As my friend Miguel Gomez writes: Here is the problem with Bill Maher and Sam Harris here. They are misreading the source of unrest and extremism in the Islamic world. Rather than trying to figure out the complex warp and weave of globalized capitalism, post-colonial repressive governments, very colonial resource extraction, the Israel/Palestine debacle, etc, Maher and Harris simply blame Islam, and say that religion is the problem. That is wholly incorrect. Religion is simply the lens through which these other problems are focused. The malcontents in the Middle East are simply focusing their unhappiness, feelings of powerlessness, desire to strike out through the most readily available cultural lens they have, religion. Religions have always served as a way for people, often with directly competing messages, to frame their causes as morally correct, and to frame their opponents as reprobates. Just this week I was examining issues like this from seventeenth century England, where both the improving landlords and the protesting peasants whom they were dispossessing of land both used Christianity to justify their actions. Bill Maher himself has been subject to this sort of two-sided nature of religion. He has been one of the most critical voices against the Catholic Church, especially in regards to the molestation scandals. He has also done pieces fawning over Pope Francis. Turns out that religion can serve all sorts of purposes. Since by definition, the great faiths are the accretion of generations of people deciding what may or may not be sacred scripture/practice/belief, they are a smorgasbord for inspiration and justification. And, as we would expect, in a society where religion is still one of the strongest aspects of cultural identity, it becomes the natural shield (and weapon) of those in the Islamic world who feel the need to react against problems in their societies. The other problem is, of course, that when you adopt Harriss or Mahers position, and label religion (by which they mean irrational superstition) as the problem, then any dialog or analysis is pretty much shut down. It is basically the same thing as labeling someone crazy. Once something is crazy, there is really nothing to be done. At that point we stop talking; crazy people get locked up so they cant hurt themselves or others. Can this possibly be a useful way to approach the third of the human population of the world that identifies as Muslim?
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 19:27:54 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015