| Religious differences |
[Nov. 2nd, 2009|08:28 pm] |
Need all religions be lumped together in order to save the concept of the usefulness of religion? It seems that both the detractors of religion (Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins) and the defenders (Chris Hedges for example) seem to analyze religion as a cohesive set of ideas. We hear this all the time: "all religions are essentially the same." Either "all religions are essentially violent," or "all religions are essentially peaceful." Now, I've only read one Dawkins book and viewed plenty of youtube debates and interviews with the others, so I won't discuss the ideas of these specific theorists, but rather this idea in general. (After all, the idea is so common place in society that it need not be tied to any one, or group of, writers.) Are all religions essentially the same?
Hedges, I believe, likes to distinguish fundamentalism from true religious faith, and in doing so places atheism in the category of fundamentalism, being as harmfully dogmatic as religious fundamentalism. I believe he also argues that religious extremism stems from tribalism, and that people are drawn to violence through alienation and despair, rather than religious teaching. And in arguing this, he is saying that true religious belief is essentially peaceful, whether it is Christian, Islamic, or Jewish. (From what I can recall he does make a distinction between monotheistic religion and polytheism...but I won't get into that here.)
Writers like Harris, on the other hand, believe that all religions are essentially violent. And it is true, there are passages of great violence in the sacred texts of most of the world's major religions. Then, he goes on to argue (as is common in many current atheist arguments) that the violence perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin and even Kim Jung-Il, although atheist in flavour, was essentially religious. It's kind of a circular argument. It has to be religious, because it was violent, and religion is violent. (I realize I'm over-simplifying here.)
And then, of course, you get the old reply: "Well, any religion can be used for good or evil." Right, good one. Very original. Of course, there is some truth in that, but I'm still tired of hearing it....
I find it a little strange to see that so much of this debate surrounds the concept of violence. Since when are so many people pacifists? I don't think they truly are. I come from a religious heritage that has taught pacifism since it's inception (Mennonite), but our pacifist beliefs have always got us in serious trouble. They were never mainstream, nor do I think they are now. So, I think it's a little insincere of people to criticize religion as being violent, when they themselves are not truly pacifists. You can have all sorts of justifications for violence, and unless you're a pacifist, I think you're not too credible when engaging in a debate that uses violence as evidence of the validity or non-validity of a religious belief.
Still, the question remains: are all religions the same in some way? I've heard arguments on this topic from a variety of perspectives, and I think Hedges makes a good point about tribalism and despair being the essential motivator of violence, rather than religion. He, too, points out the violence in the sacred texts of all three of the major monotheistic religions. What no one seems to address, however, is the essential difference between Christianity and Islam - and that is found in their founders. Jesus and Muhammed. The violence in the sacred texts is more or less a saw-off. The violence in the history of these religions also cancels out. They all have violent texts and violent histories. However, texts are always interpreted in a variety of ways and historic events cannot always be said to accurately represent a particular religion, even if the acts are done specifically in the name of religion. The only thing we have left to compare is the founder of the religion.
While it's true that Jesus did not intend to start a new religion, nevertheless, it would be illogical to suggest that the essential distinctive of Chrsitianity is not the person of Jesus Christ. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Just as a Muslim's creed is "There is no God but God and Muhammed is his prophet." For the purposes of this discussion, we can't compare history, and we can't compare texts, for the reason I've already stated, but you can compare these two people. Which one was violent? Which one was peaceful? I would like a defender of Islam as a peaceful religion to address this issue. So, far I haven't found a sufficient answer. Muhammed used violence, and Jesus did not. No one can really deny this. Nor, do I think, is it really possible to deny the significance of this.
The role of faith in an individual's life may be essentially universal, but some religious leaders were violent and others were not. Thus the religions they found will be either violent or not. Thankfully, people transcend the negative role-models of their teachers and leaders. Thankfully we can transcend the dogmatism of Dawkins and Harris, the violence of Muhammed, the racism of Martin Luther, etc. etc. We can transcend these things and still find meaning in the aspects of these individuals that we admire.
But they're not all the same.
|
|
|