Since this blog has gone unused for a bit, I thought that I’d start it up will a little pot-stirring...
The cover story in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy promises “21 Solutions to Save the World.” The issues covered by their assembled group of experts ranges from access to life-saving drugs for the developing world to gender equality and global warming.
One topic that I found especially interesting was the problem of religious extremism addressed by R. Scott Appleby, the director of the Joan B Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and professor of history at Notre Dame. He claims that “too many of today’s threats are rooted in religion. We need an alliance that can separate good from evil.” The “alliance” of which he speaks is a Muslim-Catholic “religious offensive that doesn’t give offense.”
He claims that these religions are not “inevitable obstructionists to progress” and that “those who insist so are trapped in their own tired stereotypes.”
I beg to differ.
Let’s consider the cases of the United States and Iran. The United States and Iran are led by men whose religious beliefs have an obvious affect their respective foreign policy agendas. I believe that, especially in the case of these two men, their religions have, indeed, been at the very least an obstruction to progress. I will go even further and say that these two men personify the very worst that their religions have to offer, thereby making those of us governed by them “trapped” not by our stereotypes, but by the literal interpretation of their dogmatic religions.
George Bush has withheld funding from the U.N. because it doesn’t promote abstinence in Africa, lent his ear to “my family-values” evangelicals regarding environmental policies, national defense and foreign policy, education reform, judicial and cabinet appointments, and nearly every other significant decision made during his administration. The shoot-from-the-hips style for which he has come to be known and will surely be remembered is but a symptom of the black-and-white world in which he pretends to live. (Orthodox religions are chock-full of black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us principles.)
My goal here is to make a point and initiate a conversation, not to beleaguer or obscure my point, so I’ll make the point as briefly as I can and stop.
Though people certainly do immeasurable amounts of good on behalf of their religious beliefs and obligations, political leaders, by and large, do not. If we continue to live in a world where our political leaders are able to act unopposed on behalf of their religions, we may not have much of a world left before long.
Though I rarely use “Turkey” and “progressive” in the same sentence, I must say that I quite impressed by the hundreds of thousands of people who protested the recent nomination of an Islamic moderate for president. They prize their secular state nearly as much as Israel and the thousands protesting today appreciate their religious one.
So, back to my point, I believe that nothing short of an absolute absence of religion from politics and policy will bring about the kind of rational decision-making that is desperately needed both domestically and internationally. A Catholic-Muslim alliance would do nothing but obscure an already complicated problem. Obviously my preference is just as utopian as an effective Catholic-Muslim alliance would likely be, but a boy can dream can’t he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
What about leaders like MLK Jr. and Jimmy Carter? Certainly their faith influenced their actions and policies and most would probably agree that it did so in a beneficial way. Although religious extremism often leads to diminished social progress and some pretty heinous government policies, I would argue that these leaders are not so much influenced by religion, but by power. Although religious rhetoric may be invoked to gain support from the masses, it's really the leaders desire for power which motivates their actions.
While MLK Jr. certainly had an effect on the political discussion, and was no doubt encouraged and motivated by his religious convictions, he did not depend upon those religious principles for legitimacy. The "bad check" that he referred to in his "I Have a Dream Speech" was not one written by God, nor was it to be cashed by Him. He was referring to the Declaration of Independence. He didn't need a religion to legitimize his grievances. He could plainly point out that the ruling/wealthy class was not living up to its part of the social contract, and he was calling out to them to come through for the sake of their fellow man, not because God said so.
I think that any important moral decision required of a leader can be made in just the same way. Just as any man or woman should be capable and compelled to do "good" without the prodding or suggestion of a religion, so should a politician or any other leader.
And, yes. Jimmy Carter made some principled decisions while in office. And he continues to do good among the world's poor and disenfranchised. But he certainly could have (and I think he would have) made those decisions without his faith.
I don't see politicians' preference of power over religion as an argument for keeping religion around as part of political discussions. If a religious system can be used to create (to a great extent) unshakable allegiance to a candidate, that seems like cause for a barrage of red flags. If a candidate is given a relative blank check in foreign policy and most domestic policy decisions, so long as he is anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-environment, and laces his or her speeches with references to “(my) family values,” religion has overstepped its bounds.
I know that evidence of religion-gone-bad within politics doesn’t necessarily mean that it is religion’s fault. Obviously many religious men and women make very well thought out decisions regarding their political views every day. And many leaders, regardless of their religious persuasion, make bad, selfish, and immoral decisions every day. I just believe that, especially when it comes to high political office, religion tends to perpetuate the making and legitimization of bad decisions more often than it encourages good ones.
I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. In fact, religion can be the driving force for peace and positive change in this world. On a micro level, the second part of the great commandment (which most of the major religions adhere to in some form) insists that we love our neighbor. This love goes beyond natural law or a person’s inclination to do “good”. Love requires us to transcend our own selfishness and to move towards serving the other. This love even means forgiving the one that has wronged us. In my view, the individual is not naturally inclined to do this. Instead it’s because of the individual’s relationship with god that he/she can then express this type of love to the other.
On a macro level, the great commandment requires that we care for all of humanity. Whether it is war, poverty, racism or any of the other many of injustices that plague our world, this commandment insists that we strive to eliminate these things. The Quakers are probably best known for their efforts in the area of peace and justice. Without their activities, along with other religious groups, much of the progress that has been made in the last century might not have occurred. These individuals do not simply reside in the “religious” sector of society, but are an active and integral part of our leadership. There is, of course, a shadow side of religion; one that many leaders pervert for their own self-fulfillment. But because some have misused religion for personal gain, this is not reason enough for the divorce of religion from politics. Instead, I believe it is the individual’s spirituality that can begin to bridge our fractured society.
While I am still not convinced that one must practice a religion to live a moral or ethical life, I am a bit insulted at the premise that not only religion but a "relationship with god" is required to express truly unselfish love. There is no true love in mostly atheistic Europe or Buddhist Asia? This is certainly a tangential argument, however, since no-one achieves high political office through acts of selflessness, love, or forgiveness. These are all great traits to have as an individual, and we should all strive to posses them in greater quantities. But they are not, and perhaps cannot be, the most primary traits among today's leading politicians. The "shadow side of religion" to which you refer is most likely the only version that we are likely to see an abundance of in government.
While the origin of the "great commandment" of which you write is perhaps debatable, I believe that basic human morality predates religion.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20611FE3C540C738EDDAA0894DF404482
While religions do codify basic morality and often add a tinge of guilt to help ensure their adherence, religions certainly do not provide a perfect moral code by which to live, much less govern.
The Bible is decidedly unfair to women, slaves, and the "unsaved," and Islam's similar moral deficiencies are tragically documented. Therefore, not only do I believe morality to exist separate from religion, I believe that it exists BETTER separate from religion.
As for the good deeds done on behalf of religion in the last century, that is perhaps a slippery slope one which one must tread carefully. Given atrocities in Afghanistan, Bosnia, the Ivory Coast, Iraq, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia, Kashmir, Kosovo, Tibet, Sudan, etc..., no amount of good deeds in the name of religion can make up for the millions of lives lost and displaced in its name.
What we need is not a triumph of personal spirituality, but a triumph of basic morality and mutual respect for one another. Obviously the conflicting ideas and animosity brought about by religion are not, on the whole, acting as a force for good.
It seems these waters are determined to be muddied, as is often the case when individuals try and critique any institution (religions of various types, economic systems, politics), generalizations and pointed remarks shed blindingly bright light on whatever the "problems" are and short dismissive comments underestimate the points that don't bolster one's critique. Where does this moral and ethical ideal outside of religion come from? Certainly all of the major faiths have incorporated similar ideas of being "good" to one another and yet people inside them and outside them fall short of these moral and ethical strivings. i cannot read the nytimes link (without giving my credit card #) in reference to this, you say:
" I believe that basic human morality predates religion."
That basic human morality existed prior to any sort of belief in supernatural beings or powers is quite a claim. i assume that this could go back to a discussion of evolution; and one would be hard pressed to say that truly self-sacrificing love existed in the situation of survival-of-the-fittest. Sure, individuals may have given themselves over to die to save another, but that other shared some genetic material or was directly responsible for passing those genes on.
You say:
" Just as any man or woman should be capable and compelled to do "good" without the prodding or suggestion of a religion"
How does one attain this morality, this compulsion to do "good"?
It is too easy to make attacks on religions using George Bush, Ahmadinejad, and other high level politicians as your models. They are not models. Sure many look up to them, probably many because of some similar religious positions; but certainly not all. i understand your point is to look at these realms and their interactions. It would be quite nice and scientific to be able to separate them and have a control group: politicians (government, etc.) with this moral/ethical ideal but with no religion. But this is an observational study. Trying to say that the government should do good things because it is moral and ethically right, is like saying the capitalist world should stop exploiting people and take care of them, put people before profits. You and i both know that this is not going to happen. Is it because God and religion has influenced the capitalists away from their intrinsic goodness (i would dare say quite the opposite). No, it is because they want to make money. And i think this is the primary motivation for government and politicians in general.
i appreciate your recognition of "utopia" and i was once labeled as striving for such things. Ultimately, i still hold on to those same hopes. But to only critique a system, to complain that they only want "(my) family values," when it seems you just want "(your) family values" does not lead to constructing this better world.
Also, it should also be a red flag when you get "insulted" by someone else expressing their opinion as vehemently as you; while you hurl knowingly inflammatory statements left and right.
i have certainly not gotten to everything, but i really want some specifics on where this "intrinsic" morality comes from.
Sean, thank you for the well-thought-out reply. This is precisely what I had in mind when I started this blog. I hope to hold up my end of the bargain with an equally challenging response.
First of all, the use of the word "insulting" was used very much tongue-in-cheek. I was by no means insulted. In fact, for this blog to be worth the amount of time and energy that we are likely to spend here, we must be able to put our beliefs on the table and allow them to be examined and critiqued thoroughly, without the threat of anything being taken or getting personal.
With that said....
While I don't believe that a personal relationship with God is required to show "truly self-sacrificing love," I think that there is a significant difference between this type of love and the "basic human morality" that I believe must have predated organized religion. Certainly, an argument for the evolutionary benefit of basic morality can be made. Exhibiting basic "tribal morality," i.e., choosing to act in the best interest of your tribe, community, nation, contributes to your own survival. Such tendencies were no doubt found invaluable in times of famine, warfare, etc, with those tribes not being united suffering as a result.
As a result, we are hard-wired to act in a way that we perceive to be beneficial, or at least not harmful, to ourselves or our "clan." While every religion and philosophy worth examining has expanded on, added to, and clarified our evolutionarily-endowed morality, I think that the most basic of framework has been with us for a long long while.
Your comment about the fairness of using government leaders as some sort of a control group is certianly valid. You're right, they are certainly not models, much less representatives. Obviously an immeasurable amount of good is done on behalf of the world's religions every day. I just get tired of all of the bad that is done daily by heads of state in the name of religion. Ultimately, at least in the United States, we are responsible for the leaders that we elect. And after we they are elected, we are responsible for holding them accountable. While is may be a bit rash to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," the constant reminder of our "religious" administration is more than a little exasperating given its considerably misplaced moral priorities.
As for the "(my) family values" vs "(your) family values" discussion, most "values voters" and politicians of the Dobson school promote a set of values that seem to fly in the face of a more logical approach to morality in which the overall benefit to the community is considered. By continuing to write "(my) family values" as I do, I meant to insinuate not a (my) vs (your) contradiction, but instead to correct the deliberate claim on the part of most users of the term "family values" that there is but one set of agreed-upon values by which a family ought live. Ultimately, I suppose that there really are two sets of opposing "family values" being discussed here. I would contend that since mine differ from those derived from a specific religious tradition and are therefore much more inclusive, and based on a more universal set of values, they would be much more appropriate to apply on a large scale.
When was there a time before organized religion? From the earliest of times people have always made some attempt to categorize or make sense of life and the world around them. There have always been gods, or some sort of supernatural being. If you look at cave paintings from 30-60 thousand years ago (if you believe the earth is that old) you see peoples prayers to some sort of spirit. If you look at the earliest city (for argument's sake we'll say Catal Huyuk) you will find that just about every third room was a temple devoted to their gods. The Sumerians created votive sculptures in perpetual prayer to their god, so they wouldn't have to focus on praying 24 hours a day to keep bad things from happening to them. There has always been a desire or impulse within humans to create or worship something larger than them. Some call this a "God Shaped Hole". There usually is also a consensus reached within a tribe, clan etc., as to what that god is.-Organization.(sometimes this consensus making has resulted in bloodshed) There have also been wars since the beginning of time about who's God is the best. But, while I agree that it would appear that things would be easier if we just tossed the whole concept of God. I believe we would be throwing the baby (in this case an omnipotent, clairvoyant baby that can shoot lazers out of it’s eyes and is not effected by the laws of gravity and linear time) out with the bathwater. There is no other force for good or for evil that can make people selflessly lay down their own lives for their beliefs as readily as they will for their religion. Governments can come and go. Charismatic leaders will rise and fall but God, whoever you believe that to be, and whoever he morphs into in the future, is eternal.
Paul, thank you too for the well-reasoned reply. It's good to have you in on the conversation. I apologize for the delay in my response. I hope that I haven't disrupted the flow that we had going.....
First of all, I think that there is a vast difference in the religions of various prehistoric tribes and the "organized" multi-billion dollar enterprises that now claim to represent the 3-4 billion people that adhere to some form of an Abrahamic religion. Unfortunately, your reference to "the God Shaped Hole" that results from humans' apparently innate desire to "worship something larger than them" points out precisely what these various manifestations of religions share - an attempt to use God to explain what we cannot, provide comfort in times when mere words cannot, or simplify everyday decisions.
Furthermore, by allowing for a future "morph" not only in the perception of God, but the identity of God, you seem to be more attached to the IDEA of God than to any God ("whoever you believe that to be") in particular. Given this, it's a bit troubling that you seem to consider religion's tendency to require "bloodshed" and the "[selfless] [laying] down" of its adherents' lives to be a positive attribute of "organized religion."
How can the adherents of two contradictory religions each give their lives for their respective religions and both be right IN THE REALM OF REALITY.
I emphasize that phrase, because yes, when it comes to religion, in an existential, spirit-of-tolerance-and-inclusiveness kind of way, everyone can be right without anyone being wrong. But when we are talking about ACTUAL REALITY, which major religions certainly do when their holy books claim to be definitive accounts of both history and the future, these religions' contradictions must be dealt with.
In reading the opinions expressed thus far, I was reminded of a theory I read several years ago as to why German Christians never opposed the holocaust. The main explanation proffered was that Hitler, in his implementation of “positive Christianity,” capitalized on the widely held belief of many Christians that the Jewish community was, and is, perpetually culpable for the death of Christ (Matt. 27.25). A mentality that was further propagated by Hitler’s support of the anti-Semitism of many passion plays, namely that of the village of Oberammergau. The earnest belief of many will always be exploited in order to lend credibility to the selfish, immoral ends of politicians and, in the case above, insane despots.
And while I agree in a separation of specific religion and government, “an absolute absence of religion from politics and policy” seems not only extreme, but virtually impossible considering that, for many, religion and morality are inextricably bound. Even the Deists responsible for the foundation of this country recognized the role of Providence and turned to religious tradition for the founding of many of the statutes by which we live. Long before that, as Paul noted in his response, the earliest communities and tribes recognized the existence of a Higher Power. This relationship between humanity and the Divine not only preexists our modern concepts of culture and civic order, I believe it is the impetus for it. Whether this “relationship” is manufactured by some subconscious need on our part to be one with Someone or Something greater than ourselves is irrelevant. Religion is as much about specific beliefs as it is an innate element of culture. And fortunately or not, it has informed and influenced the establishment of every culture in history. It is not something that can simply be removed from our nature. Though I am admittedly limited in my opinion of Mr. Appleby’s work and goals, I applaud any effort to establish communication between Islam and Catholicism. Whether or not any political ground is gained, it seems such a discussion would send a message to followers of each faith that communion is both necessary and possible.
Is it religion, specifically, which should not be appealed to in order to legitimise political decisions? Or is it that no moral system at all can serve as the basis for political decision-making? For there are moral systems outside of religion: Utilitarianism and Hedonism, for example (the first stating that the ‘right’ decision is that which will create the greatest good for the greatest number; the second, that the ‘right’ action is that which maximises pleasure). Such ethics may not be exhibited by political leaders to the extent that religion is (if at all), but they are nevertheless valid examples of moral systems outside of religion and must therefore be considered, albeit hypothetically. Personally, I think the problem is not just that political leaders can act ‘unopposed on behalf of their religions’, but that they can act unopposed on behalf of whichever moral system they adhere to – that is, the problem is that one person is able to exert too much personal influence over the political decision-making process. Would President Bush be able to withhold funding from the UN on religious grounds if he were instead operating under a European parliamentary form of government, for example? So, although I agree wholeheartedly that political decisions should not ‘depend on religious principles for legitimacy’, I think the fact that they are serves to illuminate a wider problem.
Also, just for fun, a great example of why religion and politics should not mix:
"Jerry Falwell died at the age of 73. Mr Falwell, a pastor and televangelist, was a co-founder of the Moral Majority, a powerful conservative force during the 1980s. He once said: 'The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the devil to keep Christians from running their own country'."
Post a Comment