[Mb-civic] Holy Terror Religion isn't the solution -- it's the problem

[Ian]

While I cannot argue with the basic gist of what Harris is trying to say, he
is hopelessly confused on some points, and intellectually dishonest (if not
outright self-contradictory) on others.

Firstly, he notes a number of Old Testament passages that speak to various
issues, and relates them to Bush et al as "Judeo-Christian teachings."
Although it may be that Bush et al use these and other Old Testament
passages to support their positions, they have little to do with
"Christianity," which is based on the New Testament - not ONE passage of
which suggests anything similar to what Harris is accusing "Judeo-Christian
teaching" of.  If Bush et al understood their own faith (and religion) - and
truly followed the "person" they purport to follow: Jesus - they would know
that falling back on the Old Testament to support un-Christian positions
is...well, un-Christian.

He then comments that the Bible was written "when people thought the world
was flat," and asks: "Are its teachings applicable to the challenges we now
face as a global civilization?"  If he means Old Testament teachings, I
would say (for the most part), no, they are not applicable.  However, if he
means New Testament - i.e., Christian - teachings, I would say, absolutely
yes.  The teachings of Jesus and the apostles and disciples are as
applicable now as they were then - ESPECIALLY if we want to have this
"global civilization" live together peaceably.  After all, if everyone truly
lived the nine primary virtues of Christ - love, peace, forgiveness,
humility, compassion, patience, charity, selflessness and service - then we
WOULD all be able to live together peaceably.  And note that this does NOT
require that everyone become Christian.  Yet I don't hear Mr. Harris
applauding TRUE Christian virtues, and what the result might be if we all
practiced them.

Mr. Harris is equally dishonest about the Qu'ran.  He seems to be claiming
that he has read it.  If so, he clearly didn't understand much of it.  I,
too, have read it (three times).  And I see a book that is not that
different from the Old Testament - i.e., the latter has as much, if not
more, violence and "God-directed" war and killing than does the Qu'ran.  Yet
no one would call the Old Testament a book of violence.  Over 80% of the
Qu'ran deals with peace, compassion, brotherhood, community and other noble
(some might even add "Christian") ideals.  Yes, there is talk of "infidels"
and "jihad," but even this is misunderstood by (and/or deliberately
misinterpreted by the government and pundits for) the West.  As used in the
Qu'ran, there are three definitions of "jihad."  The PRIMARY meaning - used
about 80% of the time - is "internal struggle"; i.e., the personal struggle
that each of us goes through in trying to attain (and practice) virtue, and
"relate" to Allah.  The secondary meaning - used about 10% of the time - is
"holy war."  (The third meaning is culturally obscure and has no bearing
here.) Yet even the phrase "holy war" has two interpretations: one is a
"spiritual" war, the other a "physical" war.  Thus, even though the
secondary use of the term "jihad" means a physical "holy war," you need only
do the math to find that this meaning is applicable less than 7% of the time
throughout the entire text.  Yes, the text contains passages and teachings
that can be - and obviously have been - "hijacked" to support the narrowest
view of Islam.  However, it is not simply unfair but intellectually
dishonest to argue that the Qu'ran "teaches violence," or that it is
ultimately any better or worse than the Old Testament.

Mr. Harris then notes that there are no "Christian," "Buddhist" or "Hindu"
suicide bombers, and says that the reason for this is the difference in the
texts underlying the various faiths.  Yet the very supposition of his entire
article, as noted in the title, is that ALL religion "isn't the solution,
it's the problem."  He can't have it both ways.  Indeed, being anti-faith is
hardly the way to further the discourse he seems to feel is missing.

He then talks about issues "that lie at the heart of the Christian social
agenda."  The issues enumerated may lie at the heart of the CONSERVATIVE
Christian social agenda - i.e., the so-called "Religious Right" - but that
"religious right" does not represent the majority of Christians in the U.S.
Mr. Harris might be surprised to find that the more important issues he
notes - nuclear proliferation, climate change et al - DO "lie at the heart
of" the LARGER Christian community's social agenda.  By making no
distinction between the "religious right" and those who do not support it (a
larger number) - i.e., by lumping ALL Christians into the same pot,
regardless of what they actually believe - he again does little to help
further any possible useful discourse.

It would be disingenuous to argue that religion has not been, and does not
continue to be, a "problem" (though it could be argued that it is not
religion per se, but the way in which religious leaders interpret it, and
develop followings for their interpretations).  However, in my book, the
bigger problem is people like Mr. Harris who see this issue in black and
white, with no shades of gray: i.e., generalizing "religion" (as well as
each individual faith) so broadly that there is no room for gradations or
differences in belief.  He does as much to maintain the "status quo" of the
"us versus them" mentality vis-a-vis "religion" and faith as do those he is
accusing of the same thing.

Peace.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Butler" <michael at michaelbutler.com>
To: "Civic" <mb-civic at islandlists.com>; "Governance"
<michael at michaelbutler.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 5:08 PM
Subject: [Mb-civic] Holy Terror Religion isn't the solution -- it's the
problem



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris15aug15.story

Holy Terror

Religion isn't the solution -- it's the problem
 By Sam Harris
 Sam Harris is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the
Future of Reason," published this month. He can be reached at
www.samharris.org

 August 15, 2004

 President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate have failed < for the
moment < to bring the Constitution into conformity with Judeo-Christian
teachings. But even if they had passed a bill calling for a constitutional
ban on gay marriage, that would have been only a beginning. Leviticus 20:13
and the New Testament book of Romans reveal that the God of the Bible
doesn't merely disapprove of homosexuality; he specifically says homosexuals
should be killed: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death."

 God also instructs us to murder people who work on the Sabbath, along with
adulterers and children who curse their parents. While they're at it,
members of Congress might want to reconsider the 13th Amendment, because it
turns out that God approves of slavery < unless a master beats his slave so
severely that he loses an eye or teeth, in which case Exodus 21 tells us he
must be freed.

 What should we conclude from all this? That whatever their import to people
of faith, ancient religious texts shouldn't form the basis of social policy
in the 21st century. The Bible was written at a time when people thought the
Earth was flat, when the wheelbarrow was high tech. Are its teachings
applicable to the challenges we now face as a global civilization?

 Consider the subject of stem-cell research. Many religious people, drawing
from what they've heard from the pulpit, believe that 3-day-old embryos <
which are microscopic collections of 150 cells the size of a pinhead < are
fully endowed with human souls and, therefore, must be protected as people.
But if we know anything at all about the neurology of sensory perception, we
know that there is no reason to believe that embryos at this stage of
development have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer or to experience
death in any way at all. (There are, for comparison's sake, 100,000 cells in
the brain of a fly.)

 These facts notwithstanding, our president and our leaders in Congress,
many of them citing religious teachings, have decided to put the rights of
undifferentiated cells before those of men and women suffering from spinal
cord injuries, full-body burns, diabetes and Parkinson's disease.

 Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over
the present. A social policy based on the Koran poses even greater dangers.
Koran 9:123 tells us it is the duty of every Muslim man to "make war on the
infidels who dwell around you." Osama bin Laden may be despicable, but it is
hard to argue that he isn't acting in accord with at least some of the
teachings of the Koran. It is true that most Muslims seem inclined to ignore
the Koran's solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the
fact that some are not so inclined and that some of them murder innocent
people for religious reasons.

 The phrase "the war on terrorism" is a dangerous euphemism that obscures
the true cause of our troubles, because we are currently at war with
precisely a vision of life presented to Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who
reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can
we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with "the friends
of Satan"? Why did 19 well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives for
the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed,
on the authority of the Koran, that they would go straight to paradise for
doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so easily
explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.

 Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in
every corner of our culture to criticize a person's religious beliefs.
Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most
pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real
and consequential differences between the major religious traditions is
simply never discussed.

 Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of
Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide
bombers. They too suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation.
Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The
Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs
of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese?
They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The
difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam versus those of Buddhism and
Christianity.

 There are now more people in our country who believe that the universe was
created in six solar days than there were in Europe in the 14th century. In
the eyes of most of the civilized world, the United States is now a rogue
power < imperialist, inarticulate and retrograde in its religiosity. Our
erstwhile allies are right not to trust our judgment. We elect leaders who
squander time and money on issues like gay marriage, Janet Jackson's
anatomy, Howard Stern's obscenities, marijuana use and a dozen other trifles
lying at the heart of the Christian social agenda, while potentially
catastrophic problems like nuclear proliferation and climate change go
unresolved.

 We elected a president who believes the jury is still out on evolution and
who rejects sound, scientific judgments on the environment, on medical
research, on family planning and on HIV/AIDS prevention in the developing
world. The consequence, as we saw in recent elections in Spain, is that
people who feel misled and entrapped by our dogmatic and peremptory approach
to foreign policy will be unable to recognize a common enemy, even when that
enemy massacres hundreds of people in their nation's capital.

 It is time we recognize that religious beliefs have consequences. As a man
believes, so he will act. Believe that you are a member of a chosen people,
awash in the salacious exports of an evil culture that is turning your
children away from God, believe that you will be rewarded with an eternity
of unimaginable delights by dealing death to these infidels < and flying a
plane into a building is only a matter of being asked to do it. Believe that
"life starts at the moment of conception" and you will happily stand in the
way of medical research that could alleviate the suffering of millions of
your fellow human beings. Believe that there is a God who sees and knows all
things, and yet remains so provincial a creature as to be scandalized by
certain sexual acts between consenting adults, and you will think it ethical
to punish people for engaging in private behavior that harms no one.

 Now that our elected leaders have grown entranced by pseudo-problems like
gay marriage, even while the genuine enemies of civilization hurl themselves
at our gates, perhaps it is time we subjected our religious beliefs to the
same standards of evidence we require in every other sphere of our lives.
Perhaps it is time for us to realize, at the dawn of this perilous century,
that we are paying too high a price to maintain the iconography of our
ignorance.


If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




 Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times


_______________________________________________
Mb-civic mailing list
Mb-civic at islandlists.com
http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic