Why religion is fading in the West

[FarrenH]

148. I still think you're missing the point

Last edited Sat May 30, 2015, 10:12 AM - Edit history (3)

like Harris does. The point being that adopting a statistical approach to "number of times violence is advocated" and "number of loopholes" (like Christian disputes about when the NT negates the OT or the OT law is no longer relevant) is not, from actual historical evidence, a remotely sufficient way of parsing the material phenomenon of a religion or even it's "natural predisposition". There have been long periods where Christendom, in the name of Christianity, was more violent than it's Islamic neighbors. And during those periods whatever justifications for violence that could be found in canon were employed. Canon interpretation is always contingent on local culture, politics and economic circumstance.

One of the inherent problems with parsing this way is that the so-called religions of the book suffer from a surplus of internal contradictions and these contradictions can be and are exploited at different points in history to justify different political goals. Lets look at apostasy in Islam, for example. While various punishments are justified in terms of particular hadiths, both the Koran (there is no compulsion in faith) and other hadiths contradict that. And yes, there have been Islamic scholars in the past and scholars today that said and say that punishment for apostasy contradicts the idea of coming to or leaving faith freely, as is actually advocated in both Hadith and Koran. One Egyptian scholar pointed out that taken literally, the hadith most often used to justify punishment for apostasy unavoidably implies that Christians and Jews who convert to Islam should be punished. This last opinion is so well founded in the text that you have to ask why this is the minority interpretation in the putatively Muslim world today.

The answer, obviously, is that interpretation is contingent not merely on number or proportion of violent prescriptions in text, but on political, cultural and economic circumstance. We find ourselves in a world where for the last century, the USA's close ally Saudi Arabia has used it's immense oil wealth to spread a violent and fundamentalist interpretation across the globe. This itself is a political convenience. The Saudi Royals don't behave as if they're particularly devout. But Wahhabi clerics do strongly support and lend legitimacy to their despotic rule. While Iran, a theocracy born out of the USA toppling the elected socialist regime of Mossedagh is similarly responsible for influencing violent Shia groups abroad.

And so it goes. When we examine history we find that going back in time the power of violent Islamism actually diminishes. A wise man would examine Islamist violence today in light of history (colonialism, Arab socialist strongmen, despots and post-colonial Western interference) and recognize the political contingencies that intersect with faith to produce violent, inhumane political groups that rest on religious justifications. As Obama once said when times get tough people turn to their guns and holy books. And the Muslim world has not only experienced two centuries of decline in relative power, but two centuries of decline very actively assisted by nominally Christian/Jewish nations. To evaluate only this moment in history, especially while dismissing external influences, to determine the "true face of Islam" is sophomoric.

Harris doesn't bother with local culture, economics, politics, history. In fact I have pored over a lot of his writing and it's not merely a lack of acknowledgement. In response to criticism of his obvious blinkers he has repeatedly hand-waved away political and economic contingencies involved in particular groups and phenomena he is examining. He actively devalues them as causal factors in a manner that no earnest scholar of Middle Eastern or global politics would consider remotely compelling, while treating religious canon as a complete and sufficient causal explanation for very specific phenomena.

It wasn't the reformation that made the Christian world more peaceful (if interference abroad is ignored) and secular. Today there are still European countries where apostacy and blasphemy is a crime, even though the laws are ignored. Less than 100 years ago those laws were still being used to prosecute people. Economic prosperity, political freedom and extra-religious political movements have driven that change. A majority of western Catholics, for example, happily ignore Catholic canon about homosexuality, abortion and divorce, at least if political and economic choices are taken as a guide. While many of their brethren in Africa are backing new laws introducing the death penalty for homosexuals in multiple countries.

His American-centered worldview is not a trivial problem. The man engages in the worst kind of Orientalism. Many of his arguments are sophomoric and anti-factual.

Postscript: Yeah, it's hard to find textual justification in Judaism for religious violence, except when political contingencies encourage it. Funny that:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/08/02/israeli-rabbi-preaches-quot-slaughter-quot-of-gentile-babies/