Print
Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)
by Frederick Clarkson
Reposted from:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/22/134216/152
Thanks to Chris Carroll for sending this in.
I love a good rant of rationalistic fervor. But don't get me wrong. I also appreciate a fervent, well-delivered sermon and have heard my share from quite a range of styles and theological perspectives. Strong arguments, well-made -- are always worth a listen and are a great experience in a constitutional democracy founded on freedom of conscience and speech. But forgive me if I have no use for the views of Sam Harris, the author of the best-selling book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason. I think he is one of the best friends the religious right has in American public life. If Sam Harris did not exist, Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson (or Jim Wallis, for that matter), would have to invent him -- and indeed, in their fevered imaginations, they already have -- and convinced millions of Americans that such people exist and are terribly influential in public life. He is the personification of the almost entirely imaginary campaign against religion itself.
This is bad enough, but his ideas are actually more concerning.
I would not ordinarily take the time to talk about Harris. His argument is, frankly, stupefyingly simplistic, (which I know will be shocking statement to some, but bear with me.) What's more, this would ordinarily be off topic on this site because we are not interested in debates between theism and atheism. We are interested in the religious right and what to do about it. But Harris's argument does end up having something to do with that for a number of reasons, as I will discuss. Indeed, he and those who follow his argument believe that antireligionism is the response to the religious right because religion itself in all of its forms is responsible for it. No religion; no religious right. Simple, right? It gets a little more detailed, but not much.
Nevertheless, many people are very taken with his argument, which is essentially this: "Extreme" religion is the fault of moderate, even progressive religion and; the most "extreme," of those speaking in the name of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, adhere to most strongly, and best represent the central tenets of their respective faiths. These foundational notions of the Essential Harris, are cast in sharp relief in his recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, titled: "God's dupes: Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional."
He explains:
Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers-the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.
In taking this view, Harris adopts as legitimate, the claim of jihadists and dominionists that they embody the True Religion. There is no basis for his claim. Islam and Christianity are quite diverse, historically rich and there are few theologians who are not jihadists or dominionists themselves who would place such controversial groups at the center of their traditions. And certainly no independent scholars would agree with Harris that dominionists and jihadists represent the core of their respective faiths. That Harris's argument rests on the presuppositions of the jihadists and dominionists themselves -- is the desperate assertion of a crackpot or a ruthless propagandist. (I appreciate that this may make some fans of Harris uncomfortable, but I am certain that they can handle it since, after all, they are undoubtedly open to reason.)
I am not a scholar of Islam, but I have written a thing or two or three about dominionism. It is indeed, an influential movement within conservative evangelical Christianity, but it is by no means at the center of modern Christianity; Harris's crackpot geometry of concentric circles not withstanding. He goes on to describe the outer rings of the circles, except that the geometry gets kinda hazy out there.
Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine-of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.
Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues-people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.
Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.
And Harris shares the same sneering view of liberal Christians, Jews and Muslims as the most fanatical of jihadists and dominionists. He adopts their terms and presents them as epitomizing the faith, and then adopts their method of invective, calling others weak, heretical, apostate, zeal-less. Elsewhere in his writings he calls the people he considers extremists, more "honest" and in their way, even more "rational" than liberals.
But Harris himself is not a rationalist so much as a demagogue and a provocateur. He divides people who ought to be allies against one another. Listen to this as he goes on:
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists-men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn.
Of course, this is preposterous on it face. The mere shared belief in the divinity of Jesus does not prevent Christians of all stripes from disagreeing, scornfully or otherwise, on everything from minor matters of doctrine and ritual to the most profound issues of war and peace. Similarly, being American and believing in common in our system of government does not mean that we all agree on many important matters, or refrain from disagreeing on matters large and small. Same goes for members of any of the political parties. Inhibitions on the ways we disagree can be differently sourced. Now one can say: "Wait a minute, Clarkson! Religion is different than politics!" To which I would say yes, but the burden is on Harris to make his case that liberal Christians are directly or indirectly soft on dominionism. But he does not do that. I might add, that in my experience, there there is no more, or necessarily clearer responses to dominionism in particular, or to the religious right in general, from atheists and humanists than from mainstream Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Harris could make the argument that coreligionists ought to stand-up more effectively to fundamentalists and theocrats of all sorts; and that they, arguably, have a special standing and responsibility to do so. Such an effort would get my full support. Indeed, milquetoastery runs deep among many; but I think it has little or nothing to do with being blinded by religion. I suspect that is mostly because people are a little too-comfortable in their lives and not looking for a fight. I think the same is true of many non-believers.
In an interview last year, with TruthDig, Harris was asked how he came to write The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.
It was my immediate reaction to Sept. 11-the moment it became clear that we were meandering into a global, theologically-inspired conflict with the Muslim world, and were going to tell ourselves otherwise, based on the respect we pay to faith.
The last thing we were going to admit was that people were flying planes into our buildings because of what they believed about God. We came up with euphemisms about this being a war on terror, and Islam being a religion of peace, and we were pushed even further into our own religiosity as a nation. At the moment that this dynamic became clear-and it became clear within about 24 hours-I started writing the book.
And so it came to pass that Harris was moved to his grand theory that all religious people are responsible for the 9/11 hijackers and anyone remotely like them. He explained:
Leftists, secularists, religious moderates, and religious liberals tend to be very poorly placed to recognize that when somebody looks into a video camera and says, "I love death more than the infidel loves life," and then blows himself up, he's actually being honest about his state of mind.... Religious moderates and secularists don't understand that because they don't really know what it's like to believe in God.
Hear that? Religious moderates don't really know what it is like to believe in God. (But Sam Harris does!) I would say that is a breath-taking assertion -- except that it isn't. It is just stupidly arrogant. But that is not the main problem; people say stupid and arrogant things all the time. What is signficant about this is that this statement is integral to the views of someone who is prominent and perhaps even influential in the current discourse about religion in public life.
There are of course political consequences if otherwise sensible people join Harris in putting on the blinders to go out and fight the Muslim hordes. Harris is seeking to neutralize religious people who don't hold to his peculiar variety of militant manicheanism -- for the sole reason that they are "delusional" religious believers. This antireligious bigotry and the fanning of it in others, is a fundamental roadblock to any kind of meaningful or politically productive conversation. Most of the Americans he would hope to mobilize to deal with terror abroad and theocratic politics at home are, in fact, religious, making his insulting invective a political non-starter.
Indeed, Harris speaks about "religious moderates" in much the same way that Jim Wallis writes about unnamed "secular fundamentalists" and their supposed nefarious deeds against people of faith in the public square. They both write in the abstract, offer no specifics, and do so with such vitriol that many depending on which side of the faith/secular divide they sit, cannot not find in them, someone who looks like a legitimate, respectful and trustworthy political partner.
"We should be fundamentally hostile to claims to certainty," Harris declared in his Truthdig interview, "that are not backed up by evidence and argument." OK. By that standard we would have to say that the problem with Harris is that on his key points, he is all argument and no evidence. Indeed, his claim that moderate religion is responsible for the extreme views and activities of others smacks of the kind of out-of-context-of-life abstraction one sometimes gets from arm chair generals and people whose experience of the political world is limited to grad school. Where the rubber meets the road of political life is people working with one another towards common goals and preferably with some sense of what has gone before, and how politics actually works so they can steer events toward the best possible outcomes -- even when trying something new.
Finding ways to better contend with the religious right in America; finding ways for wide swaths of people, religious and non-religious, Christian and non-Christian to be able to communicate with one another, learn with one another, and finding sufficient intellectual and political common ground -- is a rational and common sense way to go. Here at Talk to Action, religion-bashing and secular-baiting are banned, in part because they are significant obstacles to broadening and deepening our capacity to find and work that intellectual and political common ground.
I believe that the divisive rhetoric and antireligious bigotry of Sam Harris plays directly into the hands of the religious right, turning people who follow his lead into caricatures of the the very sort of sneering characters that religious right preachers and ideologues warn their followers about. Harris's antireligionism is not merely a philosophically rationalist case against religion; a venerable take on life. Rather, Harris's argument is political, and framed in the context of the war on terror. He wants to blame the extreme views and activities of some, on the many -- the many who have nothing to do with it. His method is glib demagoguery and argument by assertion. His core premise is dead wrong, and his political reasoning is as flawed.
Harris's ideas run profoundly against a central constitutional idea in America, and a central ethos of our culture. It is the glue that holds together a society based on religious pluralism: in our country, we seek to treat as equal citizens, the theist and the atheist; the Christian and the non-Christian. This is one of the strongest arguments we have in contending with the religious right. If we, as citizens, embrace the ethos of religious equality and respect, and the constitutional doctrine of religious equality and separation of church and state, we can address the religious supremecism of the religious right, as well as the bogus narrative of Christian nationalism.
Conversely, Harris's souped-up, uber-rationalism is a supremecism of viewpoint that seeks to justify all manner of unjustified and I would say, unjustifiable attacks on the views and traditions of others, and is an outright attack on religious pluralism -- thereby strengthening the hand of the religious right, which also seeks to overcome pluralism.
In contrast, Don Byrd, writing here at Talk to Action last week gave a succinct summary of the historic, mainstream Baptist view rooted in the origins of American political and constitutional theory.
As a matter of law, our Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office, without exception. As a matter of faith, religion is not served by de facto tests either, those that in reality leave non-theism out of bounds.
If religious freedom is truly free--if the freedom to believe is honestly one of conscience--then the freedom not to believe must be protected alongside it, not just in the law but in practice; not just in theory but in reality. As a Baptist who embraces the priesthood-of-the-believer principle, soul freedom, and the notion that we come to our religious views through free will and earnest personal decision, I honor the freedom that allows others a true choice to make different decisions - to hold different religious beliefs, or to choose no faith. In short, it's only the freedom not to believe in God that gives religious liberty any real significant meaning.
Don Byrd is also the official blogger of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, representing a number of mainstream Baptist groups in Washington. Baptist and atheists ought to be the firmest of allies -- but not in the world view of Sam Harris whose ill considered politics create weakening fissures, not unifying strengths.
A better framework for addressing these matters is rooted in our history, and embraces the Christian rationalism of Locke, Madison and Jefferson; the humanism of Franklin; and the Baptist orthodoxy of John Leland and Rev. Isaac Bachus. We can build on the work of the past 300 years to meet the needs of our time.We can live with one another and engage one another peacefully and reasonably in public life, as long as we are not seeking to hijack public resources to promote our religious views or institutions or pet projects; or even religion in general. Government exists to carry out other functions. We call this separation of church and state. At the same time, people have the right to make up their own minds about God and choice of religious community -- or not. We call this religious freedom or freedom of conscience.
My point here is not to carry a brief for liberal Christianity or any other religion, moderate or immoderate. Nor do I want to step into the age-old argument between atheism and theism. My interest is different and goes to the point of this group blog: If we are interested in getting ourselves better together to contend with the theocratic elements of our time, I submit that Harris offers a false and counterproductive path. Religious and non-religious Americans must be able to speak coherently with one another about the society in which we live, and how to contend with theocratic interests that affect us all. Are liberal theists really responsible for 9/11 and the theocratic views and aspirations of the religious right as Harris alleges? Or is that demagogic nonsense that does not stand-up under scrutiny? I think it is the latter.
Links referenced in this article:
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20060403_sam_harris_interview/
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris15mar15,0,5899452.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/15/151645/543
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/22/134216/152
Thanks to Chris Carroll for sending this in.
I love a good rant of rationalistic fervor. But don't get me wrong. I also appreciate a fervent, well-delivered sermon and have heard my share from quite a range of styles and theological perspectives. Strong arguments, well-made -- are always worth a listen and are a great experience in a constitutional democracy founded on freedom of conscience and speech. But forgive me if I have no use for the views of Sam Harris, the author of the best-selling book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason. I think he is one of the best friends the religious right has in American public life. If Sam Harris did not exist, Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson (or Jim Wallis, for that matter), would have to invent him -- and indeed, in their fevered imaginations, they already have -- and convinced millions of Americans that such people exist and are terribly influential in public life. He is the personification of the almost entirely imaginary campaign against religion itself.
This is bad enough, but his ideas are actually more concerning.
I would not ordinarily take the time to talk about Harris. His argument is, frankly, stupefyingly simplistic, (which I know will be shocking statement to some, but bear with me.) What's more, this would ordinarily be off topic on this site because we are not interested in debates between theism and atheism. We are interested in the religious right and what to do about it. But Harris's argument does end up having something to do with that for a number of reasons, as I will discuss. Indeed, he and those who follow his argument believe that antireligionism is the response to the religious right because religion itself in all of its forms is responsible for it. No religion; no religious right. Simple, right? It gets a little more detailed, but not much.
Nevertheless, many people are very taken with his argument, which is essentially this: "Extreme" religion is the fault of moderate, even progressive religion and; the most "extreme," of those speaking in the name of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, adhere to most strongly, and best represent the central tenets of their respective faiths. These foundational notions of the Essential Harris, are cast in sharp relief in his recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, titled: "God's dupes: Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional."
He explains:
Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers-the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.
In taking this view, Harris adopts as legitimate, the claim of jihadists and dominionists that they embody the True Religion. There is no basis for his claim. Islam and Christianity are quite diverse, historically rich and there are few theologians who are not jihadists or dominionists themselves who would place such controversial groups at the center of their traditions. And certainly no independent scholars would agree with Harris that dominionists and jihadists represent the core of their respective faiths. That Harris's argument rests on the presuppositions of the jihadists and dominionists themselves -- is the desperate assertion of a crackpot or a ruthless propagandist. (I appreciate that this may make some fans of Harris uncomfortable, but I am certain that they can handle it since, after all, they are undoubtedly open to reason.)
I am not a scholar of Islam, but I have written a thing or two or three about dominionism. It is indeed, an influential movement within conservative evangelical Christianity, but it is by no means at the center of modern Christianity; Harris's crackpot geometry of concentric circles not withstanding. He goes on to describe the outer rings of the circles, except that the geometry gets kinda hazy out there.
Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine-of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.
Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues-people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.
Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.
And Harris shares the same sneering view of liberal Christians, Jews and Muslims as the most fanatical of jihadists and dominionists. He adopts their terms and presents them as epitomizing the faith, and then adopts their method of invective, calling others weak, heretical, apostate, zeal-less. Elsewhere in his writings he calls the people he considers extremists, more "honest" and in their way, even more "rational" than liberals.
But Harris himself is not a rationalist so much as a demagogue and a provocateur. He divides people who ought to be allies against one another. Listen to this as he goes on:
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists-men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn.
Of course, this is preposterous on it face. The mere shared belief in the divinity of Jesus does not prevent Christians of all stripes from disagreeing, scornfully or otherwise, on everything from minor matters of doctrine and ritual to the most profound issues of war and peace. Similarly, being American and believing in common in our system of government does not mean that we all agree on many important matters, or refrain from disagreeing on matters large and small. Same goes for members of any of the political parties. Inhibitions on the ways we disagree can be differently sourced. Now one can say: "Wait a minute, Clarkson! Religion is different than politics!" To which I would say yes, but the burden is on Harris to make his case that liberal Christians are directly or indirectly soft on dominionism. But he does not do that. I might add, that in my experience, there there is no more, or necessarily clearer responses to dominionism in particular, or to the religious right in general, from atheists and humanists than from mainstream Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Harris could make the argument that coreligionists ought to stand-up more effectively to fundamentalists and theocrats of all sorts; and that they, arguably, have a special standing and responsibility to do so. Such an effort would get my full support. Indeed, milquetoastery runs deep among many; but I think it has little or nothing to do with being blinded by religion. I suspect that is mostly because people are a little too-comfortable in their lives and not looking for a fight. I think the same is true of many non-believers.
In an interview last year, with TruthDig, Harris was asked how he came to write The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.
It was my immediate reaction to Sept. 11-the moment it became clear that we were meandering into a global, theologically-inspired conflict with the Muslim world, and were going to tell ourselves otherwise, based on the respect we pay to faith.
The last thing we were going to admit was that people were flying planes into our buildings because of what they believed about God. We came up with euphemisms about this being a war on terror, and Islam being a religion of peace, and we were pushed even further into our own religiosity as a nation. At the moment that this dynamic became clear-and it became clear within about 24 hours-I started writing the book.
And so it came to pass that Harris was moved to his grand theory that all religious people are responsible for the 9/11 hijackers and anyone remotely like them. He explained:
Leftists, secularists, religious moderates, and religious liberals tend to be very poorly placed to recognize that when somebody looks into a video camera and says, "I love death more than the infidel loves life," and then blows himself up, he's actually being honest about his state of mind.... Religious moderates and secularists don't understand that because they don't really know what it's like to believe in God.
Hear that? Religious moderates don't really know what it is like to believe in God. (But Sam Harris does!) I would say that is a breath-taking assertion -- except that it isn't. It is just stupidly arrogant. But that is not the main problem; people say stupid and arrogant things all the time. What is signficant about this is that this statement is integral to the views of someone who is prominent and perhaps even influential in the current discourse about religion in public life.
There are of course political consequences if otherwise sensible people join Harris in putting on the blinders to go out and fight the Muslim hordes. Harris is seeking to neutralize religious people who don't hold to his peculiar variety of militant manicheanism -- for the sole reason that they are "delusional" religious believers. This antireligious bigotry and the fanning of it in others, is a fundamental roadblock to any kind of meaningful or politically productive conversation. Most of the Americans he would hope to mobilize to deal with terror abroad and theocratic politics at home are, in fact, religious, making his insulting invective a political non-starter.
Indeed, Harris speaks about "religious moderates" in much the same way that Jim Wallis writes about unnamed "secular fundamentalists" and their supposed nefarious deeds against people of faith in the public square. They both write in the abstract, offer no specifics, and do so with such vitriol that many depending on which side of the faith/secular divide they sit, cannot not find in them, someone who looks like a legitimate, respectful and trustworthy political partner.
"We should be fundamentally hostile to claims to certainty," Harris declared in his Truthdig interview, "that are not backed up by evidence and argument." OK. By that standard we would have to say that the problem with Harris is that on his key points, he is all argument and no evidence. Indeed, his claim that moderate religion is responsible for the extreme views and activities of others smacks of the kind of out-of-context-of-life abstraction one sometimes gets from arm chair generals and people whose experience of the political world is limited to grad school. Where the rubber meets the road of political life is people working with one another towards common goals and preferably with some sense of what has gone before, and how politics actually works so they can steer events toward the best possible outcomes -- even when trying something new.
Finding ways to better contend with the religious right in America; finding ways for wide swaths of people, religious and non-religious, Christian and non-Christian to be able to communicate with one another, learn with one another, and finding sufficient intellectual and political common ground -- is a rational and common sense way to go. Here at Talk to Action, religion-bashing and secular-baiting are banned, in part because they are significant obstacles to broadening and deepening our capacity to find and work that intellectual and political common ground.
I believe that the divisive rhetoric and antireligious bigotry of Sam Harris plays directly into the hands of the religious right, turning people who follow his lead into caricatures of the the very sort of sneering characters that religious right preachers and ideologues warn their followers about. Harris's antireligionism is not merely a philosophically rationalist case against religion; a venerable take on life. Rather, Harris's argument is political, and framed in the context of the war on terror. He wants to blame the extreme views and activities of some, on the many -- the many who have nothing to do with it. His method is glib demagoguery and argument by assertion. His core premise is dead wrong, and his political reasoning is as flawed.
Harris's ideas run profoundly against a central constitutional idea in America, and a central ethos of our culture. It is the glue that holds together a society based on religious pluralism: in our country, we seek to treat as equal citizens, the theist and the atheist; the Christian and the non-Christian. This is one of the strongest arguments we have in contending with the religious right. If we, as citizens, embrace the ethos of religious equality and respect, and the constitutional doctrine of religious equality and separation of church and state, we can address the religious supremecism of the religious right, as well as the bogus narrative of Christian nationalism.
Conversely, Harris's souped-up, uber-rationalism is a supremecism of viewpoint that seeks to justify all manner of unjustified and I would say, unjustifiable attacks on the views and traditions of others, and is an outright attack on religious pluralism -- thereby strengthening the hand of the religious right, which also seeks to overcome pluralism.
In contrast, Don Byrd, writing here at Talk to Action last week gave a succinct summary of the historic, mainstream Baptist view rooted in the origins of American political and constitutional theory.
As a matter of law, our Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office, without exception. As a matter of faith, religion is not served by de facto tests either, those that in reality leave non-theism out of bounds.
If religious freedom is truly free--if the freedom to believe is honestly one of conscience--then the freedom not to believe must be protected alongside it, not just in the law but in practice; not just in theory but in reality. As a Baptist who embraces the priesthood-of-the-believer principle, soul freedom, and the notion that we come to our religious views through free will and earnest personal decision, I honor the freedom that allows others a true choice to make different decisions - to hold different religious beliefs, or to choose no faith. In short, it's only the freedom not to believe in God that gives religious liberty any real significant meaning.
Don Byrd is also the official blogger of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, representing a number of mainstream Baptist groups in Washington. Baptist and atheists ought to be the firmest of allies -- but not in the world view of Sam Harris whose ill considered politics create weakening fissures, not unifying strengths.
A better framework for addressing these matters is rooted in our history, and embraces the Christian rationalism of Locke, Madison and Jefferson; the humanism of Franklin; and the Baptist orthodoxy of John Leland and Rev. Isaac Bachus. We can build on the work of the past 300 years to meet the needs of our time.We can live with one another and engage one another peacefully and reasonably in public life, as long as we are not seeking to hijack public resources to promote our religious views or institutions or pet projects; or even religion in general. Government exists to carry out other functions. We call this separation of church and state. At the same time, people have the right to make up their own minds about God and choice of religious community -- or not. We call this religious freedom or freedom of conscience.
My point here is not to carry a brief for liberal Christianity or any other religion, moderate or immoderate. Nor do I want to step into the age-old argument between atheism and theism. My interest is different and goes to the point of this group blog: If we are interested in getting ourselves better together to contend with the theocratic elements of our time, I submit that Harris offers a false and counterproductive path. Religious and non-religious Americans must be able to speak coherently with one another about the society in which we live, and how to contend with theocratic interests that affect us all. Are liberal theists really responsible for 9/11 and the theocratic views and aspirations of the religious right as Harris alleges? Or is that demagogic nonsense that does not stand-up under scrutiny? I think it is the latter.
Links referenced in this article:
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20060403_sam_harris_interview/
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris15mar15,0,5899452.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/15/151645/543
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, March 24, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 58 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #27336 by Seti on March 24, 2007 at 5:37 am
Yet another diatribe on the same lines as many others. What they have in common is an inability to see what religion looks like from the outside (understandably, perhaps) and an assertion that wherever they themselves are located in this cloud of witlessness is in fact the "heart" of their particular dogma. And an indignation that anyone is daring to disrespect them (understandably, perhaps!)Clarkson, in his eagerness to disassociate himself from the lunatic core of his co-religionists, ends up doing precisely what Harris et al accuse him of. He wants the voice of criticim to remain diffident and soft, to deal politely with the nice liberal types like himself (as he sees himself) and not to pay too much attention to the dragon of Dominionism breathing fire behind him.
Everyone who beleives in the supernatural, whether gods or ghosts or gremlins, feeds that beleif in others. If you can beleive that the position of the stars and planets can tell you what sort of day you are going to have, or that your dog can recognise the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, it's only a very small step to accepting the rest of the guff. From the outside, they all look pretty much the same.
Other Comments by Seti
3. Comment #27339 by cry4turtles on March 24, 2007 at 6:02 am
"And so it came to pass that Harris was moved to his grand theory that all religious people are responsible for the 9/11 hijackers and anyone remotely like them."They're not?
"...he is all argument and no evidence"
This fellow needs to promptly remove his rose-colored glasses. Harris speaks the truth, and the truth doesn't always look warm and fuzzy.
Other Comments by cry4turtles
4. Comment #27340 by cheshirecat on March 24, 2007 at 6:14 am
The problem with Harris is that like his opponents on the religious right in America he is moved by hatred and contempt to write what he does. He should look to himself before criticising intolerance in others.Other Comments by cheshirecat
5. Comment #27341 by fonex_86 on March 24, 2007 at 6:35 am
I don't know about other religions, but christianity's "prime directive" is to "love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind". This is taken literally by dominionists/fundamentalists, and as such, they DO represent the "purest" form of christianity.
Hear that? Religious moderates don't really know what it is like to believe in God. (But Sam Harris does!) I would say that is a breath-taking assertion -- except that it isn't. It is just stupidly arrogant. But that is not the main problem; people say stupid and arrogant things all the time. What is signficant about this is that this statement is integral to the views of someone who is prominent and perhaps even influential in the current discourse about religion in public life.
This piece of ignorant drivel here is what's REALLY stupidly arrogant. Religious moderates, when it comes to faith in god, tend to be somewhat hypocritical. Doesn't god heal all kinds of sickness? "But it won't hurt to see the doctor.." Won't god take care of your house while you're away? "I'd better lock it, just in case..." The hardcore believers, on the other hand... well, let's just say they REALLY swallow the book, cover and all.
I was a moderate once, and I can still see this cherrypicking, hypocritical attitude in the lives of my friends and family. They often spout about "religious tolerance" but condemn other religions and beliefs as "astray" and "ungodly". Where in the bible are christians taught to be tolerant of other beliefs?
Before you label other people as "crackpots" and "arrogant", Mr. Clarkson, I suggest you go take a hot shower, eat dinner, then sit down and reflect on how you've shown yourself to be the jackass you are through your ignorant article.
Other Comments by fonex_86
6. Comment #27343 by anotherclinton on March 24, 2007 at 6:56 am
Every time I see a person from the secular world worry so limpwristedly over Harris's "simplicity", I can only assume that we're dealing with the masochism that cultural relativism demands of all Western people who want to appear noble before the eyes of the undeveloped world. Which is more concerned with getting something to eat than thinking that somebody as well-fed as Frederick Clarkson is noble. Other Comments by anotherclinton
7. Comment #27346 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 7:18 am
I have read both of Sams books, and found them absolutely compelling, and although I disagree with his demonisation of Islam (I think it dangerous, and that it has the potential to grease the rails to war), I find little I can disagree with in principle, except the capacity he attributes to Islamic terrorists to do real harm.That quibble aside, he really does cut to the chase. Either people beleive things or they don't. Either things are real or the aren't, and while the charge of bigotry is real, it is a rational and justifiable bigotry that appears poorly motivated because of the uniquely protected place religion has attained in society.
As Sam often puts it, those who profess that Odin, Zeus or Thor speak to them, or that they speak to these Gods for guidance, wouldn't get a job as a car wash attendant, let alone ascend to the most powerful political position on the planet.
Is it bigotry to wonder about the faculties and capacities of someone that professes certainty about things they cannot possible be certain about? No,I don't think so. Religious people should keep their beliefs to themselves, one way to ensure this happens is to have a conversational intolerance for obvious religious mumbo jumbo, and I really think thats ok.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
8. Comment #27347 by debaser71 on March 24, 2007 at 7:25 am
Sam Harris did a very good job at moving this conversation foward. His tough remarks and critical views on religous moderates has opened up some space behind him for others to step into. It's a damn shame that some choose to step into this new space only to point fingers at Sam Harris to make theior own wishy washy views seem more palpatable.Anwway thanks for the publicity. Conversation favors those with reality on their side.
Other Comments by debaser71
9. Comment #27348 by Logicel on March 24, 2007 at 7:27 am
"My point here is not to carry a brief for liberal Christianity or any other religion, moderate or immoderate. Nor do I want to step into the age-old argument between atheism and theism. My interest is different and goes to the point of this group blog: If we are interested in getting ourselves better together to contend with the theocratic elements of our time, I submit that Harris offers a false and counterproductive path."__________
Clarkson's writing style is at least straightforward and modern--you have a chance of understanding his points quite quickly unlike the written mush of Plantinga and D. Robertson. However, under the broad sweeping of his white-washing brush, there is no content, just a bunch of mealy-mouthed mewling: We must forget the truth so we can battle our joint enemy, the theocrats. As long as Clarkson does not openly confront the danger that all faith-based beliefs present, he is kidding himself because, in reality, he is his own enemy but he does not know that he is, and instead on working on that aspect, he is focusing on the enemy outside and not within.
Clarkson, like all his fellow religious moderates, do not like and resist completely the raising of their consciousness that as long as they continue to regard believing based on faith without a shred of provable evidence as a virtue, they are allowing and encouraging the rabid, extreme expression of what that means, even if they, themselves do not fly planes into buildings.
Other Comments by Logicel
10. Comment #27351 by cheshirecat on March 24, 2007 at 7:51 am
After all did not Hitler once say that people believing in God enabled him to invade Poland.I believe he was interviewed in 1938:
Are you particually religious Mr Hitler?
Yes I am as a matter of fact. Me Stalin and Pat Robertson are all Quakers. We hold prayer meetings organise charity events together. My faith has inspired me to seek the unity all the German people in one glorious new empire and wipe out once and forever the impure blood in our nation.
I think this quote proves the danger of apparently liberal christianity. Sam Harris is right. If you are a liberal christian like Hitler you are basically supporting the terrorists.
Other Comments by cheshirecat
11. Comment #27354 by Jonathan Dore on March 24, 2007 at 7:58 am
Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers-the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.
In taking this view, Harris adopts as legitimate, the claim of jihadists and dominionists that they embody the True Religion. There is no basis for his claim. Islam and Christianity are quite diverse, historically rich and there are few theologians who are not jihadists or dominionists themselves who would place such controversial groups at the center of their traditions. And certainly no independent scholars would agree with Harris that dominionists and jihadists represent the core of their respective faiths.
Clarkson seems to make an obtuse misreading of Harris here: the concentric circles, as Harris says, are of diminishing reasonableness, not diminishing centrality or mainstreamness in their respective traditions, so Clarkson is objecting to a point precisely opposite the one Harris is actually making. It is precisely the more reasonable, more mainstream people in the outer circles whose attitudes and habits of thought unwittingly support the activities of the extremists within.
Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.
And Harris shares the same sneering view of liberal Christians, Jews and Muslims as the most fanatical of jihadists and dominionists. He adopts their terms and presents them as epitomizing the faith, and then adopts their method of invective, calling others weak, heretical, apostate, zeal-less.
Clarkson fails to notice that the very quote that he thinks shows Harris's contempt for liberals is in fact presenting religionists' views of each other; and presents religious liberals' views of extremists, and vice versa, as equally contemptuous of the other. Harris is not taking sides here -- these are religionists' self-inflicted views, as Clarkson's attitudes towards extremists presented here clearly demonstrate.
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists-men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn.
The mere shared belief in the divinity of Jesus does not prevent Christians of all stripes from disagreeing, scornfully or otherwise, on everything from minor matters of doctrine and ritual to the most profound issues of war and peace.
Again, Clarkson fails to perceive Harris's rather clearly stated point on the nature and extent of this "sheltering" and "inadvertent support". By agreeing with extremists on the fundamental point of God's existence and Jesus's divinity, liberal Christians have no clear grounds on which to stand from which to refute the extremists' interpretation. They have already conceded the most important ground of all to the extremists: namely, the belief that there is a supernatural god who commands certain actions and condemns others (among other things). Once this ground is conceded, "debate" or "criticism" between religious groups of varying degrees of moderation becomes a mere footling question of which biblical verses one likes and which one doesn't, which aspects of doctrine one prefers to emphasize and which one doesn't, which interpretive traditions one holds dear and which one doesn't. What it doesn't provide is any clear, rational, empirical, neutral basis on which to make a judgement between these conflicting truth claims. Only standing outside religion altogether does that.
Other Comments by Jonathan Dore
12. Comment #27356 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 8:02 am
I think this quote proves the danger of apparently liberal christianity. Sam Harris is right. If you are a liberal christian like Hitler you are basically supporting the terrorists.Actually there is some dispute as to wether Hitler was religious or not, what is certain is that the German people were, and much of what was done was justified through religion especially the medievial demonisation of the jews.
That said, all totalitarian systems are in effect based on irrational dogma. Religion sit in among stalinism, nazism and communism under the umbrella of irrational dogma.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
13. Comment #27359 by DerrickB on March 24, 2007 at 8:26 am
Consider what you are saying Mr Clarkson:"I would not ordinarily take the time to talk about Harris. His argument is, frankly, stupefyingly simplistic, (which I know will be shocking statement to some, but bear with me.) What's more, this would ordinarily be off topic on this site because we are not interested in debates between belief in fairies and disbelief in fairies. We (the believers in good fairies) are interested in the followers of the bad fairies and what to do about them. But Harris's argument does end up having something to do with that for a number of reasons, as I will discuss. Indeed, he and those who follow his argument believe that disbelief in fairies is the response to the followers of bad fairies because belief in fairies itself in all of its forms is responsible for it. No belief in fairies; no belief in bad fairies. Simple, right? It gets a little more detailed, but not much."
The rest is a waste of time
Other Comments by DerrickB
14. Comment #27360 by Nuclearman on March 24, 2007 at 8:26 am
The legitimacy of this article went out the door for me when the author wrote,
He [Harris] explains:
Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers-the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.
In taking this view, Harris adopts as legitimate, the claim of jihadists and dominionists that they embody the True Religion. There is no basis for his claim. Islam and Christianity are quite diverse, historically rich and there are few theologians who are not jihadists or dominionists themselves who would place such controversial groups at the center of their traditions. And certainly no independent scholars would agree with Harris that dominionists and jihadists represent the core of their respective faiths.
When I read the Harris article, I never construed his concentric circles picture as a figurative hierarchal structure of the tenet and follower system of the church. The concentric circles picture is only meant, as the description Harris provides makes intrinsically clear, to demonstrate that the nut-jobs are
Nowhere -- not once -- by direct wording, or through suggestive implication -- does Harris imbue with the circles the notion that the lunatic fringe is considered by the masses to be at the core of their belief system!
Clarkson is either a downright moron, or mendaciously disingenuous to suggest otherwise. From this point, his article lost any credibility.
Other Comments by Nuclearman
15. Comment #27366 by ghostbuster on March 24, 2007 at 8:42 am
When a person's baloney detector is damaged (and not repaired) it can lead to further baloney getting more and more of a foothold. It is quite possible and has been demonstrated that moderate Christians can become radical with just a few pieces of well-presented propaganda. And not just Christianity either. Nuclearman is right.Other Comments by ghostbuster
16. Comment #27373 by Kingasaurus on March 24, 2007 at 9:10 am
I think someone should ask Mr. Clarkson how a less literal reading of scripture is somehow more of the "core" of the faith than a fundamentalists' view of the same literary material? And what arguments would he use to compellingly support that?I think this is another case of someone simply asserting that his liberal, inclusive faith is most likely the "real" thing, while making himself feel better by attacking out from the "middle" in both directions.
Harris doesn't want to just have the argument about good-fairies and bad-fairies. He doesn't see any demonstrable fairies and wants that particular piece of information to be an integral part of the discussion. "Join with me in attacking bad-fairy-belief" says Clarkson.
Pardon me if I find Harris more compelling.
Other Comments by Kingasaurus
17. Comment #27378 by chrisrkline on March 24, 2007 at 9:47 am
Should we just live with theism and hope that if we form an alliance with moderates, that it will make things better. Or should we attack theism whole heartedly and in particular moderate theism as the great enabler of extremism.I will admit that I am unsure. My rational side is clearly on Harris' side; My love for my moderate/liberal Methodist wife makes me wonder.
But Clarkson's position is, I think, ultimately untenable. We are dealing with a dangerous (and growing) fundamentalist mindset, that holds that all differences of opinion is apostasy or heresy.
It may be that Harris is too extreme, but it is shortsighted to simply dismiss him out of hand. Moderates have not been successful at keeping conservative elements in their churches, and they should fear their ability to keep more liberal elements, too, especially in light of what we are learning about the historicity of Jesus (and other faiths).
Other Comments by chrisrkline
18. Comment #27383 by Roll on March 24, 2007 at 10:15 am
I think what Harris, Dawkins and to some extent Dennet have done is to reawaken the dormant atheist position of, "oh, don't worry, everyone is bound to come to their senses eventually", to one of, "these lunatics and dreamers need a wake up call!".I think Clarkson's main theme in this article is to make the point that Harris is way off beam politically. If Harris actually wants to change hearts and minds of people unprepared to make the leap to unbelief, and progress to that which would benefit us all, the opposition towards Christian Right Dominionism, then I tend to agree that this may not be the right course of action. I would say though, that it takes a little intellectual 'bra burning' to get the political process underway. I think that is where we are at.
What the books of Dawkins and Harris have done, is to lay down the boundary marker at one end of the sports field, that has been indistinct for some time. The people left in the centre now, need to be encouraged to support the move away from the attempt to religionise politics, which can only be a bad thing.
We do not want to scare people away by being more bleak and ferocious, than the comforting, morally righteous and indigenous alternative.
So while many of you posters continue to berate all that hold a mildly alternate view to yours (and mine), as stupid, intolerant and ignorant and their views as 'mumbo jumbo', wishful thinking and sheep-like, think this. Who is more likely to be able to influence your future, free of religious power? Is, for instance, Wallis trying to gain political power in government or the Christian church, or is his stance (and strength) something we should be trying to harness against the Dominionists?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,730,Evangelicals-battle-over-agenda-environment,Stephanie-Simon
It is all to easy to see things in black and white. I enjoyed this article and it clarified a few things for me on the subs bench. It is fun and like a breath of fresh air to take the Harris/Dawkins line on things, but what do we do if we want to affect real change?
Other Comments by Roll
19. Comment #27384 by WittyReference on March 24, 2007 at 10:18 am
this article is a load of crap... butAs someone who is increasingly finding it hard to be tolerant of religion, would me being "militant" in my atheism actually hurt the "movement"? That is the only idea in the article that got my interest
Other Comments by WittyReference
20. Comment #27385 by VanYoungman on March 24, 2007 at 10:20 am
Clarkson's problem is simply one of utter jealousy. Other Comments by VanYoungman
21. Comment #27393 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 11:08 am
As someone who is increasingly finding it hard to be tolerant of religion, would me being "militant" in my atheism actually hurt the "movement"? That is the only idea in the article that got my interestI think the right way to proceed is to be tolerant but persistent with people in your life, and especially with loved ones. Remember a person embracing religion should (almost) never is be a relationship deal breaker, if it is you've become a fundamentalist yourself!!! As always some exceptions will prove the rule.
However in general conversation online and with people at work, a robust conversational intolerance is in order, not ranting and raving, but relentlessly hammering home the key points, and not letting people get away with fluffy metaphysics. When it gets too heated then lighten the tone, but if maintaining a relationship is not a priority, then ruffling feathers is a great idea especially if it convinces the "audience". Until recently, religious people got a free ride to peddle their bullshit, that has to stop.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
22. Comment #27397 by ridelo on March 24, 2007 at 11:40 am
I would like to see one religious minded author who took one point of Dawkins, Dennet or Harris and showed it wrong in stead of calling their arguments unfounded, shrill etc... Then I might consider reading his article till the end.Who takes up the glove?
Other Comments by ridelo
23. Comment #27402 by nine9s on March 24, 2007 at 11:47 am
"The problem with Harris is that like his opponents on the religious right in America he is moved by hatred and contempt to write what he does."I wonder if Clarkson has ever seen Sam Harris speak. Harris is probably the calmest, most Zen-like public intellectual I've ever seen. If he's so full of hatred, he should quit the atheist gig and become an actor.
Also, Clarkson seems to think that Harris is an atheist in order to get rid of the religious right:
"[Harris believes] that antireligionism is the response to the religious right because religion itself in all of its forms is responsible for it. No religion; no religious right. Simple, right?"Like so many critics of Harris and Dawkins, it seems unfathomable to him that Harris believes what he believes because he thinks it's true and for no other reason. Maybe Christians routinely "choose" what they believe based on the benefits they get from it, so they naturally assume that atheists decide to be atheists in order to get under Christians' skin.
I'm really struck by the inanity of RD's and Harris' critics. I always knew that our perceptions can be colored by what we want to see, but this is ridiculous. People are really, truly, not all that interested in the truth. I say that not just because they disagree with me, or because they put forth bad arguments (which they do). I say that because they always seem to talk about motives, about consequences, about comfort, about the benefits they derive from believing in fairystories. I can respect someone who's wrong about God and puts forth arguments for his existence, but I can't muster any respect for someone who believes out of ulterior motives.
Sorry for all the melodramatic italics.
Other Comments by nine9s
24. Comment #27406 by DarwinsPitbull on March 24, 2007 at 12:28 pm
"It is the glue that holds together a society based on religious pluralism: in our country, we seek to treat as equal citizens, the theist and the atheist; the Christian and the non-Christian."If this is true, why can't a person who says they are an atheist hold a high public office or become president. There are polls that show most Americans would not vote for an atheist based on the fact that they are an atheist. Thats why a political leader can say more then a few words without mention the word "God" somewhere. Atheist are treated equally in America, just as long as they don't have power to make decisions about the direction in which to take the country.
Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull
25. Comment #27415 by bitbutter on March 24, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Jonathan Dore and nine9s already made the points that occurred to me while reading this. Thanks for putting them more eloquently that i could have.[Jonathan Dore] By agreeing with extremists on the fundamental point of God's existence and Jesus's divinity, liberal Christians have no clear grounds on which to stand from which to refute the extremists' interpretation. They have already conceded the most important ground of all to the extremists: namely, the belief that there is a supernatural god who commands certain actions and condemns others (among other things). Once this ground is conceded, "debate" or "criticism" between religious groups of varying degrees of moderation becomes a mere footling question of which biblical verses one likes and which one doesn't, which aspects of doctrine one prefers to emphasize and which one doesn't, which interpretive traditions one holds dear and which one doesn't. What it doesn't provide is any clear, rational, empirical, neutral basis on which to make a judgement between these conflicting truth claims. Only standing outside religion altogether does that.
Other Comments by bitbutter
26. Comment #27428 by Bremas on March 24, 2007 at 2:17 pm
That was long.Anyone read it?
Other Comments by Bremas
27. Comment #27430 by lpetrich on March 24, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Richard Carrier has some very pertinent things to say. In his deconversion story "From Taoist to Infidel":http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html
he described his very pleasant religious upbringing in a very liberal Methodist church, where the Bible was used as a handy source of moral lessons, not as a history book, and where being good would get you into Heaven.
There was a serpent in this paradise, however, and that was his Bible-reading. He found that it had a lot to be desired, and he became a seeker -- and a convert to philosophical Taoism. But as the years went by, he moved away from Taoism to a mature secular humanism.
But then he ran into a much more zealous and nasty kind of Xian than he had experienced in his childhood -- and he discovered their attempts to get into political power. He also discovered the complete cowardice of many non-fundie Xians; despite their disavowals of fundamentalism, they were totally unwilling to challenge it.
"Worse, the liberal Christians have no text. In any Bible debate, the liberal interpreter always loses, for he must admit he is putting human interpretation, indeed bold-faced speculation, before the Divine Word of God. And without the Bible to stand on a Christian can be condemned as an unbeliever in disguise. Since being thought an atheist is worse than being thought a prostitute, not many believers are likely to raise their head against Fundamentalism."
And in "Why I Am Not A Christian",
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html
he tells us that a friend "as especially frustrated by Christians who routinely come up with implausible excuses to defend their faith, which they don't really examine--as if defending the faith with any excuse mattered more than having a genuinely good reason to believe in the first place. Discussing our experiences, we realized we'd both encountered many Christians like this, who color their entire perception of reality with the assumption that they have to be right, and therefore the evidence must somehow fit. So they think they can make anything up on the spur of the moment and be "sure" it's true. This is the exact opposite of what we do. We start with the evidence and then figure out what the best explanation of it all really is, regardless of where this quest for truth takes us."
Other Comments by lpetrich
28. Comment #27460 by DavidJMH on March 24, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,Surely there is no such thing as a moderate approach to religion. They all have tenets which must be blindly accepted in order to belong. It is blind acceptance which Harris so rightly points out is the knub of the problem. The religious, no matter their stripe, are entirely outside reasonable dialogue by definition; there can be no dialogue or compromise with ignorant dogma.
Other Comments by DavidJMH
29. Comment #27477 by BeyondBelief on March 24, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I was going to post a scathing criticism, but NuclearMan's post (Comment #14, #27360) above covers it perfectly. Other Comments by BeyondBelief
30. Comment #27480 by diquea on March 24, 2007 at 9:33 pm
It isn't like you can argue against the fundamentalists, yet leave the moderates and progressives unscathed. They all believe in God, and they all believe in some nonsensical ideas, for which there is no evidence. This is a large part of what atheists are arguing against.Personally, I find the ignorance seemingly accompanying the concept of having faith enough to convince me to argue my point. But even if we were only arguing for our point of view because the religious right and fundamentalists are encroaching upon our freedom (so reactionary), then we could not help but include all religious people.
This is because we do not necessarily care to just go after those crazy, fundamentalist notions like 6,000 year old earths and creation myths. As an atheist, I am not trying to cause another reformation of religious thought in the fundamentalist camp. I'm going to argue that the concept of any specific god with specific desires and characteristics is a complete delusion. And that even a detached, impersonal, unspecific god is silly if it is arbitrarily decided that it does not need to answer the same "where-did-it-come-from" question it is meant to answer.
These things go to the core of Christian belief structure, and leaves no one untouched.
Other Comments by diquea
31. Comment #27484 by Mat on March 24, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I agree with many of the comments here - a standard technique to flim-flam an argument is to misrepresent it, then flame the misrepresentation. Clarkson flames the concentric circles idea based on a misrepresentation. He then flames Harris for being all talk and no evidence - providing no evidence himself. Ho hum. But I fundamentally disagree that the fight against the bad fairy believers REQUIRES a marriage between the no-fairy believers and the good fairy believers. I'm with Harris and Dawkins on this - from an intellectual perspective, they're all as bad as each other. Although I do sometimes wonder if, in the real and imperfect world of politics and power, the bad fairy believers do need a concerted push from everyone who disagrees with their theocratic agenda. Even if they did, however, it wouldn't take away from the fundamental point that there simply ARE NO FAIRIES and that the good fairy believers just don't have a leg to stand on.Other Comments by Mat
32. Comment #27488 by GoodbyeGodNZ on March 25, 2007 at 2:31 am
More Theodrivel !!!!!!!!! Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ
33. Comment #27502 by justme on March 25, 2007 at 3:45 am
This type of article can convince quite a few people that Sam Harris is bad news ... ... except when you see what happens when Sam debates someone like Andrew Sullivan (a moderate and not a fanatic right winger) and the moderate starts to cling to the core concepts that Frederick Clarkson says are not the core of Christianity but are part of the radical religious right.
That said, it looks like Mr. Clarkson's main concern is the "radical right" and less the "religious" part -- a part he does not see much danger from.
Sam is not on a crusade to protect the left, though. His focus is on the religious extremists regardless of the political leanings.
Religious groups are causing great damage in the name of uncertainty on subjects they don't care to investigate honestly.
Along with that, they then demand fairness and in the course of doing so take on the cloak of moderation. They do damage to the past, present, and multiple generations in the future by treating creationism and other religious/political goals such as the "the US is a Christian nation" are somehow legitimate fields of study that are true because it embarrasses or shames people not because it is based in any reality.
Other Comments by justme
34. Comment #27513 by justme on March 25, 2007 at 5:22 am
cheshirecat (#27340): "The problem with Harris is that like his opponents on the religious right in America he is moved by hatred and contempt to write what he does. He should look to himself before criticising intolerance in others."
I don't see vitriol or hate from Sam Harris. I see concern and logical consistency.
Other Comments by justme
35. Comment #27517 by justme on March 25, 2007 at 6:09 am
#27354 by Jonathan Dore[snip!]
Excellent summary. I have not read Sam's book, and so was taken in by Clarkson's description of it.
Thanks for clearing the record!
Other Comments by justme
36. Comment #27522 by justme on March 25, 2007 at 6:42 am
WittyReference: "this article is a load of crap... but
As someone who is increasingly finding it hard to be tolerant of religion, would me being "militant" in my atheism actually hurt the "movement"?"
I look at it this way...
Whenever the radicals are criticized, they don't say "oops...sorry, we hadn't thought of that". They instead turn and attack, using whatever tactic seems to stave off the criticism.
So, when we don't criticize, what happens?
They continue with the agenda of making this world one big theocratic state.
The ideas they have are resilient. Even the moderates have them. For example, the idea that atheism is a religion even though it doesn't fit the definition of one ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion ). Also, that religious faith results in higher morals, though the facts show otherwise.
We keep getting dragged in to the fight they want to have. Sam and Richard are doing a good job of not playing that game. The only problem is willful ignorance.
For example, in one discussion with someone who would not say they were religious at all (but said everyone was), they kept talking about how atheists were religious and and how they were anti-religious at the same time. Pointing them to the Wikipedia entry above returned only a 'I guess it depends on how you define religion' as if I was picking one definition only. The person even called me dear, as if I were a little child. (Wrinkles say otherwise.)
Most people who even voice an opinion -- and most people do not care that much -- don't care to deal with facts. They have the truth, and will not budge. We are simply wrong. There is clearly a god, and the religious extremists are nutty but not that bad.
9/11 and this ill planned war in Iraq are only two examples that show this is a dangerous and lax attitude.
Other Comments by justme
37. Comment #27583 by J. J. Ramsey on March 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm
justme: "except when you see what happens when Sam debates someone like Andrew Sullivan (a moderate and not a fanatic right winger) and the moderate starts to cling to the core concepts that Frederick Clarkson says are not the core of Christianity but are part of the radical religious right."And which tenets are those? The idea that gays should be second-class citizens? The idea that evolution is false? The idea that a zygote has full rights as a human being? Obviously not. They agree, as far as I can tell on, as Jonathan Dore puts it, "God's existence and Jesus's divinity," but contrary to Dore, it does not follow that "liberal Christians have no clear grounds on which to stand from which to refute the extremists' interpretation." Indeed, I rather wonder how Dore even makes the bridge between those ideas.
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
38. Comment #27591 by J. J. Ramsey on March 25, 2007 at 1:39 pm
To expand on Dore's line:By agreeing with extremists on the fundamental point of God's existence and Jesus's divinity, liberal Christians have no clear grounds on which to stand from which to refute the extremists' interpretation. They have already conceded the most important ground of all to the extremists: namely, the belief that there is a supernatural god who commands certain actions and condemns others (among other things). Once this ground is conceded, "debate" or "criticism" between religious groups of varying degrees of moderation becomes a mere footling question of which biblical verses one likes and which one doesn't, which aspects of doctrine one prefers to emphasize and which one doesn't, which interpretive traditions one holds dear and which one doesn't. What it doesn't provide is any clear, rational, empirical, neutral basis on which to make a judgement between these conflicting truth claims. Only standing outside religion altogether does that.
The problem is that even in a bible-verse pissing contest, about the only place where the moderates and liberals are in a weaker position than the extremists is creationism. Just about all the other Christian Right positions either emphasize something only occasionally mentioned in passing in the Bible (like homosexuality), or not dealt with in the Bible at all (like abortion). The bulk of the law in the Old Testament is superseded by Paul and the author of the letter to the Hebrews. The Sermon on the Mount provides a serious roadblock to Christians advocating violence, and to get around it requires exegetical kludges at least as bad as those used to stretch Genesis to accommodate evolution. A "clear, rational, empirical, neutral basis" would certainly be a better footing for debate, but the idea that "belief that there is a supernatural god who commands certain actions [in some holy book] and condemns others" concedes much to the extremists only works if the contents of the holy book tend to advocate extremism. As it stands, Christian theocracy has tepid biblical support at best.
ETA: One more thing. You guys appear to be saying that Harris does not think that the extreme forms of religion are the purer ones, and that moderate religion is diluted. I gather, then, that Harris would disagree with Dawkins' "Gerin Oil" metaphor (http://www.bmc.uu.se/~danl/Gerin%20Oil.html)?
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
39. Comment #27642 by TIKI AL on March 25, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Yawn. Another victim of generational young mushy brain-washing.If Clarkson was born in Baghdad he would have the knees of a carpet installer from facing East 5 times a day and planting IEDs at night.
You guys have more patience with this Godbot than I do. It's like trying to talk to a drunk.
Other Comments by TIKI AL
40. Comment #27662 by Jonathan Dore on March 26, 2007 at 3:30 am
The problem is that even in a bible-verse pissing contest, about the only place where the moderates and liberals are in a weaker position than the extremists is creationism. Just about all the other Christian Right positions either emphasize something only occasionally mentioned in passing in the Bible (like homosexuality), or not dealt with in the Bible at all (like abortion). The bulk of the law in the Old Testament is superseded by Paul and the author of the letter to the Hebrews. The Sermon on the Mount provides a serious roadblock to Christians advocating violence, and to get around it requires exegetical kludges at least as bad as those used to stretch Genesis to accommodate evolution. A "clear, rational, empirical, neutral basis" would certainly be a better footing for debate, but the idea that "belief that there is a supernatural god who commands certain actions [in some holy book] and condemns others" concedes much to the extremists only works if the contents of the holy book tend to advocate extremism. As it stands, Christian theocracy has tepid biblical support at best.
Surely it doesn't matter if the bible only mentions homosexuality in passing: every time it is specifically mentioned, it is expressly stated to be an abomination, in Romans no less than in Leviticus. Crafting a more tolerant or forgiving attitude from scripture requires taking other passages, about other matters, and presuming to extend them to include homosexuality as well (even though their authors would probably have been horrified by such an extension). In other words, it is a process of metaphorical or analogistic interpretation, which works only among those who have already -- through other social, cultural, or intellectual means, available to anyone, religious or not -- agreed to the proposition that homosexuality should be tolerated or forgiven, and therefore have an emotional and intellectual investment in seeking out an understanding of scripture that they can mould to fit this previously arrived-at conclusion. But how can such a person argue against a literalist who points out, not unreasonably, that there is no need for a metaphorical interpretation of a subject that scripture does actually mention concretely and specifically? For anyone who allows the Bible to have authority (those who assent to "God's existence and Jesus's divinity"), the logic is inescapable, and the literalist wins.
Where a subject is not treated specifically, like abortion, all biblicists must argue from analogy or by an appeal to something like the concept of legal precedent. But the extremists seem to have no trouble in marshalling an arsenal of "sanctity of life" quotes (when it suits them, of course) with which to bombard fellow believers who would allow abortion. Nor do they seem to have much trouble in convincing a large proportion of Christians of their interpretation (for instance, the entire Roman Catholic Church is doctrinally committed to this view).
The bulk of the law in the Old Testament is superseded by Paul and the author of the letter to the Hebrews.
But does it say anywhere precisely which laws were superseded, and which not? Rarely. Dietary laws seem to be binned, but any claim that prohibitions of homosexuality are superseded runs up against Paul's clear statement that they are not. So where does that leave, say, stoning someone who disrespects their parents? Or someone who has sex with a farm animal? Or any of the cacophonous welter of bizarre misdeameanours with which the OT law concerns itself. Plenty of fertile ground for the extremist, then, in which to invoke Jesus's statement: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." "Not destroy" sounds pretty much like "not supersede" to me, if I wanted it to. In a compendium authored by dozens of writers with varying intentions, opposing temperaments, and often contradictory understandings, is it any wonder that the Bible is a mess that allows almost anyone to claim its authority in support?
And then the evidence of history: Christian theocracy has indeed used biblical support, quite successfully, in many times and places over the past two millennia, and some of the places where it took strongest root, like Calvin's Geneva or 17th-century New England, were places where the Bible was most widely read and referred to -- places which, by your reasoning, ought most to have undersood that it lends "tepid support at best" to their position. In a world where "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity", even tepid support has, unfortunately, been quite sufficient.
ETA: One more thing. You guys appear to be saying that Harris does not think that the extreme forms of religion are the purer ones, and that moderate religion is diluted. I gather, then, that Harris would disagree with Dawkins' "Gerin Oil" metaphor
I'm not sure why this point is so difficult to understand, but you have misread me in exactly the same way that Clarkson misread Harris: YES, Harris is saying (as Dawkins is with his Gerin Oil trope) that the more extreme forms are the purer ones, and I was agreeing with them. Purer, simpler, more literal, less dependent on outside referents or metaphor, and thus less "contaminated" by cross-cultural influences and cross-disciplinary knowledge. This is the extremist position in the innermost circle, the position of least reasonableness. Christianity's five-hundred-year-long housetraining by its collision with secularity and science means that, thankfully, this position is no longer mainstream, though it has made a frighteningly powerful resurgence in the US in recent decades. The mainstream (in terms of numbers) occupy the circle a couple of rungs out, as Harris very clearly says.
Other Comments by Jonathan Dore
41. Comment #27704 by gaijin51 on March 26, 2007 at 8:10 am
First time post.I am an unbeliever and have been for a long time, but I think Mr. Clarkson has a point.
Rational arguments against religion, no matter how well constructed, are not very helpful, because such arguments don't seem to actually move religious people, except to annoy them. People don't convert to a religion for rational reasons, so why would they be dissuaded by rational arguments? To move such people you have to appeal to them on an emotional level. If we are rational, we must face reality and accept human nature.
Other Comments by gaijin51
42. Comment #27709 by Jonathan Dore on March 26, 2007 at 8:39 am
To move such people you have to appeal to them on an emotional level. If we are rational, we must face reality and accept human nature.
That's an interesting point, gaijin51. Can you give us an example of the kind of approach you mean please? Humour? Indignation?
Other Comments by Jonathan Dore
43. Comment #27713 by J. J. Ramsey on March 26, 2007 at 9:52 am
Jonathan Dore: "YES, Harris is saying (as Dawkins is with his Gerin Oil trope) that the more extreme forms are the purer ones"If this is the case, then Clarkson has understood Harris quite well, as he writes that Harris believes that "the most 'extreme,' of those speaking in the name of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, adhere to most strongly, and best represent the central tenets of their respective faiths."
Jonathan Dore: "Surely it doesn't matter if the bible only mentions homosexuality in passing"
Of course it does. You are trying to argue that the purest form of Christianity is the extremist one. Yet a form of Christianity that focuses on a few verses in the Bible while ignoring major themes like care for the poor can hardly be said to adhere to the Bible that closely.
And what is the literalist extremist to do when faced with fluffy bunny stuff to do when faced with "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone," "Judge not lest you be judged," "Turn the other cheek," etc.? Of course, the obvious answer is to ignore them or reinterpret them, but that makes our extremist not so much of a literalist.
Jonathan Dore: "Christian theocracy has indeed used biblical support, quite successfully"
Yes, by picking and choosing certain verses over others.
You and Harris are not just trying to argue that religion is irrational--which is relatively easy--but that the nasty and violent among the religious are the better representatives of their faiths, which is a much tougher thing to prove, and with Christianity at least, probably impossible.
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
44. Comment #27714 by Kingasaurus on March 26, 2007 at 9:54 am
I'm not sure I agree with this, gaijin51.Why are large numbers of Europeans essentially secular if not outright atheistic in their outlook? Were they "appealed to on an emotional level" to give up religion themselves or not teach it with seriousness to their children?
How did that work, exactly? I'm leery of blanket proscriptive statements like "the application of reason/ridicule won't work in this situation."
Other Comments by Kingasaurus
45. Comment #27727 by Steven Mading on March 26, 2007 at 11:04 am
J.J says:"You and Harris are not just trying to argue that religion is irrational--which is relatively easy--but that the nasty and violent among the religious are the better representatives of their faiths, which is a much tougher thing to prove, and with Christianity at least, probably impossible."
All adherents of Christianity must necessarily ignore some parts of what their religion says, given that their religion says self-contradictory things.
So the important question becomes, WHICH parts are being ignored.
The more moderate, friendly christians are ignoring the ones that are central, core to the religion itself. - For example, the notion that belief in Yahweh via Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation - the ONLY one. That's not some minor little point - that's the foundation of the entire religion. And any person who follows that notion and fully believes it must necessarily be disrespectful and intolerant of other religions, or of the idea of not having religion at all, because when they spread those ideas and deconvert Christians, they are causing those ex-Christians to go to hell. Think about that - the most important primary core belief of what Christianity is makes it so that if you really believe it fully, then people who try to fill your head with contrary ideas are actually engaging in behavior that will condemn you and your family to hell of you let them win you over.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
46. Comment #27733 by J. J. Ramsey on March 26, 2007 at 11:51 am
"For example, the notion that belief in Yahweh via Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation - the ONLY one. ... And any person who follows that notion and fully believes it must necessarily be disrespectful and intolerant of other religions"Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. There is a vast difference between saying that other religions are wrong, even dangerously so, and being disrespectful of other religions. If a Christian gets too disrespectful toward potential converts, then he/she drives them away, which would only further push them to hell. This is an attitude that can make Christians into annoying salespersons, but that is hardly the same thing as being terrorists.
It is telling that you conflate saying that someone is wrong with being disrespectful.
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
47. Comment #27769 by gaijin51 on March 26, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Jonathan Dore:That's an interesting point, gaijin51. Can you give us an example of the kind of approach you mean please? Humour? Indignation?
It seems like you would almost have to offer an alternative to the church and its all the social, community and emotional support that the church provides.
To take just one example, the hymn "Amazing Grace" is an extremely powerful emotional argument for religion. Rationality is not really a necessary part of the argument.
In another realm, look at advertising: in the early days of advertising, most advertisers tried to make a pitch that appealed to reason in some way, but nowadays, they rarely bother to list rational reasons for buying a product. Most advertising is purely an emotional appeal.
Kingasauraus:
Why are large numbers of Europeans essentially secular if not outright atheistic in their outlook? Were they "appealed to on an emotional level" to give up religion themselves or not teach it with seriousness to their children?Reason alone works for some people, like us, but not all. Perhaps Europeans also have more substitutes for Church? You are welcome to try reason; I have tried, but it has not been effective in my experience.
How did that work, exactly? I'm leery of blanket proscriptive statements like "the application of reason/ridicule won't work in this situation."
Other Comments by gaijin51
48. Comment #27976 by Jonathan Dore on March 27, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Jonathan Dore: "YES, Harris is saying (as Dawkins is with his Gerin Oil trope) that the more extreme forms are the purer ones"
If this is the case, then Clarkson has understood Harris quite well, as he writes that Harris believes that "the most 'extreme,' of those speaking in the name of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, adhere to most strongly, and best represent the central tenets of their respective faiths."
"Best represent" (Clarkson's words) suggest that he understands Harris to mean jihadists and dominionists are most representative of Muslim and Christian believers today (as is made plain by his later response along the same lines, that "there are few theologians who are not jihadists or dominionists themselves who would place such controversial groups at the center of their traditions"). Well so what? -- Harris never claimed they were. Rather, jihadists and dominionists are simply the purest of believers -- that is, their faith is taken straight from the original texts, with as few overlays of modernity as possible. The mainstream of Christianity today, in which I assume you situate yourself, is, as I mentioned earlier, a much modified version of that faith, which is the result of a profound and complex interaction with five centuries of science and humanism. I'm sorry if you're offended by the idea that this modern mainstream is "impure", but if you can imagine a Luther or a Boniface VIII transported to the modern world, but with all their instincts for certainty and authoritarianism intact, who do you think they would most recognize kinship with -- you, or a dominionist? It is no discredit to you that they might prefer the company of Rousas Rushdoony.
In Islamic terms, the mainstream is not jihadist, but its distance from this purest form is less than in the Christian case, for a number of reasons: the generally low level of education among the populations of Islamic states; the inherently more bellicose content of the Koran; the widely held belief that the Koran is the actual words of god, rather than just inspired; and the sense of grievance against the West that is carefully fostered by religious authorities in Islamic nations. The concentric circles of deteriorating reasonableness are more tightly drawn in Islam, but the principle is the same.
Other Comments by Jonathan Dore
49. Comment #28195 by J. J. Ramsey on March 28, 2007 at 9:54 am
Jonathan Dore: "'Best represent' (Clarkson's words) suggest that he understands Harris to mean jihadists and dominionists are most representative of Muslim and Christian believers today"I see some selective quoting here. Clarkson wrote Harris claims that the extremists "best represent the central tenets" of their religions. It is pretty clear that he is not saying that Harris claims that extremists represent the majority of believers. Let's look more fully at that quote:
Nevertheless, many people are very taken with his argument, which is essentially this: "Extreme" religion is the fault of moderate, even progressive religion and; the most "extreme," of those speaking in the name of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, adhere to most strongly, and best represent the central tenets of their respective faiths. [emphasis added]
Now you (and apparently Harris) claim that "jihadists and dominionists are simply the purest of believers -- that is, their faith is taken straight from the original texts, with as few overlays of modernity as possible." How is this any different from saying that "jihadists and dominionists are simply the believers who adhere most strongly to their faiths -- that is, their faith is taken straight from the original texts, with as few overlays of modernity as possible"? How is this any different from saying that "jihadists and dominionists are simply the believers who best represent the central tenets to their faiths -- that is, their faith is taken straight from the original texts, with as few overlays of modernity as possible"?
"The mainstream of Christianity today, in which I assume you situate yourself"
You assume wrongly.
"if you can imagine a Luther or a Boniface VIII transported to the modern world, but with all their instincts for certainty and authoritarianism intact, who do you think they would most recognize kinship with -- you, or a dominionist?"
They probably wouldn't agree with either me or the dominionist. In particular, Luther's idea of "two kingdoms," one earthly and the other spiritual, would not sit well with the dominionists, who want one kingdom to handle both mundane and spiritual matters. Luther's ideas were certainly influenced by Paul's instructions (and probably pseudo-Peter's words as well) on respecting Roman earthly authority while following Christian tenets, and could arguably be considered more pure than the dominionists for that reason.
You have yet to show that jihadists and dominionists really do take their faiths "straight from the original texts."
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
50. Comment #28275 by Jonathan Dore on March 28, 2007 at 3:27 pm
J.J. wrote:You have yet to show that jihadists and dominionists really do take their faiths "straight from the original texts."
Hmm, I've also failed to show that water flows down hill, but do I really need to? Perhaps it's to do with the fact that they say explicitly that they do and, in argument, always rely on quoting texts from their magic books, rather than relying on later commentaries, complex theological positions, or traditions of interpretation. I consider such people to be representative of their faiths in a pure (i.e. simple, unadorned) form, though not, thankfully, numerically representative of their populations. You apparently do not consider them representative, but I'm unclear as to what problem you (and Clarkson) think this poses for Harris's argument even so. The concentric circles, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, are of diminishing reasonableness. Whether you consider the most unreasoning of believers to be "true" representatives of your faith or not, Harris's point is not diminished: all believers, in whatever circle, share the same basic attitude that makes them a part of the structure in the first place: the attitude that faith -- belief without evidence -- is a virtue. By creating societies in which this attitude is fostered, majority faith communities (whether they are in the mainstream or not, and whether they are holding "truly" to the central tenets of their belief or not) are creating and sustaining the essential conditions that the toxic extremists need in order to function: a supply of volunteers, primed by upbringing in unquestioned belief in a supernatural imaginary friend, and taught the habit of reverencing a holy book. All the extremist need do is appeal to the eager young mind to believe more intensely, and take the words of the holy book more literally. The change of emphasis in the extremists' theology is a minor step compared to the habits of uncritical thought that make their recruiting task possible in the first place.
Jonathan Dore: "Surely it doesn't matter if the bible only mentions homosexuality in passing"
Of course it does. You are trying to argue that the purest form of Christianity is the extremist one. Yet a form of Christianity that focuses on a few verses in the Bible while ignoring major themes like care for the poor can hardly be said to adhere to the Bible that closely.
Sorry to go back to an old point, but, as an aside, I loved this delightful example of mental gymnastics. So you don't disagree with the actual biblical prescriptions on homosexuality, only with the emphasis that extremists give to it (i.e. the fact that they embarrassingly draw attention to it)? Or do you mean that since there are only three verses in the bible that mention homosexuality, it doesn't matter that all three of them explicitly condemn it? In fact, there being only three verses means, in fact, that the true understanding of the Christian position is that homosexuality is actually just fine and dandy. After all, if God was really against it, he would have ensured that there were, oh, at least a dozen verses condemning it, wouldn't he?
Instead, why not just accept the fact that your tolerance of homosexuality is the product of your being an educated, humane, early 21st-century person in a reasonably civilized part of the world, and a partaker in the general moral zeitgeist of the times, rather than pretending that you have discovered a tolerance of homosexuality in Christianity that twenty centuries of believers before you have failed to uncover.
Other Comments by Jonathan Dore
1. Comment #27334 by keith on March 24, 2007 at 5:27 am
Other Comments by keith