PUTTING GOD OR ALLAH IN THEIR PLACE

I like to think that anything that makes people think is important. With that in mind, perhaps the most important event of recent time happened on TV when Nicholas Kristof, Michael Steele, Ben Affleck, Bill Maher, and Sam Harris debated the issue of our time last Friday night on, Real Time. Although not stated as such, the central issue under discussion was the influence of religion on all of society; not just Islam; it is not just Christianity; it is not just Abrahamic religions, but all spirituality, which has two aspects; 1). Why do we, at least some, seem compelled to believe in an undefined spirit the way we do, and 2). What is the impact of that belief on our lives? Of course, why we believe in a fanciful spirit is irrational and relates to the innate mind of man, to the point where those who believe feel it is a necessity if life. I have pointed out in several other posts on this blog site that there is a scientific basis related to survival of the fittest; much like a feeling or sense, such as the sense of thirst, to explain this apparent “need” while adamantly disavowing any belief in a fanciful anthropomorphized spirit.     

The impact of Islam on society was the subject of many discussions on TV, radio, and print media for the obvious reason that ISIS or ISIL is headline news. After all, religious induced strife is the reason we are fighting in Iraq and Syria. Of course, we are not ignorant of the fact—as ludicrous as it is—that religions that preach kindness and goodwill and demand that all human beings believe unerringly that human life is sacred have been at the heart of unrest since the beginning of written history. The “dust up” on the Maher’s Real Time show was the first time I can remember when people of note openly and emotionally debated this subject on national TV and discussed it in its raw reality. I like to think of it as putting “God” or “Allah” in his place. If you think saying this is blasphemous, then you are the one who should read this.  

In a simplistic sense, this debate, in a muted form, has been around for a long time. In society, it has reached a point where there seems to be two factions. The first is that Islam is evil and should be eliminated—kill them all rhetoric that is running rampant in the media but is never heard in polite conversation. The second is that there is a sub-faction of radical Muslims who should be eliminated, but the majority of Muslims are not radical which is the position taken by many liberals including me. The obvious and rational question if what percentage of Muslims who are radical and what percentage of Muslims are not, which was the point being discussed when the Maher debate got out of hand.

Subsequent to the Maher “dust up”, talking head Lawrence O’Donnell invited author Sam Harris to elaborate on his views on his show, The Last Word (MSNBC). Sam Harris was the intellectual focus of the debate available because he was on a tour to sell his hew book, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion (2014). Harris is the focal point of descent because of his long held views on religion and that reputation was evident in the debate under discussion here. I have not read this book of his but intend to do that soon because I find his title provocative and especially after hearing him discuss his views on Real Time.

He apparently believes the percentage of Muslims who are pure evil, as epitomized by the beheadings depicted in gruesome films distributed by ISIS, is much larger than most liberals but falls short of 100% the right wing believes. Those of us on the left believe there are Muslims who are pure evil but do not believe it is any where near a majority as the right wing believe. Harris cited polls from numerous Muslim countries, a black and white reading of that data, a thing Harris is prone to do to bolster his arguments, would suggest a very large percentage of Muslims would support ISIS radicalism. I would dispute that interpretation. Still, his contention is worthy of note. As things are unfolding in Iraq and Syria, the news of ISIL expanding ranks even in the face of massive atrocities would seem to support his interpretation. Massive killing and beheadings, etc should cause people to turn away and not joining the ranks of those doing the killing. Clearly, to cower in fear thus refuse to fight against terrorism verses joining those doing the killing is two different things.

Human nature is such that people often say one thing but actually would do something else, especially when it comes to matters in religion. In fact, what people say about religion has little meaning. They are more apt to lie then tell the truth. What they actually do has more meaning but what they actually believe is something else entirely. Almost all politicians in the United States, for example, claim to believe in God. If they were to declare, they were non-Christians or even atheists they believe they would not be elected and this is true, especially true in the South—the Bible belt. Carry this thought over to the radical right-wingers who openly declare they want to kill all Muslims with impunity; maybe one in ten-thousand might but that number probably would be greatly over stretching it. Among those who would not go as far as killing Muslims, how many would ban burkas, a way of taking the issue from a criminal act to a social expression. Consider farther, how many would not approve of wearing burkas but say nothing. Finely, consider how many it would not even be a matter of concern.

Sam Harris’s point seems to be that among Islamist, most of them say they would partake in stoning to death adulterers or killing people who leave Islam, and believe in honor killing of their own-raped daughters, or beating women who show their faces in public, etc. I encounter the same logic when I look at Catholics who believe abortion is murder—killing with malice—as opposed to taking a “sacred” life as the reason they oppose abortion verses, to those who think it is a quality of life issue, to those who just shrug at the idea. Thus, my counter to Sam Harris argument is there is many, many more Islamist who believes in violent religious practices then would actually partake in them. Among those, there are many, many who have what we in the west would call more moderate human values, which is the evident in the enigma of Arab Spring movement in countries where the people are screaming, “Death to Americans”.

Lawrence O’Donnell, much to his credit, brought up the idea of learning of human values in religion or maturation of religious beliefs. This seems to be a process just like human maturation; we all go through total dependency of childhood to adolescents and into adulthood. Religious followers seem willing to follow the thousand-year old nefarious beliefs of church leaders taught to the church leaders following 2,000-year old scriptures to a point but then the people themselves decide that they have a mind of their own that is they mature as a population. It is just plain irrational to kill someone for not believing to “your church” or not to realize “heaven” and “hell” are nothing but made up childish level reward and punishments for obediently following what church leaders taught you. On the average, Christians are not yet fully mature but are now much more mature then Muslims are. The hope is that Muslims are maturing rapidly. They cannot see that anymore than Christian can see that they are not yet fully mature.

What this all means, and the reason I think the Maher debate is so important, is it is the heart of the lesson to be learned; we must teach those in the Muslim world that there is real merit to maturing. I am not talking about converting them to Christianity, which would be insane. Of course, they will have to mature within the strictures of their own religion. Everyday life, especially in a bloody war zone teaches them that as well. It is a gradual process. However, it is like any educational endeavor, it goes much faster and better with a good teacher and an example to follow. In addition, for the sake of peace in the Middle East it has to be faster than it is taking Christianity to mature. Certainly, all I am doing is repeating to the Christian world Maya Angelou’s wisdom; “If you learn teach” but I think it is especially important in the context of religious wars.         

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated