Religious fanaticism is dangerous precisely because it blinds us to the obvious. It makes the ignorance of an O'Donnell or Bush or Palin forgivable in the eyes of the true believers who, once they are in power, seem to have a dangerous propensity to promote a faith-based foreign policy. The effects of such a policy are lethal.
It's ironic that Jesus was the ultimate pacifist. He even told his followers to put away their weapons when the Romans came to arrest him; he apparently didn't even believe in violence in self-defense which is a more extreme pacifism than I would personally advocate.
So how is it that so many of his believers say Jesus told them to start various and sundry wars throughout the ages? I think they are lying or delusional or both but the point is that overtly religious people can justify the most horrific atrocities in the name of religion which is why it is so divisive and dangerous when it enters the public arena. As Voltaire said, convince people to believe absurdities and you can get them to commit atrocities.
Bush told Chirac (and Chirac told the world) that Bush told him Jesus told him to invade Iraq. Many of Bush's public pronouncements implied or overtly stated that he was acting on behalf of God (a much more self-confident position than Lincoln, who reminded his audiences that the South prayed to the same god and they could not both be right and that this awareness should humble them, not embolden them). He arrogantly answered a debate question about how exactly Jesus provided political and philosophical guidance (a fair question since many people who claim the same thing interpret that guidance in radically different ways) by stating basically if you weren't a member of the Jesus club, you could never understand. This is unacceptable in a democracy; we have a right to know who he was really talking to because it is unlikely an omniscient deity would have told him to seize weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, all at such horrific loss of innocent life.
There are several examples of prominent Army commanders appearing at churches in uniform stating that their god was bigger and badder than "their" god (implying that the Allah of the Islamic faith was different than the Yahweh of the Bible, something many Muslims might take issue with). An American Arms manufacturer inscribed religious sayings (all Christian) on American armaments shipped to Iraq. Evangelical "end-of-times" Christians reflexively support Israel and the war in Iraq (which I still refer to in present tense because a draw down of combat troops does not a war end) because it might usher in the rebuilding and destruction of the Temple and hence the rapture. The United States Air Force Academy had its evangelical Christian scandal. The West's support of Israel, starting before the state was created, is rooted in religious prejudice; Balfour admitted that the declaration bearing his name granting rights to 5% of Palestine that was Jewish at the time (1917) that were not granted to the 95% who were not was based in the fact that as a Protestant he felt a kinship to Jews he did not feel to Muslims. The religious justification of the illegal settlement activity in the West Bank could not be more obvious; a single line in Genesis has been responsible for so much misery. Although Zionism (which began here in Switzerland (in Basel) in the late 19th Century) started as a secular movement led by assimilated European Jews, it has recently become much more overtly religious, and the changing demographics of Israel (with secular Jews having far fewer children on average than the conservative and orthodox) are changing the political landscape.
One can argue for or against the invasion of Iraq or for or against support of the Israeli right wing, but when religion and admitted religious bias is used as a justification for these policies we should find that frightening. Good things have not followed from faith-based foreign or domestic policies in the past. I do not believe there is any empirical evidence that repeatedly stating that you are a believer and everyone else an infidel endows you with any unique understanding of the world. There is plenty of evidence such religiosity may inhibit your understanding of the world since if you believe a deity will guide your hand, you don't need to prepare as hard or at all, do you? if someone will whisper the answers in your ear come test time, you need not read the book or study. And if you're convinced that god chooses goodies and baddies at conception, that some he hates, others he has chosen, most he will punish forever, then you don't have to worry about all those infidels downrange, do you?
I do think Bush's confidence that his morning prayers endowed him with a certain wisdom made him less likely to read such profane, earthly things such as his Presidential Daily Briefs in August, 2001, warning of a likely al Qaeda attempt to hijack airplanes. There is no evidence he actually read these intelligence reports, prepared at great taxpayer expense, and certainly none that he responded to them. The FAA was never put on high alert or even told of the contents, nor were any of the airlines. None of the pilots on 9-11 had that knowledge. The only hijacked plane that was aware of information that Bush could have disseminated was not successfully turned into a cruise missile, most likely as a result of that information.
Afghanistan is admittedly more complicated, but were it not for the religious fervor that created the Taliban, and their decision (based again on religion) to admit and harbor Arab fundamentalists including Osama bin Laden, we would not have troops on the ground there. After all, the Taliban did not attack us on 9-11, al Qaeda did, so the moral justification of our presence in Afghanistan, although infinitely greater than in Iraq, is indirect. Were we truly at war with al Qaeda (which I believe we are) then we should be in Pakistan, but that country is still blocking the flow of supplies into Afghanistan because of outrage over our violation of their sovereignty and our killing of some Pakistani soldiers. At any rate, I don't think invading and occupying countries is a particularly effective means of fighting terrorism (although it is a wonderful strategy for encouraging it, or creating it in the first place - 100% of suicide bombing campaigns are launched in response to military occupation).
You don't fight religious fundamentalism with religious fundamentalism or intolerance with intolerance (well, you can try, and the last decade has shown the results). I think you have to stand up to the religious bullies everywhere and if you don't do it in your own ranks, you will never have moral credibility when pointing the finger in other cultures. But morality aside, religious fanaticism does not work. You can't use prayer beads to find weapons of mass destruction anymore than you can use a divining rod to find water or patterns in the stars to predict the stock market. The fact that many people fervently believe such things does not make them true.
Religious fundamentalism led to the deaths of thousands in lower Manhattan 9 years ago and hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. The people who founded our country would not have been surprised at the lethal consequences of so much unchecked religious fervor which is why they tried to protect us from it by separating it from government. Too bad Christine O'Donnell didn't take the time to read the documents Madison, Jefferson, and Adams worked so hard to hammer out.
So how is it that so many of his believers say Jesus told them to start various and sundry wars throughout the ages? I think they are lying or delusional or both but the point is that overtly religious people can justify the most horrific atrocities in the name of religion which is why it is so divisive and dangerous when it enters the public arena. As Voltaire said, convince people to believe absurdities and you can get them to commit atrocities.
Bush told Chirac (and Chirac told the world) that Bush told him Jesus told him to invade Iraq. Many of Bush's public pronouncements implied or overtly stated that he was acting on behalf of God (a much more self-confident position than Lincoln, who reminded his audiences that the South prayed to the same god and they could not both be right and that this awareness should humble them, not embolden them). He arrogantly answered a debate question about how exactly Jesus provided political and philosophical guidance (a fair question since many people who claim the same thing interpret that guidance in radically different ways) by stating basically if you weren't a member of the Jesus club, you could never understand. This is unacceptable in a democracy; we have a right to know who he was really talking to because it is unlikely an omniscient deity would have told him to seize weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, all at such horrific loss of innocent life.
There are several examples of prominent Army commanders appearing at churches in uniform stating that their god was bigger and badder than "their" god (implying that the Allah of the Islamic faith was different than the Yahweh of the Bible, something many Muslims might take issue with). An American Arms manufacturer inscribed religious sayings (all Christian) on American armaments shipped to Iraq. Evangelical "end-of-times" Christians reflexively support Israel and the war in Iraq (which I still refer to in present tense because a draw down of combat troops does not a war end) because it might usher in the rebuilding and destruction of the Temple and hence the rapture. The United States Air Force Academy had its evangelical Christian scandal. The West's support of Israel, starting before the state was created, is rooted in religious prejudice; Balfour admitted that the declaration bearing his name granting rights to 5% of Palestine that was Jewish at the time (1917) that were not granted to the 95% who were not was based in the fact that as a Protestant he felt a kinship to Jews he did not feel to Muslims. The religious justification of the illegal settlement activity in the West Bank could not be more obvious; a single line in Genesis has been responsible for so much misery. Although Zionism (which began here in Switzerland (in Basel) in the late 19th Century) started as a secular movement led by assimilated European Jews, it has recently become much more overtly religious, and the changing demographics of Israel (with secular Jews having far fewer children on average than the conservative and orthodox) are changing the political landscape.
One can argue for or against the invasion of Iraq or for or against support of the Israeli right wing, but when religion and admitted religious bias is used as a justification for these policies we should find that frightening. Good things have not followed from faith-based foreign or domestic policies in the past. I do not believe there is any empirical evidence that repeatedly stating that you are a believer and everyone else an infidel endows you with any unique understanding of the world. There is plenty of evidence such religiosity may inhibit your understanding of the world since if you believe a deity will guide your hand, you don't need to prepare as hard or at all, do you? if someone will whisper the answers in your ear come test time, you need not read the book or study. And if you're convinced that god chooses goodies and baddies at conception, that some he hates, others he has chosen, most he will punish forever, then you don't have to worry about all those infidels downrange, do you?
I do think Bush's confidence that his morning prayers endowed him with a certain wisdom made him less likely to read such profane, earthly things such as his Presidential Daily Briefs in August, 2001, warning of a likely al Qaeda attempt to hijack airplanes. There is no evidence he actually read these intelligence reports, prepared at great taxpayer expense, and certainly none that he responded to them. The FAA was never put on high alert or even told of the contents, nor were any of the airlines. None of the pilots on 9-11 had that knowledge. The only hijacked plane that was aware of information that Bush could have disseminated was not successfully turned into a cruise missile, most likely as a result of that information.
Afghanistan is admittedly more complicated, but were it not for the religious fervor that created the Taliban, and their decision (based again on religion) to admit and harbor Arab fundamentalists including Osama bin Laden, we would not have troops on the ground there. After all, the Taliban did not attack us on 9-11, al Qaeda did, so the moral justification of our presence in Afghanistan, although infinitely greater than in Iraq, is indirect. Were we truly at war with al Qaeda (which I believe we are) then we should be in Pakistan, but that country is still blocking the flow of supplies into Afghanistan because of outrage over our violation of their sovereignty and our killing of some Pakistani soldiers. At any rate, I don't think invading and occupying countries is a particularly effective means of fighting terrorism (although it is a wonderful strategy for encouraging it, or creating it in the first place - 100% of suicide bombing campaigns are launched in response to military occupation).
You don't fight religious fundamentalism with religious fundamentalism or intolerance with intolerance (well, you can try, and the last decade has shown the results). I think you have to stand up to the religious bullies everywhere and if you don't do it in your own ranks, you will never have moral credibility when pointing the finger in other cultures. But morality aside, religious fanaticism does not work. You can't use prayer beads to find weapons of mass destruction anymore than you can use a divining rod to find water or patterns in the stars to predict the stock market. The fact that many people fervently believe such things does not make them true.
Religious fundamentalism led to the deaths of thousands in lower Manhattan 9 years ago and hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. The people who founded our country would not have been surprised at the lethal consequences of so much unchecked religious fervor which is why they tried to protect us from it by separating it from government. Too bad Christine O'Donnell didn't take the time to read the documents Madison, Jefferson, and Adams worked so hard to hammer out.
No comments:
Post a Comment