Please take note - this thread is not meant to insult the moderately religious or people from groups which create no harm to those outside of them. I also understand that religion helps certain people make it through life and function and would not wish it banned. Also, the western religions still seem less violent than islam (even if I do not consider any political conservatives to be allies for freedom). Yet, centering policy around religion would lead to nothing positive. While western conservatives should have the same political agency as the leftists do, a millenarian theocracy is not anything which should be desired.
I have often focused my criticism of religion on islam, because christians are less likely to harm others in the name of religion, however I am not a racist or a nationalist, so I suppose I should just scrutinize religion in general. I decided to write yet another thread because the future for secular people and the moderately religious is insecure. Not only do they not have children, but those with influence would have no qualms about finding common ground with radicals - the "secular" right would never acknowledge things like the quiverfull movement and similar groups because they see the religious right, which praises economic globalization, as an ally, and the fake left (as opposed to the real one) minimizes the viciousness of islamic fundamentalism because they want to destroy "the western empire" with something even worse. I used to have an open mind toward ideas like immigration and socialism until I realized that they only worsen the current demographic shift. Admittedly, people from secular communities sacrifice less for long term survival. However, if we are ever honest with ourselves and address these problems (a glass which is half empty is better than nothing), we should face them with respect to what is practical for each person, family, and nation without waging an antiliberal crusade.
My reason for distrusting religion is that aside from being intrinsically authoritarian, religious literalism creates dishonesty, such as inveighing against the "militant atheists" without scrutinizing fundamentalism in terms of what the "new atheists" are berated for. For sure there were plenty of militant atheists running communist governments and the French Revolution with blood on their hands. However, on many questions, few atheists/humanists agree with each other, let alone treat the works of Marx or Darwin like holy scripture. Also, I would not be surprised if there was debate about whether marxism is just religion without "God" rather than a liberation from it. Also, the claim that atheism is primarily responsible for fascism and nazism is false. Perhaps a more sensible explanation would be that "aryan" paganism and occultism replaced Christianity, which the nazis associated with Judaism, and that this new extremism combined with militant statism and the cult of personality filled the void left by Christianity. The fascists and imperialists of the early 20th century were inspired by darwinism yet they were not really atheistic since they tried to insert teleology into their violence and militarism. The roots of the seething antisemitism in nazi Germany were most likely an irrational inferiority complex and envy for a small group supposedly having more wealth and how the masses were easily manipulated by calculating dictators who detested everything intellectual. One could spend a century trying to find every "reason" behind what the fascists did, so for the christian right to blame just one mainstream idea (atheism) for the worst events in history is sophistry and suggests they would take little issue with fascism/racism if it conformed to their thinking. I suppose even theocracy is better than fascism/nazism, yet the Pope is completely dishonest to associate atheism with nazism.
On a much smaller scale, the most intense competition between ideas is taking place between marxists, like those in charge of the EU, and the two largest religions. We live in a time when technology progresses faster than ethics, so all of these have the potential to be totalitarian. Taken to the extreme, all would be incapable of applying their ideals to reality, would try to indirectly control what people think, would break apart regional integrity to enlist people into "saving the world", would crush everything inspiring on the grounds that it distracts from their ideologies, and would apply double standards between "legitimate authorities" and everyone else. The religious conservatives seem to forget that ideas like liberty, pacifism, nonintervention, and self determination are modern inventions, even if our politicians have increasing means to attack them; when they use the term “militant atheist”. Religion only supports freedom when it is interpreted in selective ways, when the religious believe their relation with their God is more important than demanding elaborate establishments and making everyone else follow the same rituals as they do. The latter approach to religion is mostly libertarian. However, there is a difference between thinking that a religion liberates people from the world and despising “the world” and all human beings, even the good which could be found among filth. The latter could begin a dangerous path because, at risk of drawing conclusions too quickly, there appears to be a view among the American protestant right that their “personal” faith commands them to revolutionize all society and eventually all humanity, including reestablishing “worldly” structures. I admit with a bit of shame that atheists, being more afraid of death and loss, have a penchant towards believing that long term ends justify means and this is not always good for freedom. However, since we perceive situations as evolving, nonbelievers are less likely to see these means as permanent < this is in contrast to fundamentalists who would argue that unjust rules created thousands of years ago about slavery should be followed today.
I must also admit that the decline of religion is associated with ugly things like abortion after thoughtless orgies. However, the same people who use “tolerance” to harm other people and society may also use “religion” or whatever else is socially acceptable to satisfy their destructive impulses and this is also the first time in history they could afford decadence and destruction. What the ultrareligious never admit is that in terms of dignity for people, academic freedom, and the subtler aspects of our cultures, the western world would look nothing like the civilization we live in today had they always won.
Ironically, some of the same people who complain about “the death of the west” support unchecked immigration into Europe since they view the average muslim as being more christian than modern christians and “post christians”. As if all secular people want to publicize pornography while banning harmless displays of religion and that Europeans should therefore be punished with immigration policies which create tension from which innocent people among both native citizens and newcomers suffer. Often European leaders who try to restore national boundaries are decried by the catholic church as being xenophobes. It appears a lot of the traditional catholics are more antifreedom than pro European. At worst, taking their advice on interreligious “tolerance” to its full conclusion would mean giving up education for women, freedom of conscience, all our artistic masterpieces, all the customs we were raised with, all regional symbols, freedom from torture, and other “worldly”, “satanic” pleasures; all for a “transcendent” interfaith journey. A lot of skeptics and secular humanists are aware of how certain philosophical and theological doctrines contributed to the development of the western world without reducing it to a set of scriptures, without regard for the history of the people who built it. Cultural conservatism never works for there are disagreements about what should be preserved and what identities mean. Maybe “the west” is already dead and we should instead focus on defending classic liberalism and freedom for different regions, all of which are hard to defend.
Sometimes religion inspires people to achieve magnificent things and has practical purposes, however I cannot agree less with the opinion that it works for everyone (especially when matters other than the utilitarian are considered). Some would argue that in a context of consumerism, vulgarization, disrespect, hostility, and ugliness, religion is just as necessary for nourishing “the soul” as it is for agreeing on practical rules; while I think it is just perpetuating insensitivity and insincerity, cheapens everything, and makes all things interchangeable and disposable. In this sense, not everyone reaches insight through a verbal/inductive lens, some prefer to deduce these sorts of judgments without literary analysis. Maybe living in “this world” is not so terrible, since “the soul”, for some, whithers and ceases to judge the quality of people and what is perceived, when searching for some elusive “transcendence”.
If anyone could disprove my slightly insensitive rant I will thank them.
Last edited by petitesouris on 30 May 2012, 8:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
28 May 2012, 3:30 pm
