In response to Bryan’s last post, I’m attempting to address the general question: “Is religion really a contributor to the ails of the world?” The implied answer, I’m taking to be “No— religion is benign and the real factors are things like poverty, envy, greed, lust for power, limited space, etc.—the cornucopia of inequity and cause-for-conflict in the world.
While these are all token contributors, religion—in countless cases throughout history—has provided the framework for war, and it continues to play a specified role.
With respect to current events, I might ask, “What is the root cause of what we are reluctant to call ‘Religious War’ in the middle-east, preferring euphemisms like ‘Sectarian Violence’ and ‘War On Terror.’” Surly those previously mentioned factors play a significant role in these disputes—and the root issues are confounded by rapid changes brought on by globalization—but the primary justification for bloodshed in the middle-east is inarguably faith-based.
Take the Iraq War for example. The opposition (as we have been forced to learn) finds cause for war in the founding doctrines of Islam, which are intrinsically at odds with any non-conforming value system, explicitly promoting hostility and violence—and martyrdom—in pursuit of its ends. (***While it's worth mentioning that the majority of Muslims are indeed tolerant, this is an unlikely bi-product of the lessons found in the Koran***)
Similarly, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a religious battle that happens to be a dispute over territory (substitute “holy land”).
George Bush too, confers God on matters of war.
Religion then, from all sides, is used as a core justification for war, and in this sense, any suggestion that either conflict is not so much about religion, but instead "land" or “terror” or “hatred of our way of life” is a dangerous way of skirting the obvious.
The issue, as I see it, is that we have a normative way of insulating religious claims from the necessary degrees of scrutiny that govern all other ideas, including those immeasurably less consequential. Ignoring the role religion plays in today's conflicts, is yet another way of shielding all faiths from accountability for their beliefs.
2 comments:
War is a very strange yet historically consistent symptom of religion. That has always struck me as odd. Even though all holy texts most familiar to us - The Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc. - involve violence and war, the overwhelming idea I get from most religions seems, at least on the surface, to be peace.
But a great deal of violent conflicts throughout history have also found their root in property, natural resources, and the fact that the other guys have more women to have sex with. And you'll by no means ever hear me talking trash on property, natural resources, or sex, so I'm not going to say these are bad things; rather I think we just find reasons to kill each other. For whatever reason, that seems to be the case. We like having stuff, and it pisses us off when other people have stuff. And we aboslutely go bonkers when other people have MORE stuff, or when they're stuff is in close proximity to our stuff.
If it's not religion, it's something else. Right now it's religion, but 60 years ago it was because someone was picking on our friends. And then roughly 40 years ago it was because we felt threatened by people sharing stuff. It's always going to be something, but religion triggers such a strong emotional response in people that it's easy to see how it could lead to conflict. And it's also a great way to rally the troops. I think wars that are more about economics than religion get pumped full of religious rhetoric so as to gain public support and convince people to fight in them.
This is even found in the Koran. When a Meccan army marches on Muhhamed's followers in what would become Medina, it was because Muhhamed's teachings undermined Mecca's economic structure, not because of any religious differences. And I think we shouldn't pick on Islam too much, there's some messed up stuff in all religious texts, it's just that we're used to the stuff in the bible. God hands swords to a group of people and says, "those guys made a little golden calf, go fuck 'em up!" And there's Sodom, Gommorah, Admah, and Zeboim, and a host of other stories that aren't all sugar and spice. The biggest difference I see is that Jesus was a pacifist and Muhhamed was a warrior, though a reluctant one at that. Anyway, I don't know where I'm going with that.
In fact, I've completely lost my train of thought. So there.
rian
Good points, Rian. It’s good to have perspective (your comments offer me perspective) and I make every effort not to come off domineering or intolerant.
However, I have to find a balance between tolerance and the caged-tiger of emotion that I have concerning the issue of religion. Being it such a sensitive topic, there are many things to be careful of, but I can’t be so careful that I don’t say what I feel.
Tolerance seems to stem from experience—experience of the full spectrum of factors contributing to an end category, or stereotype—and ideally, every individual representing a group could be judged circumstantially. But this is not possible, particularly in the case of a topic as broad and encompassing as religion, so there comes a point where a religion must be scrutinized as a whole (and not as a sum of it’s billion-odd parts). Hopefully, this is done with a healthy respect for tradition, taking into account contributions, but also weighing detriments.
In the current global climate, Muslims are being (as you said) ‘picked-on’ because the Islamic faith is at the root of a major source of turmoil in the world today. It is my opinion, though, that all religions should be picked-on equally—that is to say—subject to the same level of scrutiny as any other competing idea. But religion poses a unique challenge to those who oppose it, and as Thomas Jefferson put it, “Ridicule is the only weapon one can use against unintelligible positions.” (***This is where [in real-time] I began a tangent on ‘ridicule’ that quickly spun wildly off topic. Give me a few days to qualify that T.J. quote. I have some things to say about ridicule***) But really, what else can be done when, by way of reasoned argument, you cannot combat a bad or potentially dangerous idea?
I’ll conclude by saying that, yes, while I’d like to avoid picking on any one religion, it’s no wonder that Islam is a hot topic today, say, over Confucianism. And while we should be careful not to tread on the many well-intentioned people who happen to conform to any of the world’s faiths, we should not let our respect for their right to make that choice obstruct a fair assessment of their religion (on the whole), particularly when the consequences are deadly, day-after-day.
***
Additionally, I agree that, with regard to world conflict "if it's not religion, it's something else." It would be brainless to hold religion solely accountable for all the ill will and chaos in the world—however; it should be admitted freely that religion, in many cases, is used as a tool to promote the sort of violence that makes the history books, and in those cases, it acts as a sufficient means to that end.
Post a Comment