Karen Armstrong's attempt to excuse religion gets trashed by guardian readers.

[Warren Stupidity]

Karen Armstrong’s article (Secularism – a violent history, 25 September) is a classic piece of whataboutery, since the point at issue is whether religions are likely to provoke violence, not what supposedly secular regimes may have been guilty of. The key difference is that a secular philosophy of government can evolve (and has evolved) towards being more humane, more tolerant of diversity and less inclined to interfere in people’s personal moral choices. By contrast, too many people who proclaim a deep commitment to religion are convinced that they have a handle on absolute truth, which therefore gives them the right to harass and bully others or even to kill them. Add to this an obsession with religious purity, a passion for the worship of authority and a rejection of any type of thinking which wasn’t part of their faith’s supposed golden age and you have exactly the sort of fundamentalism which we see in Islamic State, ultra-orthodox Judaism and those Christians who are so keen to persecute homosexuals. Yes, Karen, the problem is religion.

Many more similar responses at link.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/01/tolerance-religion-secularism

[okasha]

1. Repressive regimes, whether religious or secular,

have the same motivation and goal: power. All the rest, to borrow from QEI, is a dispute about trifles.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. At this point in time, to assert that religion is not playing a role is ridiculous.

[rug]

4. Though I disagree with him, C Iliffe of Leeds had a better refutation.

At least he made reference to our lost colonies.

[rug]

2. Here's the actual article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular

Too bad Roger Fisken of Bedale, North Yorkshire, Philip Pendered of Tonbridge, Kent, and John Thesiger of Staines-on-Thames, Middlesex, didn't like it.

I must, however, disagree with C Iliffe of Leeds.

[okasha]

5. C, C Iliffe of Leeds

He grew amidst a garden of weeds.
He cursed at the nettle,
But hadn't its mettle,
C,C Iliffe of Leeds.

Sorry. The fit comes over me occasionally.

[rug]

6. And a fine bit of doggerel that is.

[kwassa]

7. Weak sauce.

Much of social reform in the United States, historically, was driven by religious groups.

The Second Great Awakening.

which brought the abolitionist movement and the women's suffrage movement, among other things.

[trotsky]

8. And yet most of what social reform was fighting against was driven by religious group as well.

An awakening from the horrible things justified by religion in the first place. So, uh, hooray for religion?

[kwassa]

9. No.

[cleanhippie]

11. That's a really powerful argument.

[trotsky]

12. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. n/t

[kwassa]

17. It is eloquent in it's simplicity.

[trotsky]

18. *its n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. Unfortunately, eloquence does not a compelling argument make.

If you're going to sit there and claim that none of the social ills that have plagued this country since its inception -- sexism, racism, classism, imperialism and the like -- are in no way rooted in religious belief, despite the overabundance of religious language employed by those defending the status quo, you're going to have to do more than simple gainsaying, my friend.

[Rob H.]

10. People seem to forget that's what give rise to the Southern Baptist Convention

They supported slavery, and split with other Baptists in 1845 because of it. (They're not alone in their support either: some Southern Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopals were also pro-slavery.)

Fortunately, it only took the SBC 130 years after the Civil War ended to apologize for their support of slavery. Progress! Or something.

In Alabama, one Baptist news editor in 1850 said of slavery, “As a question of morals, it is between us and God … as a question of political economy, it is with us alone, as free and independent states.” The same year, Alabama’s Bethel Baptist Association, reflecting Calvinistic theology, insisted the master-slave relationship was the product of God’s providence. In 1856 an Alabama Baptist labeled slavery “as much an institution of Heaven as marriage.” And in 1860 another declared, “The best defense of slavery … is slavery as it is.” (See Wayne Flynt, Alabama Baptists in the Heart of Dixie, p. 108)

White Baptists were merely echoing what other Southern whites were saying. Alabama Presbyterian minister Rev. Fred A. Ross wrote a book defending slavery in 1857. Entitled Slavery Ordained of God, Ross declared: “Slavery is of God, and [should] continue for the good of the slave, the good of the master, the good of the whole American family.”

With the Republican Party in 1860 united in resisting the expansion (and hence future) of slavery, the preservation and expansion of slavery lay with the Democratic Party. Yet Democrats in their 1860 convention were split over the issue, with the Deep South’s delegates (all slave lords or allies of slaveholders) determined to trump the Unionist commitments of other Democratic delegates. When the Democratic convention, meeting in Charleston, the epicenter of the South’s slavocracy, split over the issue of slavery, South Carolinian slave lord John S. Preston, as he led his fellow slave lords out of the convention hall and ultimately toward secession, summed up the Deep South elites’ unwavering commitment to slavery by declaring: “Slavery is our king; Slavery is our truth; Slavery is our Divine Right.”

Meanwhile, Virginia slaveholder and aristocrat George Fitzhugh spilled a great deal of ink defending black slavery and condemning human equality and free societies. Fitzhugh declared that he was “quite as intent on abolishing Free Society” as Northerners were on “abolishing slavery.” When war broke out, Fitzhugh framed the conflict as a war “between Christians and infidels.”

Full article here.

Edited to italicize book titles.

[trotsky]

13. Hey get with the program.

kwaasa said No, that religion was in no way involved in supporting those horrible things. So take your facts and evidence and documentation elsewhere please!

"Slavery is our Divine Right" - nothing at all to do with religion! I'm sure he meant "divine" in the totally secular sense.

[kwassa]

19. same old trotsky, attempting to put words in my mouth I never said ...

for how many years? Close to a decade, I think.

Hint: It was just as dishonest back then, too.

kwaasa said No, that religion was in no way involved in supporting those horrible things.

I just said "No". The rest is trotsky's imagination.

[trotsky]

21. Then why don't you clarify, kwassa?

Instead of throwing out one word, and then launching your trademark smears when I've misinterpreted you. I haven't insulted you, so let's see if you can behave this time. Explain yourself, let's discuss this.

Or continue on the same path of attacks and snark. Your call.

[kwassa]

24. I've never smeared you. That's a fact.

I have pointed out, with accuracy, your attempts to put words in my mouth that I've never said.

That's on you.

[trotsky]

25. Then clarify.

Be civil and honest.

[MADem]

26. Come on now folks--discuss ideas, not people...!!!

This is an interesting conversation, don't ruin it with personalities...

[trotsky]

28. I have been trying, please feel free to give the same advice to kwassa.

Thanks so much!

[MADem]

41. Well, that was the "folks" bit--it wasn't aimed at you alone.

I'm betting kwassa is tracking this convo pretty closely.

[rug]

36. He should have been a dentist.

[okasha]

14. Do you think these Southern institutions

would have advanced a religious justification for slavery had slavery constituted an economic loss for them?

[trotsky]

15. Marriage equality is an economic gain...

and yet they oppose that for religious reasons, so I'd say YUP.

And we know for certain they advanced a religious justification for segregation, even though that cost them money too. (Separate facilities, etc.)

Nice try okasha but that isn't going to fly. Sometimes people have used religion to justify some pretty nasty shit, and they continue to do it today. Deal with it.

[kwassa]

22. Which came first, the religion or the culture in which it exists?

The South evolved from it's very earliest settlement as a slave economy, and used the Bible to support slavery, of course, which can be done through selective interpretation. The economy drove the culture and the Biblical interpretation that supported it.

The Northern abolitionists were using a re-dedication to the Bible to look at the larger messages in it.

Revivals and perfectionist hopes of improving individuals and society continued to increase from 1840 to 1865 across all major denominations, especially in urban areas. Evangelists often directly addressed issues such as slavery, greed, and poverty, laying the groundwork for later reform movements.[2] The influence of the Awakening continued in the form of more secular movements.[32] In the midst of shifts in theology and church polity, American Christians began progressive movements to reform society during this period. Known commonly as antebellum reform, this phenomenon included reforms in temperance, women's rights, abolitionism, and a multitude of other questions faced by society.[33]

............................
Historians stress the understanding common among participants of reform as being a part of God's plan. As a result, local churches saw their roles in society in purifying the world through the individuals to whom they could bring salvation, and through changes in the law and the creation of institutions. Interest in transforming the world was applied to mainstream political action, as temperance activists, antislavery advocates, and proponents of other variations of reform sought to implement their beliefs into national politics. While Protestant religion had previously played an important role on the American political scene, the Second Great Awakening strengthened the role it would play.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. An utterly pointless question

It doesn't matter which one of them came first, or how people choose to read the Bible.

Religion is more than a collection of texts. It is a cultural expression, inextricably intertwined with the political concerns of the group practicing it. Every Christian's religion is influenced by their politics. Every Christian's reading of the Bible is selective. There's no such thing as "true" Christianity.

The religion of the slaveholders was every bit as internally valid as the religion of the abolitionists. Your attempt to make the opposite case is a depressingly common and wholly dishonest tactic. Sorry, but you do not get to take the credit for the good without accepting responsibility for the bad. You can't have the apple without the worms.

[rug]

46. Marx would disagree.

[Cartoonist]

30. Point

which brought the abolitionist movement

So where is slavery justified? That's right, the bible. That's where the South got it's pro-slavery stance in the first place.

[kwassa]

31. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, but slavery long pre-dated the Bible.

The Bible has been used as a rationalization for slavery, so have many other things in other societies.

[Cartoonist]

33. Yeah, but the Baptist Church was founded on that particular cherry.

Oh wait, are you using that "everybody does it" argument? I guess it's OK then.

[rug]

37. The Baptist Church was founded in Amsterdam in 1609.

Don't trip over the facts on your way to predigested conclusions.

[Leontius]

40. Yeah but ripping into Stoics just dosen't have that cool PC vibe

[kwassa]

42. I read today that 1/3 of the Roman Empire population were slaves.

but they were cool slaves.

[kwassa]

16. Your OP title is really incorrect; there are all kinds of opinions from these readers.

You choose one that reflects your viewpoint, I suppose, but the letters themselves reflect a diversity of pretty informed opinion on the subject.

And you don't reference the original article at all, which I don't think you or anyone else in this thread has read.

It is a long historical piece detailing the rise of the secular states, and the various hybrid forms they took before arising at the modern nation state a fairly recent historical invention. Many of these forms were quite violent, too.

There isn't a lot to argue with in Armstrong's viewpoint, as she is merely relating history, not advocating a point of view other than this, the conclusion:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular

After a bumpy beginning, secularism has undoubtedly been valuable to the west, but we would be wrong to regard it as a universal law. It emerged as a particular and unique feature of the historical process in Europe; it was an evolutionary adaptation to a very specific set of circumstances. In a different environment, modernity may well take other forms. Many secular thinkers now regard “religion” as inherently belligerent and intolerant, and an irrational, backward and violent “other” to the peaceable and humane liberal state – an attitude with an unfortunate echo of the colonialist view of indigenous peoples as hopelessly “primitive”, mired in their benighted religious beliefs. There are consequences to our failure to understand that our secularism, and its understanding of the role of religion, is exceptional. When secularisation has been applied by force, it has provoked a fundamentalist reaction – and history shows that fundamentalist movements which come under attack invariably grow even more extreme. The fruits of this error are on display across the Middle East: when we look with horror upon the travesty of Isis, we would be wise to acknowledge that its barbaric violence may be, at least in part, the offspring of policies guided by our disdain.

[trotsky]

20. LMAO

So her main beef with secularism is how religion reacts to having its role reduced.

Well gosh darnit!

"..we would be wise to acknowledge that its barbaric violence may be, at least in part, the offspring of policies guided by our disdain."

And we would be wise as well not to refuse to acknowledge the religious roots of that barbaric violence, which is what the comments are all about. When Armstrong titles an entire section of her piece "The myth of religious violence" she takes the position of an extremist - someone who has taken the position that religion is never a factor.

[kwassa]

23. I see you didn't read all the comments either. Or the article.

[trotsky]

27. Do you think religion plays any role at all in religious violence, kwassa?

Yes or no. A one-word answer above would actually be sufficient here. I don't care how MUCH of a role you think it may play, just whether it has a role at all.

[kwassa]

32. Did you read the comments or article, trotsky? Do so, and we will have a discussion.

You misinterpret the very title of the article.

[trotsky]

34. I asked you a very simple question.

It stands completely separate from the article or the comments. Will you please answer it?

[kwassa]

35. No.

[rug]

38. I don't blame you.

[okasha]

39. The best response to baiting is to refuse to participate.

[trotsky]

43. I was actually just asking a question, okasha.

I think it was a perfectly reasonable question and not "baiting" at all. Your insinuation is rude and uncalled for. Please try to be more civil and perhaps this group can improve!

[rug]

45. No you weren't.

Oh, I forgot this "!"