In the midst of the great cartoon riots of 2006, I was discussing with a former commenter to this site the irony of these proceedings: these radical Islamists are protesting the portrayal of Islam as a violent religion with violence. The former commenter suggested that no religion makes itself such an easy target for stereotyping than modern Islam. I, of course, took this opportunity to rake Evangelical Christians over the coals. In the wake of this discussion comes this interesting column out of the Times of London which does a good job of comparing and contrasting the two groups (while buffaloing my contentions about evangelicals). Key point:
Far from commanding any special respect or protection from the State, religions must be exposed to relentless criticism, like all non-rational traditions and beliefs. Some religions will survive this contest between tradition and modernity, between reason and revelation, as Christianity, Judaism and Islam have done for centuries. Others, such as Marxism and Scientology, will fall by the wayside. In America, the Constitution, with its prohibition against the establishment of any state religion and its absolute defence of free speech, demands a robust competition between faith and reason and among the religions themselves. And in the end, as America’s surprising piety clearly shows, it is not just society but also religion that emerges stronger from the refiner’s fire of competition, criticism and even insult.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
this is what I like about you Steve, you are capable of curveballs.
I'm not sure that Marxism and Scientology can be classified as "religions." The strength of Christianity, Judiaism, and Islam is not that they are robust to criticism. Rather, they have enjoyed strong state protection from criticism throughout most of their history.
The protestant reformation expressed pretty serious criticism of Christianity.
After the diaspora of near east Jewry, they were not only criticized wherever they landed, but persecuted and subjected to pogroms.
I don't have a high-contrast example for Islam off the top of my head, but they co-existed with Jews and Christians for hundreds of years. You can't live side-by-side with "different" people and not criticize and be criticized.
Are we talking about the leadership within a religion, or the fundamental ideas of that religion? In the case of scientology and marxism, you had charismatic leaders, but flawed ideas. In the case of christianity, the criticisms during the protestant reformation amounted to criticisms of christian leadership, not fundamental christian ideas. (i.e. protestants did not stop being christians) Anyway, that seems like an important distinction.
I think the author was referring to the teachings of a religion (don't kill, blah, blah). No modern religion's ghost stories will hold up under much scrutiny (except Satanism...see everyone at the Black Mass tonight...I hear we got a Billy Goat.)
If all criticism of modern religions has been towards religious leaders, and not tenets of the faith, what is a schism? Why are there zillions of sects?
From the beginning of Islam, when it fractured into Sunni and Shi'a, to the modernizing changes in Catholicism that came along in the sixties with the Second Vatican Council, religions, like everything else, evolve or die.
What's this about a billy -goat? I thought we were still doing human sacrifices. And is this a male or female goat?....because, I'm not gay or anything
Post a Comment