Dawkins Part 8: Are All Ideologies Bad

September 26, 2007 2 Comments

So… Dawkins has been going on and on about how religion has been so bad and that it should be abolished in favour of scientism, evolutionism or some other worldview of his liking. He suggests that a religious worldview leads to child abuse and human rights violations.

Dawkins argues:

“As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect for the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called ‘extremist’ faith. The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” (pg 306)

I find this extremely short sighted and dangerous. Isn’t it this kind of narrow-minded censorship that religious extremists have exhibited in their abusive theocratic rule throughout history? As I have mentioned numerous times during this series, I am in complete opposition to the extremist views that fanatical religious adherents try to push on other people, but I adamently oppose any sort of censorship or blanket persecution of a worldview or ideology just because a few twist that perspective for their means.

In fact, I’d like to suggest that in many instances, it hasn’t been religion that has been persecuting people, but instead, it has been the political ambitions of the religious leaders that has hijacked religion for their own needs. Throughout most of recorded history, the church provided the main religious AND political leadership throughout the developed world. This often led to a conflict of interest when it comes to following Jesus and satisfying the material needs of society. Consider these examples:

  • 313 CE: Augustine & the Political Realm – In the early 4th century, the Roman empire was being attacked from barbarian hordes from lands that surrounded the Roman empire. At this time, the population was becoming more and more Christian which was problematic as Christianity was a religion of peace up until this time. And, since the population was becoming more and more Christian, willing military conscripts were becoming fewer and fewer. This meant that in order for the Roman empire to survive, the military required Christian participants. At this time, Augustine (one of the early church fathers) developed a Christian justification for violence in order to support military participation. It has been suggested that Augustine was under extensive political pressure to develop this treatise.
  • 1095 CE: Pope Urban II & The Crusades – I’ve argued in the past that Pope Urban II abused his authority as Pope to kick off the Christian Crusades, which are one of the greatest blemishes on the face of Christianity, even today.
  • 2001 CE: Modern Day “Crusades” – This one’s kind of a no-brainer, but the US is currently involved in a political and economic war in the Middle East to secure oil rights and to advance economic interests in the area. George W. Bush kicked off this campaign against the “war on terror” with this rousing quote:

    “On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.”

    (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

    So far, the US has done a great job of creating their latest victim (who remembers the red menace of communism?): Islam. While vilifying this same enemy that the US used to be so chummy with (who remembers the assistance that the US provided to the Taliban in fighting against Russia in the 80s?), Bush has done a fantastic job of creating a “cover” under which to obtain carte blanche to stir up a hornets nest of resentment in the Middle East that is sure to last for at least the next generation. For more on this topic, check out this article: A Tragic Picture of Death

  • Economic Human Rights Abuses – For more on this topic, I’ll defer you to an internationally respected organization and their extensive catalogue of abuses: Amnesty International – Economic Globalization and Human Rights.

So yeah… if we apply Dawkins’ logic, we may as well disassemble our democratic state and our economic system in its entirety. In fact, I’d argue that religion has in some cases indrectly led to human rights abuses by a few, extremely influential yet extremely misguided individuals. The economic and political ideals that we as a modern society have adopted, on the other hand, provide a system whereby a few are allowed to prosper, while at the same time ignoring the plights of the majority who are underfed and under cared for.

Dawkins seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Religion has also been responsible for the majority of the world’s charity up until the 20th Century. And, these institutions (hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc.) were set up with the ideal goal of providing universal well being. Today’s capitalist health care system doesn’t seem to reflect those same ideals.

So where’s the problem here? Is it religion, or the abuses that its members have commited? In my opinion, we need to focus on oversight to ensure that the needs of everyone are met and that abuses don’t occur. And when abuses do occur, we should be proactive in removing the abuser(s) and correcting the situation. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do?

Next up: “Childhood abuse and brainwashing“

Filed under Thought Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Dawkins Part 6: The Problem With Fundamentalism

September 21, 2007 5 Comments

We’re all fundamentalists in some way. I find it quite contradictory that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the like criticize others for being fundamentalists when they themselves are so adament about their atheistic worldviews.

Dawkins spends a fair amount of time criticizing the extremist views of some religious people. He talks about Christians that kill abortion doctors. He talks about Muslims that kill people that have converted from Islam to Christianity (or other religions). And we’re all aware of the many “fundamentalist preachers” in the US and throughout the world that discriminate against homosexuality, women and other differences that they claim somehow make people unequal.

This is one area where I’ve gotta agree with Dawkins. I agree that fundamentalist views are problematic. They divide us. They split us into factions. These divisions work against all of us. There is no community spirit in division. That being said, we’re not all going to agree on everything. Human nature doesn’t make this possible. We all ahve different opinions. We all like different things. We don’t all like the same movies, the same food, the same music or the same books.

So, why does that mean that we all have to like the same worldview?

It doesn’t.

But, does that mean that we should impose our opinions on other people? I’d argue no, but then I’m bound to be called a fundamentalist by someone that disagrees with me. And there’s the rub… we’re all fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. Does this make us wrong? No. What is right and wrong when you’re debating ideas that have competing evidence? There’s a whole lot of grey in those discussions.

For a lot of years, I loved to live in the black and white of right and wrong. I didn’t function well with shades of grey. Structure and rules provide comfort and stability. But I eventually realized that each of us look at things through different sets of eyes. I see things as a middle aged white male living in a middle class neighbourhood after growing up in a blue collar family. There are plenty of other perspectives though. Factors that influence our perspectives include gender, cultural background, colour, age, education level, geographical location, etc. All of these things will impact our views, our values, our opinions and our prejudices (whether real or perceived).

Trying to view things as others see them is a worthwhile exercise, as it allows us to understand each other better. Give it a try. Juggle some of the factors that I mentioned above. Imagine how you’d perceive the following sitatuations:

  • Money if you are rich versus poor
  • Food if you are hungry versus well fed
  • Sex if you are loved versus abused
  • etc. – the list could go on and on

So my question here is: What makes religion any different? Why can’t we all have differing worldviews? What’s wrong with understanding and connecting with God in different ways?

The problem here, as Dawkins has so articulately put it, is that some people don’t allow for freedom of religion or of expression. Some people believe that it is their duty to convince others of their perspective, even to the point of persecuting them if they don’t agree. Thus, we are faced with the problems of extreme responses that I mentioned above.

My religion tells me:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

But surely, Jesus, saying these words, didn’t mean to forcefully convert people, did he? That would be contradictory to his earlier teachings on peace. Remember, Jesus also said:

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Matthew 22:37-39)

These two quotes are two of the “biggies” in Christianity. The first quote, Matt 28:19-20, is known as The Great Commission. The second, Matt 22:37-39, is known as The Greatest Commandment. Thus, these are primary verses for Christians to understand.

Some have had a difficult time interpreting these two and allowing them to coexist together. To some, the order to “go and make disciples” has been understood as an active, forceful directive in which coersion is to be applied to convert people. One of the greatest recorded abuses of this is by the Spanish and others that arrived in the New World only to massacre hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Native Americans. These massacres were at least partially justified through the directive to “convert or die”. Yet, this directly contradicts Jesus’ pacifist message of love, as highlighted in The Greatest Commandment.

This type of tension is present in numerous different worldviews. Religion isn’t the only place that this is present, but it is worrisome when it leads to extremism.

The media has reported numerous examples of religious extremism coming from the Muslim faith lately. As I look at the facts in the situations of suicide bombers and freedom fighters, I do understand some of the motivations behind their actions. Persecution and lack of options is high on the list of reasons for what pushes people to go to such extremes. But, when these people claim to be doing the work of the Lord by carrying out such acts, that doesn’t really jive with what others within their own faith believe. Further investigation tends to suggest that these extremists follow an extreme interpretation of their texts, in much the same way that Christian extremists distort and disregard the message that is provided in the New Testament of Christianity. Thus, there is some concern with the validity of their claims.

And really… do we really think that killing someone will make our point of view any more right? I argue no. If anything, it will distract anyone from listening to the original argument and will instead focus them on the violent action. If I need violence to defend my opinion, then I’d best re-examine my argument because it can’t be that strong of an argument if I can’t defend it by other means.

The key here is tolerance and confidence that we are following the right path for the right reason. No matter what factors play into our individual worldviews, I do believe (here goes the fundamentalist in me again!) that we are each, individually responsible for having a rational and well thought out worldview. Otherwise, why do we believe what we believe?

So yeah… I’m onside with Dawkins here. I agree that extremist views do exist and that violent coercion to convince others is the wrong way to go. If your argument isn’t convincing enough, then perhaps you need to reconsider your argument. And, if your argument doesn’t make sense, then why do you believe what you believe? And further, if you hold a religious worldview that involves Jesus or the Quran, which both preach love and peace, then why would you follow a violent path to represent that faith? Doesn’t it make you a hypocrite?

That’s my challenge for you today… take some time to examine what you really believe.

Next up: More moral discussion in “The Slippery Slope of Abortion“.

Filed under Thought Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

What are Christian Pacifists supposed to do?

August 2, 2007 Leave a Comment

Part four in my four part series entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”

The question then becomes: what are we supposed to do? Do we just continue to turn the other cheek? Definitely. Lead by example. If you claim that you are a disciple of Jesus, then you have to live the part. That means standing up for the principles of Christian living, as they are provided to us in the Bible.

I think we have to go further though. Others are speaking on our behalf in the public square. Christians are speaking up and saying that war is okay. Christians are speaking up and saying that violence is allowed if it’s in OUR best interests. It is our responsibility to speak up and correct these false assertions about Christianity. Ours is a religion of love and peace, not of war and domination.

We have so much potential. We live in a land of free speech. We have access to the internet. Blogging is so simple. Writing and publishing books has become a breeze. Organizations like MCC are just waiting to help us channel our energies into positive changes across the world, represented by the healing and loving hand of Jesus.

We need to embrace our gifts and take advantage of the opportunities available to us to make a difference, to represent our faith in a positive manner and to build a relationship of love and peace throughout the world.

Let me leave you with this thought as I wrap up:

Current U.S. expenditures in Iraq (according to Harper’s, Oct 2006):

  • $246 million each day, or more than $10 million an hour
  • direct costs. And those costs continue to grow:
    • $77.3 billion in 2004
    • $87.3 billion in 2005
    • $100.4 billion in fiscal year 2006
  • Estimated that staying in Iraq another four years will cost at least $1 trillion.

By comparison, Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2007 provided the following numbers required in Afghanistan:

  • Amount raised during a 2006 summit attended by approximately 60 countries with the stated goal of providing economic and military aid to reconstruction efforts: $11 Billion USD
  • Amount required, as per estimated provided by the World Bank and the Afghan government: $28 Billion USD.

Something is askew when priorities are that far out of whack. Imagine investing those war dollars into the local economies to make them self sufficient? I don’t know about you, but it sure seems like a better use of money than building bombs and bullets that will only further divide all of us.

Now, it’s important that you don’t just take my word for it. Research the things that we’ve talked about today. Make up your own mind. And if you disagree, I’d love to talk further with you. I have yet to be convinced that the peace position is wrong.

My hope is that we will be able to work together to raise awareness of the radical reformation that the global Christian church requires sooner rather than later.

Thank you and God bless each and every one of you.

Todd Dow

 

Filed under Thought Tagged with ,

The Modern Crusader ethic

August 1, 2007 2 Comments

Part three in my four part series entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”

2001 CE: Modern Day “Crusades”

Here’s a quote taken from late 2001, after the attacks of 9/11:

“On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.”

(http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

Did I hear that right? Did George Bush use the term “crusade”? Yup. I’ve confirmed this with various sources. He did use the term “crusade.” It seems that we’re right back where we were in 1095 with Pope Urban II and his Holy War. Advanced civilizations? I beg to differ when I see quotes like this one. It’s like we’ve learned nothing from history.

The problem with the Just War position is that it means different things to different people. One person may justify war in order to defend themselves, but that war is likely to harm other innocent people that were not the target of that justified response. And, both sides in a conflict believe that they are justified in what they are doing. Surely both sides can’t be the “Just” side in the confrontation, can they?

And, we need look no further than recent history to see the problem of “Just War”: remember the weapons of mass destruction? Well… so much for that justification.

So the question then becomes: Which justification is the right justification? The US claims to have the moral justification in current world conflicts. But, non-Western people don’t view it that way. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? How do we judge? And, in what ways should we judge? War is so permanent, irreversible, and cripplingly painful to experience. The damage caused by mistakes in judgment are extremely expensive and can rarely be reversed.

To put it into perspective for you, here’s something to consider:

A few days ago, I stumbled across a heartrending picture (see my blog post of this event) of an 18 month old Iraqi boy who had been killed after being fired upon by US forces during a street battle in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood in June 2004. The boy, lovingly dressed in his best clothes: a pair of red shorts, a colourful buttoned up short sleeve polo shirt and a pair of sandals, looked like he was dressed to go to church, a family picnic or maybe even to school. In any other setting, he would have been a bright image of sunshine on an otherwise dreary day in Iraq’s war-torn land. But instead, his family was preparing to lay him to rest. I can’t even begin to imagine the pain and frustration that family must have experienced that day, and for many days before and after. I’m sure it’s something that you could never recover from.

This picture really hit home for me, as I have a young boy myself. It really put into perspective for me how I would feel if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in such a manner. The picture has repeatedly left me numb, unable to move. I keep thinking of the grief that has been experienced by that family and countless others from the violence that exists in the world today, much of it senseless.

Perhaps most of all, this picture provides a very real jolt to those that feel removed or disconnected from a conflict occurring far away from our comforts of home.

While I would like to think that I would have the moral strength to turn the other cheek and to try for a peaceful resolution with those that I felt were responsible, I know that my initial response would be one of anger and seeking revenge. It’s tough not to feel that way with something as permanent as death, especially of the young and innocent among us.

Can anyone justify any action when it results in loss of life in this way? Does it matter when irreversible damage is being done? Loss of life, loss of hope, loss of civility and respect are all at play here. There is no easy answer.

Is violent response an appropriate way to honour God? Is violent response an appropriate witness as a Christian? I want to go back to an item that I mentioned at the beginning of this sermon: the image of the baptized soldier, heading off to war in Iraq. What does that image say to you? There are a few tings that I see in that image:

  1. First, the image says to the American soldier: your actions are okay according to God;
  2. Second, it says to the American’s family, watching helplessly at home: your son or daughter will be watched over by God and his or her soul will rest with God should things end badly for them in Iraq;
  3. Third, it says to the rest of the Western World: God is with us on the battlefield. We have God’s backing. Our troops are walking with God in this war;
  4. And Fourth, it says to the enemy: These soldiers are Christian soldiers, marching off to war.

For a secular society, the United States certainly did frame the “War on Terror” as a religiously supported crusade. Very dangerous indeed.

And don’t kid yourself. This reflects upon all Christians. Time magazine is a very popular magazine. It is read by a huge cross-section of people every day. Do you feel at all mis-represented by the media in this way? Do you feel that the mainstream media misses the mark when it comes to capturing the spirit of Jesus and his message of peace?

Coming up next: Part 4: What are we supposed to do?

Filed under Thought Tagged with ,

The Historical Context of Christian War

July 31, 2007 1 Comment

Part two in my four part series entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”

0 CE: The original message of Jesus

As I have already mentioned, Jesus presented his pacifist message quite clearly in the Sermon on the Mount. Additional support is provided in areas like:

Matthew 5:38 – turn the other cheek:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;”

Mark 12:30-31 – the greatest commandment:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Paul carries on this message of peace. He gets it. Consider today’s key verse:

Romans 12:17-21:

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Pro-war Christians point to other scripture verses to support their cause. They point to:

  1. Jesus overturning the tables in the temple in John 2:15;
  2. Jesus’ praise towards centurions and warriors (Matthew 8:10 and Acts 10:1); and
  3. Jesus’ and Paul’s respect for the governing authorities (Mark 12:17, Romans 13);

In all of these situations though, there is nothing to suggest support for war. Jesus is demonstrating his authority in driving out the moneychangers. It doesn’t say that he actually hurt anyone. As for praise towards centurions and governing authorities… well… Jesus also hung out with tax collectors and sinners. Does that mean that he condoned their actions either? And as for Romans 13… didn’t Paul end up in jail in the end for refusing to keep quiet with his gospel message? Hmmm…

313 CE: Augustine & the Political Realm

Augustine was an influential Christian. He lived in the 4th Century and he was the first influential Christian to codify the terms around justification for Christian violence.

During Augustine’s lifetime, the Roman Empire was facing extensive threats from the far reaches of the Empire. Barbarians were banging at the gates. Self-defense was required or the Empire would not survive. The Christian leadership required some wiggle room in order to protect the state and all of its inhabitants from violent ends.

As Jesus and Paul had not written specifically about these types of situations, Augustine took it upon himself to outline some times in which violence could be used. This writing was considered the official word of the church due to Augustine’s high standing within the Church at the time.

In a nutshell, Augustine argued that Christians can support war, but it is only to be used to gain peace.

The Just War argument hinges on Romans 13, which argues that individuals are to be subject to the authorities. But where this means that the authorities should proceed with war is beyond me.

Due to the political need for advocating war, Augustine’s Just War tradition quickly became the de facto preaching of the church. With the need for military intervention to protect and expand the Roman Empire, the Just War tradition became an important tool to maintaining military superiority throughout the early modern period.

1095 CE: Pope Urban II & The Crusades

Up to 1095, the Christian world was suffering greatly from a number of attacks from Muslim invaders. Augustine’s Just War theory was still being used to justify war, but it was justified in a self-defense type of situation. This changed in 1095.

Pope Urban II felt that his back was against the wall and that he wanted to fight back against the Muslims and reclaim land that had been taken by Muslims in earlier battles, including Jerusalem. Urban’s goal was to retake Jerusalem at any cost.

To muster the troops, Urban went on an extensive year long pre-war tour, spreading the news and gaining support for his upcoming offensive. Finally, in the fall of 1095, Urban gave a rousing speech to a large number of willing Christian warriors. Urban’s speech was loosely based on Augustine’s Just War law pertaining to self-defense. Urban argued that Jerusalem had been taken illegally from the Christians and that it was the duty of the Crusaders to take back what was theirs.

In addition to the religious charge to reclaim holy lands, Pope Urban II further motivated his troops by offering a “remission of sins and great reward in heaven to those that participated in this Crusade”. These were heady words for someone speaking on behalf of the divine.

It seems that Pope Urban II forgot to direct his charges regarding respectful conduct when fighting though. Instead of simply defeating the Muslims, the Crusaders destroyed their enemies, legend holding that the conquerors were knee deep in Muslim blood from the slaughter. This sounds more like that Holy War that I mentioned earlier, not the Just War that was supported by the Christian Church at that time.

Needless to say, this kicked off a couple of hundred years of embarrassment for Christians everywhere. The behaviour during this time showed the dangers that can come when power is left unchecked. Even hardened war-defending Christians agree that the Crusades went too far with their abusive violence.

1527 CE: Mennonite Roots: The Radical Reformation

In 1517, Martin Luther kicked off the Protestant Reformation by posting his disagreements with the Catholic Church (his 95 theses) on the front door of one of their Churches. This began a period of great instability in the church. When the dust settled, there were a wide variety of Christian denominations, many centred along national boundaries: Anglican for the English, Lutheran was mainly German, France stayed Catholic, etc.

Out of this Reformation came what historians refer to as “The Radical Reformation.” This is the term given to a small group of churches that aligned themselves around ttwo fairly unique actions:

  • First, believer’s or adult baptism (not infant baptism, which was standard practice in the Catholic Church during this time); and
  • The pacifist position that was presented by Jesus;

Many of these people chose to become baptized again to show their adult confession of faith. This is where the term Anabaptist comes from. It means, literally, rebaptized.

This led to many problems for the Anabaptists. Although scripture does support these two Anabaptist practices, they were considered unpopular as they differed from the traditions that existed during that time. Because of this, the Anabaptists were mercilessly persecuted. It has been suggested that more Christians were martyred in the 1500s than in the early church times. Talk about Christian commitment.

Thus, the pacifist position remained very unpopular and supporters of the pacifist position were greatly persecuted.

Coming up next: Part 3: The Modern Crusader ethic

 

Filed under Thought Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.