The Religious Wrong
Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, wrote an eloquent and well-reasoned op-ed piece for Sunday's Los Angeles Times on the irrational thought (and, in turn, despicable consequences) promoted by certain religions:
President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate have failed ó for the moment ó to bring the Constitution into conformity with Judeo-Christian teachings. But even if they had passed a bill calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, that would have been only a beginning. Leviticus 20:13 and the New Testament book of Romans reveal that the God of the Bible doesn't merely disapprove of homosexuality; he specifically says homosexuals should be killed: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death."God also instructs us to murder people who work on the Sabbath, along with adulterers and children who curse their parents. While they're at it, members of Congress might want to reconsider the 13th Amendment, because it turns out that God approves of slavery ó unless a master beats his slave so severely that he loses an eye or teeth, in which case Exodus 21 tells us he must be freed.
What should we conclude from all this? That whatever their import to people of faith, ancient religious texts shouldn't form the basis of social policy in the 21st century. The Bible was written at a time when people thought the Earth was flat, when the wheelbarrow was high tech. Are its teachings applicable to the challenges we now face as a global civilization?
Maybe morality means driving a car, if you can afford it, that does the least amount of damage to the planet and the people on it who have an affinity for breathing.
Consider the subject of stem-cell research. Many religious people, drawing from what they've heard from the pulpit, believe that 3-day-old embryos ó which are microscopic collections of 150 cells the size of a pinhead ó are fully endowed with human souls and, therefore, must be protected as people. But if we know anything at all about the neurology of sensory perception, we know that there is no reason to believe that embryos at this stage of development have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer or to experience death in any way at all. (There are, for comparison's sake, 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.)These facts notwithstanding, our president and our leaders in Congress, many of them citing religious teachings, have decided to put the rights of undifferentiated cells before those of men and women suffering from spinal cord injuries, full-body burns, diabetes and Parkinson's disease.
Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. A social policy based on the Koran poses even greater dangers. Koran 9:123 tells us it is the duty of every Muslim man to "make war on the infidels who dwell around you." Osama bin Laden may be despicable, but it is hard to argue that he isn't acting in accord with at least some of the teachings of the Koran. It is true that most Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran's solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that some are not so inclined and that some of them murder innocent people for religious reasons.
He goes on to make a very good point:
Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person's religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between the major religious traditions is simply never discussed.Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They too suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam versus those of Buddhism and Christianity.
There are now more people in our country who believe that the universe was created in six solar days than there were in Europe in the 14th century. In the eyes of most of the civilized world, the United States is now a rogue power ó imperialist, inarticulate and retrograde in its religiosity. Our erstwhile allies are right not to trust our judgment. We elect leaders who squander time and money on issues like gay marriage, Janet Jackson's anatomy, Howard Stern's obscenities, marijuana use and a dozen other trifles lying at the heart of the Christian social agenda, while potentially catastrophic problems like nuclear proliferation and climate change go unresolved.
We elected a president who believes the jury is still out on evolution and who rejects sound, scientific judgments on the environment, on medical research, on family planning and on HIV/AIDS prevention in the developing world. The consequence, as we saw in recent elections in Spain, is that people who feel misled and entrapped by our dogmatic and peremptory approach to foreign policy will be unable to recognize a common enemy, even when that enemy massacres hundreds of people in their nation's capital.
It is time we recognize that religious beliefs have consequences. As a man believes, so he will act. Believe that you are a member of a chosen people, awash in the salacious exports of an evil culture that is turning your children away from God, believe that you will be rewarded with an eternity of unimaginable delights by dealing death to these infidels ó and flying a plane into a building is only a matter of being asked to do it. Believe that "life starts at the moment of conception" and you will happily stand in the way of medical research that could alleviate the suffering of millions of your fellow human beings. Believe that there is a God who sees and knows all things, and yet remains so provincial a creature as to be scandalized by certain sexual acts between consenting adults, and you will think it ethical to punish people for engaging in private behavior that harms no one.
Now that our elected leaders have grown entranced by pseudo-problems like gay marriage, even while the genuine enemies of civilization hurl themselves at our gates, perhaps it is time we subjected our religious beliefs to the same standards of evidence we require in every other sphere of our lives. Perhaps it is time for us to realize, at the dawn of this perilous century, that we are paying too high a price to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.
If you're religious, come on, look at the clock: it's the 21st century. Isn't it time to stop basing your life on irrationality and embrace reason? It's completely possible to be an ethical person without believing, without a shred of proof, that there's some big thumb in the sky...or god, or whatever you want to call it. Believing in and worshipping god, sans proof, makes no more sense than believing in and worshipping the Easter bunny...or my left shoe...now, does it? And as Harris' article points out -- the price of ignorance is just too high.
Sam Harris' Web site is here.
Posted by aalkon at August 16, 2004 8:53 AM
Comments
Brilliant. I couldn't have done better myself.
And that was in the LAtimes. Good for them.
Posted by: volkay at August 16, 2004 9:21 AM
Follow up.
Thank you Amy. I would have missed that if it weren't for you. In a world of religious darkness and superstition, every now and again somebody slips through and escapes the hammer of religious dominance. Good for Sam Harris, and good for you. These are the important topics.
Posted by: volkay at August 16, 2004 9:52 AM
Right on, Chris. I saw a newspaper headline today that said "Pope near the end of his life." My first thought was "if only that were true of his religion."
Posted by: Lena Magdalene, Pornstar Extraordinairre at August 16, 2004 12:10 PM
It will be interesting to see which direction the Catholic church takes after this Pope dies. A couple years ago I would have bet they moved towards more progressive reform, but now I bet it'll be towards status quo or even more insulated to the right. You don't have to admit your mistakes if god is on your side.
Posted by: eric the tragically un-hip at August 16, 2004 12:45 PM
Yes Lena,
when this pope goes they'll get in another prince of darkness probably twice as bad. And that's saying a lot. Remember, this current monstrosity has performed 3 exorcisms. That tells you something about the mentality of this current blathering idiot.
When the black smoke rises from the chimneys of the vatican, the new Prince of Darkness will be unleashed upon the world. And this world of savage simple-minded brain dead drones will all stand in line to blow him. As the wicked witch said: "What a world, what a world..."
Posted by: volkay at August 16, 2004 4:12 PM
oath
christ died for somebodys sins
but not mine
melting in a pot of thieves
wild card up my sleeve
thick heart of stone
my sins my own
i engrave my own palm
sweet black X
adam placed no hex on me
i embrace eve
and take full responsibility
for every pocket i have picked
mean and slick
for every johnny ace song
i balled to
for every rock n roll song
i balled to
long before the church
made it neat and right
so christ im giving you the
GOOD-BYE
firing you tonight
i can make my own light shine
and darkness too is equally fine
you can get strung up
for my brother baby
but for me i draw the line
you died for somebodys sins honey
but not mine
Patti Smith, 1971
Posted by: Lena at August 16, 2004 4:48 PM
While I agree in theory, Sam might have pointed out that all those Old Testament laws were renedered null and void by the scarifice of Jesus on the cross. So, you don't have to stone kids who talk back to be right with God..
Noiw I don't believe this stuff, but millions do, and those are the people Sam was all sweaty about. So let's get the theology straight.
Posted by: Rachel Cohen at August 16, 2004 4:54 PM
I don't think most believers are interested in the nuances of theological discourse, Rachel.
Posted by: The Devil is a Lena at August 16, 2004 5:24 PM
You're kidding, right? That's exactly what the Jesuits, the Orthodox rabbis, and the the PTL club do, all the time. Nuances of theological discouse are what fuel most believers. Angels, pin heads, dance floor.
Posted by: rcl at August 17, 2004 1:41 PM
If only most Christians were as thoughtful (and, behind closed doors, as foul-mouthed) as the Jesuits. I lived in North Berkeley for 4 years, close to the graduate theological seminary. I had a friend who worked there, and the place was one big leftist love-fest. I am fully aware that there are some very thoughtful, well-read clergy out there. I've read Harold Bloom on Gershom Scholem. I taught a class in the bioethics program at the University of Judaism, and I'd be delighted if there were more institutions like that one in this world. BUT THOSE FOLKS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, AND YOU KNOW IT. IT'S THE *STUPID* RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THAT I DON'T LIKE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING "NUANCED" ABOUT A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE OR ANY OF THOSE OTHER DOORSTOPS.
Posted by: Lena, Mistress of the Most High at August 17, 2004 3:17 PM
There's a University of Judaism?? Now there's a candidate for oxymoron of the month.....
Posted by: Stu "El InglÈs" Harris at August 18, 2004 3:18 PM
good point Stu
Lena is a traveling professor. She also teaches at the College of Creation Science in Calcutta.
And what is there to know about bioethics?
Stem cells, therapeutic cloning, human cloning, whatever-do it. do it without hesitation.
That way we could all get to clone our favorite things.
Amy could clone foie gras and lots of fuck me pumps, Lena could fill her basement with petrie dishes and grow lots of big penises that she could train to all sing to her when she entered the room and I could clone myself. Everybody's happy.
Posted by: volkay at August 18, 2004 5:30 PM
I didn't say I taught bioethics. I taught in the dept, but it was a phys-ed class, actually, called Buttplug Gymnastics 101. You wouldn't believe the waiting list!
Posted by: Lena, voyager at August 18, 2004 6:05 PM