you that anything related to human behaviour has that potential. Including this forum.
The only think I'm sorry about is that I've somehow offended you.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't, not now and not ever in the past. I'm a debater as are you. I elaborate on my point of view and I expect no less from others. Please do not worry that I take personal offense from the hones expression of contrary views. I'm a bit of a snob; I don't waste my time engaging in spirited discussions with people whom I don't perceive as having the ability to think on a level beyond a 2-year-old.
In other words, Captain, I enjoy debates with you because you are a worthy opponent.However, I'd still be interested in going out for a drink when we're done. I do appreciate your sensitivity for my feelings but please be assured that you have never offended me, just stirred up my brain cells. I hope that I have not offended you as that has never been my intent. I like sparring intellectually with you. I enjoy the diversity of voices here at the Zone. I regret that there are times when my work schedule makes it impossible for me to participate in discussion at the Zone.
Btw, hate to tell you this, but I agree with Edge's points about tribalism.
Thanks for the reassurance. Yes, Edge makes sense, but it should be recognized than nothing I've said here is unique to me an dmuch has been written, both about the sad history of organized religions and what they have in common that leads to aggression, isolation and other factors which in small groups we call a cult.
ReplyDeleteI think we have to realize that it's a very touchy subject too and many of my attempts to discuss things that to me, are the coundations of all human endeavor are met with passionate opposition all out of proportion, in my opinion, to largely dispassionate attampts to talk about, for instance, how we know things; how we separate conjecture from certainty, how we address ideas that feel right or feel good but aren't true and related things. I sense a reflexive defense of religion that's emotionally based and which sees more in any challenge than is there.
The idea of secular religion isn't new to me and it's been defended at greater length by people whose names appear in encyclopedias than I would attempt or would care to spend the time doing and so perhaps what I say can be taken as poorly thought out and even specious generalities, but it isn't. It's just constrained by the requirements of the venue.
I was amused by watching Bill Maher the other night, making the same points to applause that I offered here -- and to some deluded Republicans of obviously limited mental capacity who asserted that atheists were intrinsically killers and that 20 million died under Mao because he was an atheist, not because his own dogmas and credos about economics were wrong. Arguments like this can't be ignored and arguments like this are made by people who defend the idea that Christian theology is not only superior but shoule be normative for all people, Christain and otherwise - people like Breivik who wrote a long maniffesto asserting his Christain motivations and linking himself to the crusaders.
And all the while, Fox, the defender of all sorts of hollow certainties, insists that Muslims are inherently terrorists even if anly a tiny fraction do such things.
It needs to be talked about. It needs to be shouted about. Perhaps I should get a TV show?
Agreed, Capt., to all. TV show? Absolutely. You already have fans. You hit the nail on the head about atheism and Mao of course. It's the dogma and credos which cause the problems...our habit of creating one-size-fits all systems based on beliefs.
ReplyDelete