The Anti-Crusade

The by now exhaustively documented Cartoonageddon has revealed not only the VIFC but the VAAD -- the Vast Agnostic and Atheist Disdain for organized religion. (Interestingly, the word va'ad in Hebrew means committee.)

Somehow, the worst of organized religion gives another group, with diametrically opposed views or beliefs, carte blanche to blame all who hold to any belief that could be engaged or prayed over in some kind of assembly.

This makes little sense. Worse, it's the same kind of thinking that's supported by the VIFC -- it's just the other side of the coin.

Not hard to understand: these days, the world is all about the violence done in the name of religion. And, it should be said, it's a damn good thing some of us actually live in a country where this subject can be broached without fear of government-sponsored reprisal.

But it's a simple gloss over a complex subject. Are we suddenly to believe, because of the most cynical actions of religious power-mongers, that every mosque should be burned? Are we to storm the churches and the synagogues next? And when all houses of worship are gone, what will we really have gained? Gone with them will be the communities, the charities, the engines of compassion -- and, yes, even the places for dialogue that not too long ago were seen as opening doors and healing wounds. And the evil-thinkers and evil-doers will find new reasons to foment terror, and new institutions for doing so.

There's no doubt that religion is a particularly powerful means of thought control. But, at it's best and most practical, it also is a means of self control. Fascism has found a new host in religion. That doesn't mean religion, of whatever stripe, is inherently fascist.

Sorry -- I wish things were that simple, too.

--T.A.

Comments

[JewishAtheist]

No atheists or agnostics are calling for the burning of mosques, churches, synagogues, or temples. You should apologize for that absurdity. If you'll look through history, you'll find that it's almost always members of a different religion, or even just a different branch of the same religion, that are burning the religious buildings of others.

It is true that we sometimes overgeneralize when criticizing religion, but it's sometimes hard for us to get over the fact that religion sometimes causes people to do evil things. That people are also motivated by religion to do good doesn't change that.

The problem, speaking for only this atheist, is that once you treat religious views as respectable just because they are religious, you're granting religious people carte blanche to believe in basically whatever the hell they want to believe in regardless of evidence.

You fill children's heads with fairytales and undeserved respect for religious authorities and it's no surprise that they fall prey to charismatic leaders who push their own agendas under the guise of religion.

The other problem is that the moderate theists, sensible theists, do not do enough to quash the radicals in their midst. On the contrary, they provide moral cover. Evil men like Pat Robertson are granted a measure of respect simply because they self-identify as Christian, whereas a self-identified atheist who was the best person in the world couldn't even get elected mayor in the United States.

[JewishAtheist]

One more thing:

And when all houses of worship are gone, what will we really have gained? Gone with them will be the communities, the charities, the engines of compassion -- and, yes, even the places for dialogue that not too long ago were seen as opening doors and healing wounds.

Come on. We wouldn't have charities, communities, or engines of compassion without religion? Please. Talk about negative stereotyping.

[amba]

Agnostics don't share atheists' disdain. They're just not that sure of themselves.

[david]

Jewish Atheist: I apologize for hitting you in your Soapbox Reflex. Calm down and read what I said, not what you would have liked me to have said in order to arouse your ire to a productive level.

I never said atheists or agnostics advocated burning places of worship. I was clearly drawing an analogy. The moderate and the sensible among atheists, among whom I usually include you, are no more dangerous than the moderate and sensible among Muslims, or moderate and sensible Germans who had the misfortune to live during the Nazi era. They are dangerous only to the extent they permit, and by their passivity aid, the unthinkable. It happens all the time; it's happening as we speak. And if you read Sam Harris and observe the tone of "debate" his writing engenders, you'll see that, while my hyperbole is a little strong today, it may not be a week or two from now.

Nor did I say there would be no charities left if organized religion was gone. Clearly, if evil can make religion a host, then the human compassionate and charitable impulse can make do without religion. It does so all the time (about half the charitable work I do has a Jewish component, and half is through secular organizations. Obviously, the networks of both faith-based and secular charities are vast). What I am saying is that people who like to bash religion typically pay no attention to, or know anything about, all that religion encourages and upholds, besides those things its detractors like to attack.

Amba is right: agnostics are more ambivalent. She oughtta know.

[JewishAtheist]

David,

I never said atheists or agnostics advocated burning places of worship. I was clearly drawing an analogy.

It wasn't clear that this was your intention. Since there has been a string of church burnings in the U.S. recently I though you might have been serious.

What I am saying is that people who like to bash religion typically pay no attention to, or know anything about, all that religion encourages and upholds, besides those things its detractors like to attack.

Many of us believe that religion can be like a parasite which takes credit for the good actions people would be taking anyway and hijacks their good intentions to sometimes perpetrate evil. For example, I know many good religious people who with or without religion would probably devote their lives to helping their fellow human beings, but because they are also religious, they do some evil which they wouldn't have done otherwise. I'm talking mostly about the pain that is caused by religious people being intolerant of homosexuality, intermarriage, lifestyle choices, etc.

I may have overreacted to your post, but in this age of religious terrorism and religious bigotry, it makes my blood boil to hear people criticising atheists who by and large aren't out there harming anybody.

[david]

JA: I'll try to be more careful.