Yet More Words
I’ve been thinking about one particular idea in the argument over that recurring (or ‘really tedious’) subject of the conflation of race and religion and how that conflation works to head off and prevent criticism. This idea:
whilst attacks on religions can be merely the stuff of enlightenment rationalism, they can also be the cover for nasty attempts to marginalise whole groups of people.
Well, yes, they can be, but then ‘attacks on’ or criticisms of pretty much anything can be that. Including, for example, attacks on atheism and secularism. I would in fact say that there is a concerted effort under way in the US right now to do just exactly that – to criticise or attack atheism and secularism in an attempt to marginalise atheists and secularists. And I would also say that it’s having considerable success.
In fact, surely one could argue that that’s one of the things religions have historically been most concerned to do: to marginalise people who don’t buy what they’re selling. Some religions and a lot of religious people have over time become much less keen to do that, but it’s obvious enough that in some parts of the world (including the US) that trend has been halted and turned around. That’s not a big secret, is it? Isn’t it pretty familar stuff, that that’s what religions do? Create ingroups and outgroups, Us and Them, Our Team and Other? The outgroup may be atheists, but it may just as well be other religions. (No! Really?) Sunnis and Shi’ites, Protestants and Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Catholic and Muslim, Hindu and Muslim – and on and on. They don’t always just calmly agree to differ and go their separate ways, do they. It would be nice if they did but they don’t. So where is the force in making some special claim that attacks on/criticism of religion or religions are peculiar that way?Surely that idea is in fact part of what inspired and motivated ‘enlightenment rationalism.’ Isn’t it? Enlightement rationalism isn’t just some whim, a hobby, something to do of an evening, a ‘lifestyle’ choice. There are compelling reasons for preferring rational thought to the certainties of faith, and the marginalisation of ‘whole groups of people’ is emphatically one of them.
And then, religions also marginalise whole groups of people internally, within the religion. That’s one thing religions are: codified systems for marginalising and subordinating large groups of people. For instance, half of the people in question: all the women and girls.
Which is not to deny the point. Yes, criticising religion does run the risk of diminishing the general respect for followers of that religion. But then, again, that’s true of any system of ideas. But the problem is more obvious in the case of Islam, because Muslims are the targets of hatred now, they are being marginalised. True. And therefore criticism should be carefully stated. But it shouldn’t be discouraged or, well, marginalised.
Seperation of church and state implies seperation of church from politics. And God knows we’re not quite there yet.
Many of us would like to see religion as apolitical, but this will remain an utopian dream, because almost every decision in life involves a political point of view. So it’s just a concept, keeping us out of eachother’s hair only if we all try very hard to make it almost reality.
This includes Ophelia when she is merrily assigning group exclusion to religion itself, as it includes people who dare calling people racist when the latter dare to critisize political outgrowths of religion, and -last but not least- religious people themselves in the practice of their belief.
Maybe it *is* a lifestyle.
I have just decided to provide feedback wherever possible. I read the article “Yet more words” with interest. Thanks for writing and making it avaiable.
Josh
Ophelia,
Fair point, but there’s something rather self-defeating in using the exclusionary strategy from religion to apply it to the religious.
There’s nothing per se suspect about those who are religious, certainly given that in vast majority they have shown to accept it as a good practice to abide by the secular rules.
Sure, that doesn’t mean religion is out of the candidates for criticism (or for comedy – strange you haven’t picked up on the UK debate on making blasphemy a part of the penal code as is apparently supported by Europe’s first born again Christian Tony). But religion & people who are religious are not in the same category. I deny any religion the right to defend its parafernalia as exempt of criticism, after all they’re merely the collection of books & rites. But I will not extend this denial to the religious as they are of flesh & blood, therefore have every right to hold what they want to hold (as long as they don’t act in a way that is against the law).
The conflation between religion & the religious is, to me, a greater danger than that between race & religion, as the latter a.o. is sometimes merely a fact.
I was most disconcerted by JoB’s comment above. Could it be that criticism of my belief is not criticism of me? It seems to me that this is true only if I am willing to admit that I am not accountable for my beliefs in themselves, but only for my actions; if, indeed, I am accountable for either. This is, in my view, an untenable position. Either our actions are guided by beliefs for which we are accountable, or we are not morally responsible at all. This admittedly presupposes that people usually act in accordance with their beliefs. To suppose otherwise does not seem very useful. To put the point another way, is it reasonable to withold criticism of somebody’s beliefs that a)God wants a world in which there are no ‘piskies’ and b)they have a duty to bring about God’s will, and then to criticise the person when they actively discriminate against ‘piskies’?
I will emphasise here that by ‘criticise’ I mean ‘find particular fault with’. I think it perfectly reasonable to find fault with a person if they espouse particular beliefs which I reasonably expect to result in their performing morally reprehensible (to me) deeds. That does not mean finding fault with everything about the person.
Whether I should criticise a person for beliefs which do not seem likely to result in morally negative outcome is a more difficult question. ‘Useful falsehood’ seems to be quite topical in epistemology at the moment, and perhaps this concept enables us to understand how religion can help those lacking the intellectual capacity to develop an ethical stance from natural phenomena.
Quite apart from the fact that unless you act upon your beliefs, there is no way of telling what are your beliefs, it seems a bit strange to take criticism of a belief to be criticism of a person. In fact, the ouctome would be quite immoral since when a person had a criticizable belief, he is going to carry that with him forever.
I didn’t say – or at least didn’t want to say – that e.g. somebody advocating a use of Sharia courts shouldn’t be criticized. Advocating is an action. He should nevertheless not be punished for having that belief (or even expressing it). He should be punished for unlawful actions as acting in accordance with – what he’d think – Sharia practices.
Is a person accountable for holding such a belief? It depends.
“and perhaps this concept enables us to understand how religion can help those lacking the intellectual capacity to develop an ethical stance from natural phenomena.”
Come again, I hope you are not going to be held accountable for that belief. As if those religiously inclined are in any verfied way of the “lesser intellectual capacity”.
” In fact, the ouctome would be quite immoral since when a person had a criticizable belief, he is going to carry that with him forever.”
Do you mean that he is going to carry the belief forever, or the criticism? My beliefs change from time to time, particularly when I am presented with convincing arguments or empirical evidence. I certainly don’t reflect endlessly on every criticism I have received, although I hope I learn from some of them.
“Quite apart from the fact that unless you act upon your beliefs, there is no way of telling what are your beliefs, it seems a bit strange to take criticism of a belief to be criticism of a person.”
Well, I take JoB’s point, but I can write down or speak about my beliefs – or make a film. Granted this is action. It is not the the sort of action that is generally punished, at least in civilized societies, but it seems to me that it should be, and is, open to criticism. Suggesting that this is criticism of the writing or speaking or filming and not of the belief would sound like sophistry to me.
I am more than willing to be held accountable for the belief that some, perhaps even many, of the religiously inclined lack the intellectual capacity to develop an ethical stance from natural phenomena. That is not the same as believing that the religiously inclined are individually or collectively more or less intelligent than me, or than atheists in general; just qualitatively different.
” I deny any religion the right to defend its parafernalia as exempt of criticism, after all they’re merely the collection of books & rites. But I will not extend this denial to the religious as they are of flesh & blood, therefore have every right to hold what they want to hold (as long as they don’t act in a way that is against the law).”
“I didn’t say – or at least didn’t want to say – that e.g. somebody advocating a use of Sharia courts shouldn’t be criticized. Advocating is an action. He should nevertheless not be punished for having that belief (or even expressing it). He should be punished for unlawful actions as acting in accordance with – what he’d think – Sharia practices.”
So you will deny the right of to critise religious people, but you would extend the right to religious people to do anything that is not against the law? Unless I have misread something (quite possible), you seem to be applying a double standard.
The criticism.
Yes – a movie is an action. It is open to criticism (& to punishment, although it’s a type of action that’s rightly protected from prosecution). The movie “Submission” is a good example. It’s ludicrous, boring & “in the face” without any other goal in mind then a proverbial black eye. But I’m glad it could be made & I’m sad that some idiots weren’t jailed soon enough for the non-movie reaction to be prevented.
“I am more than willing to be held accountable for the belief that some, perhaps even many, of the religiously inclined lack the intellectual capacity to develop an ethical stance from natural phenomena. That is not the same as believing that the religiously inclined are individually or collectively more or less intelligent than me, or than atheists in general; just qualitatively different.”
Come again?
Either you’re splitting hairs or you do believe in difference of quality, based on matters of faith. I prefer to see it – as the right old atheist I am – merely as a matter of contingency (obviously, I don’t mind if they see it differently as all of it is beyond anybody anyway & I’d much prefer looking at the person than at the great beyond beyond him).
“So you will deny the right of to critise religious people, but you would extend the right to religious people to do anything that is not against the law?”
I extend the latter right to anybody & it is not the case I denied anybody a right to criticize people (let alone religious people). I merely believe they should be entitled to believe their Big Book comes straight from the heavens (as long as, as I said, they don’t organize such as to go forcing everybody to believe the same.
Thanks, Josh. Feedback always appreciated!
Thanks for the blasphemy tip, JoB, I didn’t know it was under debate at the moment. Will look into it.
“I deny any religion the right to defend its parafernalia as exempt of criticism, after all they’re merely the collection of books & rites. But I will not extend this denial to the religious as they are of flesh & blood, therefore have every right to hold what they want to hold (as long as they don’t act in a way that is against the law).”
Well but it all depends what you mean by these terms. Defend, deny, criticise, and the like. Sure, people have every right to hold or believe what they like. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us are forbidden to contradict their beliefs, or disagree with them, or point out that they are not well supported, or ask searching questions. Especially in public discourse (journalism, books, blogs, public speaking, teaching, and the like), as opposed to personal confrontations. Even I don’t usually seek out arguments with religious people on a personal level (unless they start it, which they often do). But the public level is (and should be) a whole different matter, I think.
OB, you beat me to it.
JoB, it seems to me, the same principles of tolerance that allow religious people all the entitlements you outlined (anything not against the law), allows the rest of us to contradict and critise religious people (or religion) as well.
Chris, Ophelia,
I wouldn’t have it the other way but (… searching my mind) I’m startled that what I said would have implied I would have it the other way. (… searching his text) I get it, it didn’t imply that but it would have been convenient if it implied that.
Yes – Mr. Bean is opposing the draft law. It would be funny if it wasn’t sad. It is not sad so it must be funny.
Anyway, on beliefs, if somebody would be organizing education based on beliefs as obnoxious as Sharia courts; I’d be first in line to pass a law forbidding it (but I’d be too late, as per usual). The best chance you have in exterminating beliefs is to make sure they’re no longer taught & there’s nothing stopping us from that.
JoB
Now JoB. Play fair. I didn’t say that you did imply it, I said it depended what you meant by those terms. I really wasn’t sure what you did mean, so I tried to state clearly what I mean. We agree, and that’s at least as convenient as not agreeing.
I’d say it’s less convenient but that is because I’m bad (mentalize the fat white version of Wacko Jacko doing space walk).
Yuk, isn’t it?
Serves you right for implying that I could have implied that.
I did, too (mentalize, I mean) – quite involuntarily!
There ought to be a new crime. ‘Inciting unexpected mental images, leading to unanticipated and undignified snorts of laughter.’ Maximum sentence seven years.
P.S. JoB – were you talking about the proposed new law against incitement to religious hatred? If so, I have talked about that, quite a lot. In October or September, probably. I just point that out because I don’t want to seem any more clueless than I actually am, which is plenty.
Seven years of what? I can imagine quite a number of things I would like to get seven years of. Although it is disappointing you can apparently mentalize me as fat & white (I actually have a nice tan, thank you).
Yep, I think it’s the same thing but it is only now in the news here (& back in those dreary months I was still a wage-slave, so unable to follow this (by the way I still am a wage-slave but I managed to get a year out of prison for good conduct).
No, I didn’t mentalize you as fat and white. I just did what you told me – mentalized a fat white version of WJ. Nothing to do with you!
Yup, it seems to be the same thing, but it is back in the news again – for good reason: the bill is in progress now.
And the question has been linked to the blasphemy issue, at least a little (I could only find a couple of articles on the subject). Labour has no plans to repeal or change the blasphemy law, which (as is well known) applies only to Christianity.
What a mess.
I’m uncomfortable with where to begin, what pre-apologies to offer. How can I soften what will follow? This reads like a polemic but it is meant to just bring something we dance around into the open.
While I know and respect some religious people, I begin to suspect that respect for ‘belief’ is a serious mistake. Like Ophelia’s example, it is one thing to criticize a race, and another to criticize a religion. Is tolerance an excuse for cowardice?
Are we afraid to openly criticize all religions?
It is the liberal way to be accepting of things that do not directly interfere; to not judge someone for having unusual beliefs – in the language of political correctness, all beliefs are equal. Most atheists play along, kindly, minding their own damn business.
People who believe in god are either delusional, in intellectual denial, or suffer some sort of mild schizophrenia.
Sounds harsh, doesn’t it?
Atheists are quite used to the opposite of that argument: that we are all sociopaths lacking basic human qualities.
Polite, considerate, thoughtful Christians/Muslims/Buddhists are part of the problem. They can poke fun with us at all the silly fundamentalists who believe every word of the Bible, laugh at the person who thinks the end-times are nigh, cringe at creationist propaganda. Yet, in the end, they adhere to a set of beliefs that are cognitively corrupt, no matter how well-meaning they might be.
Religions (modern, organized) are not democratic, nor are they based on principles of liberty, nor on any factual evidence. Religion, even privately and quietly practiced, is anti-science; there is not room for both views:
You cannot claim, in my eyes, to apply critical thinking if you believe in God.
Most atheists will not directly declare this point, choosing to avoid argument, preferring to not be judgemental. We soldier on, hoping against hope, that most of these people who claim to believe are fakers. That’s our delusion.
Religion has no place in education, science, or politics. Every modern religion I have been exposed to openly admits to trying to take over and influence those areas. Every modern religion gives their people the right and authority to overrule logic and democratic government. Every religion tries to add a second route to truth.
MP
Mark,
Well, right. I’m one atheist who does declare that point. And I get angry emails as a result.
The minimal assumption we’re all apparently supposed to operate under, or pretend to operate under, is that it’s equally rational to believe in god or not to believe in god. The less minimal assumption is that it’s actually more rational to believe in god than not to. The idea that it’s less rational to believe in god is the dirty little secret.
It seems to me things used to be different (briefly). That believers knew they were believers; they were more or less tentative and bashful about it; they knew they believed because they chose to, they wanted to. But now…well, that way of looking at it seems to have faded away.
“It seems to me things used to be different (briefly). That believers knew they were believers; they were more or less tentative and bashful about it; they knew they believed because they chose to, they wanted to. But now…well, that way of looking at it seems to have faded away.”
Not quite faded away, I think. They are there. It’s just that public discourse has been for the most part taken over by the irrationalists and extremists.
I know many good Episcopalians and Presbyterians and Methodists who fully acknowledge that their beliefs are a matter of non-rational, deliberate choice. But in the current American political climate, where one party has been taken over by anti-intellectual religious (and political) extremists without any capacity for or interest in critical thinking or substantive introspection, we just don’t hear the voices of those who realize that ‘faith’ is, by definition, belief in that which cannot be supported by evidence and reason.
I guess I consider myself a pragmatic atheist. I have no quarrel with moderate, secular religionists, only with fanatics and fundamentalists. But, like OB, I am getting awfully sick of the Christian right and its media enablers portraying me and my kind as amoral hedonists or worse. Despite my lack of belief in a Big Daddy in the Sky or my skepticism about an afterlife spent flitting in my nighties among the clouds for ever and ever, I still remain faithful to my husband, don’t snort coke or knock back a fifth of Jack every night, don’t beat my kids or torture stray animals or poison the well, and–most amazing of all–have somehow managed to keep myself off death row. It must be by the Grace of God!
“where one party has been taken over by anti-intellectual religious (and political) extremists”
and the other party instead of trying to do the other thing or the right thing just keeps trying to do the same thing. So we’re stuck. We get pundits trying to force religion on us from both right and left. Bipartisan godbothering.
Tell me about it. One of the more pitiful sights this last month has been Democratic politicians suddenly quoting the Bible every two minutes and trying to sound like hell-fire preachers. And it’s so obvious they’re just lamely going through the motions in a cynical attempt to pander to the God Squad. All they’re doing is turning off their original constituency; the religious right is never going to vote for them. It’s enough to turn a gal commie.
Just to pick up a point touched on earlier in this stream, over here in the UK we now need someone in politics brave enough to point out that the only logical conclusion from rejecting Blunkett’s mad (again! will he never learn?)legislation is to repeal the law on blasphemy and disestablish the Church of England; only that gives us a level playing field between believers and non-believers.
If only. There were a couple of news stories in November that reported Labour has no plans to alter the blasphemy law.
As a fellow Brit I applaud Chris’s suggestion that the Church of England should be disestablished. However, it needs to be borne in mind that the C of E is by no means the only embodiment of Christian faith in Britain. The Roman Catholics and the nonconformists (who also tend to be fundamentalist) will soon be crying “onward Christian Soldiers” if they feel their particular claims to be the holders of the One True Faith to be under threat from the perceived unchallenged prevalence of other religions. They have never let the fact that they are not the established denomination bother them before, so I have little hope that any “level playing field” will be established.
Also, to digress slightly, isn’t it worrying that Tony and George, both being Christians, must therefore presumably believe that God is on their side on any issue, including the “war on terrorism”? Since this is also what the terrorists believe, this makes me rather uneasy about the prospects of any progress towards World Peace. Just a thought.