From an organizational point of view, organized religions are like any other human association. They have their founding texts (Torah, Koran, Gospels), commentators and influencers (preachers), adherents (the faithful), their rites of passage, their hierarchies, etc. There is really no difference betwen an organized religion and a political party for example.
From an ideological point of view, one can draw similarities between any given religion and a political or economic ideology. For example, between Christianity and Communism. Going back to the early years of Christianity, Christians in the Roman Empire were like Communists in the 20th century West: underground, persecuted, assassinated, banned and placed on black lists, etc. The early Christians were still not Christians by today's definition, they were a rebellious Jewish sect trying to subvert the institutions of the Roman Empire, just like Communists were trying to do during the Cold War. Digging deeper into that early Christian psyche, the Christians aimed to share everything, dispossess themselves of earthly possessions, etc. all ideas reminiscent of socialist or communist principles. Then again, when the Christians became the rulers of the Roman Empire with Emperor Constantine (circa 340 AD), they and their Church (equivalent of a Revolutionary Central Committee or Politburo) turned into abject dictators and repressive rulers, like Communist regimes of our time: assassinate pagans, destroy their temples, ban their rituals, etc.
Yet, in our world today, religions continue to claim a form of sacrosanctity that, in the opinion of their adherents, shields them from criticism and mockery, supposedly because they invoke a role of a supreme being or God in their ideologies. Even as they are pathetic fabrications and myths imagined by human cultures to explain a world they did not understand, they become inviolable by attaching themselves to God. But anyone with reason can understand that religions ought to be treated like any other human-designed ideology. No one would complain if I criticize or mock Communism or Capitalism or Absolutism or Impressionsim, or any of the thousands of intellectual movements and ideologies whose names end in "...ism". But dare mock or criticize a religion and everyone is offended, even atheists.
We fear religions probably because they have been with us longer than any other byproduct of human culture, but also because religions are grounded in non-falsifiable stories that hold no place for rational arguments. Instead of appealing to our intellect (which would make them falsifiable and subject to discussion), they appeal to our emotions. Like language, religion was born with the human species. Every human culture that ever evolved on earth had a language and a religion. As the twin of language, religion became engrained in our DNA such that we are struck with deep fear at the thought of criticizing any given religion. Now, religions themselves are free to criticize one another, albeit in secret, behind closed doors, and in cryptic academic texts that no one in the street ever sees. As Pope, Benedict XVI did spark controversy when, speaking before a university audience in his native Germany, he
cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the
teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as “evil and
inhuman.” Apologies notwithstanding, his speech wouldn't have been noticed if it was held during a synod or a conclave or other secret meeting that the Church is very fond of. It is only because the criticism was public that it sparked controversy. Same thing with cartoons and Koran and Torah burnings: Muslims, Jews and Christians around the world know what their opponents think of them, but they don't get offended every minute of every hour of every day... They get offended only when the criticism is made public. Which means that they know how vulnerable and flimsy is their "faith", and this cryptic sense of inferiority turns into rage when others say publicly what they themselves know and feel.
Which brings me to the case of the Koran burning in Sweden. The religious dinosaurs and their sycophant politicians, all religions confounded, have rallied together and are up in arms against the country of Sweden. The fact that other Swedes offered to burn the New Testament and the Torah with the objective of treating all three religions equally did not help.
The case of Sweden is really a conflict between, on one hand, "individual freedom" (inluding the freedom of speech, conscience, and expression) that is a pillar of western democracy, and "community freedom" which had been abandoned by the West after the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. We have learned not to generalize from the acts of an individual to blame an entire community. "Individual" freedom is not community freedom, nor is it tribal freedom, sectarian freedom, national freedom, nor any other form of freedom that one can imagine.
For example, in Lebanon there are no individual freedoms as understood in the West. The Lebanese confuse their community freedom for individual freedom. When a Lebanese Christian claims to be free, it is only in opposition to the threat he feels coming from the Muslims, as when he brags that he can toll the church bell on Sunday in spite of the Muslims. He is "free" of Muslim oppression, but in reality he is not free because, as an individual, he remains subject to the taboos and constraints imposed by his own society and church on his own individual freedoms. In many ways, the Christian community in Lebanon is itself a gulag of suspended reason, backward beliefs, superstitions, and an intellectually repressive environment, just as much as the Muslim community is. A Christian in Lebanon who might burn the Gospels is assured of quick death at the hands of Christians, just as would a Muslim who would burn the Koran be killed by his own Muslim community.
The Lebanese constitution clearly states that the "divine persona" (الذات الإلهية) is untouchable and should never be challenged. The Lebanese like to refer to their rotten democracy as "consensual", I like to refer to it as a "polytheocracy" since it enshrines significant power in the hands of many theocrats (Imams, patriarchs, muftis, bishops, etc...) over their "flocks". Religion in Lebanon is the real seat of dysfunctional governance hidden behind a veneer of a modern civil state. Ignorant people assume that holding elections is the only criterion for which the qualifier of "democracy" is attributed to a country. Lebanon does hold elections, but they are sectarian in nature and corruption is endemic. "Consensual" democracy essentially means: the results of elections in Lebanon are immediately subverted by the religious and political Mafia bosses who meet and make decisions that have nothing to do with the will of the voters. Similarly, all personal and civil status processes are handled by the religious establishments; civil marriage is prohibited in Lebanon. The country is far, very far, from the model of democracy where the individual, and not the communities, sects or political parties, is the object of democracy.
In the case of Sweden, it is not the government of Sweden which is burning the Koran. It is an individual whose freedoms are constitutionally protected, including his public burning of any book, whether a religious text or otherwise. In fact, the latest Koran burner is a Muslim individual who has the freedom to criticize his own religion, something he can do in Sweden, but not in Lebanon or any of the backward religious so-called democracies. Muslims around the world should take a deep breath and not jump to grandiose conclusions. Around the world and throughout history, people and governments have burned books they didn't like. As we speak, in many Muslim countries, the attacks on non-Muslim religions are daily occurrences on talk shows, radio shows, and preachings. The first page of the first verse of the Koran, the FatiHa, is itself an insult to Jews (المغضوب عليهم; those who incurred God's wrath), and Christians (الضالين; those who went astray by deviating from the strict Jewish monotheism practiced by the pre-Islamic Arab tribes).
Restricting criticism or mockery is a slippery slope. In many backward countries, a joke about a president or speaker of parliament or any public figure is increasingly becoming grounds for prosecution and punishment. Which goes to show that public figures in these backward countries are elevated to near divine status, whereas it is a nearly compulsory duty in Western countries to mock and criticize public figures, at the very least to keep them nervous and deter them of any inclination to abuse their power. Public officials in western countries know from the start of their careers that they will live with jokes, mockery, debasement, etc. They are after all "servants" of the people. But not in places like Lebanon where politicians and public figures are treated like biblical prophets and saints with public worship and untouchable aura. Is there anything more pagan when Muslims shout at their political leader, "With our soul, with our blood, we sacrifice for you"?
The borderline between human and divine is very thin and almost non-existent in backward countries where leaders are elevated to the ranks of prophets and saints. Which is indeed the foundational difference between western forms and eastern forms of the same religion. Didn't the nature of Christ - was he a human who become God? or was he a God who became human? - establish the chasm that divided eastern and western christianity? In the East, anyone can become a hero, a prophet, a saint, and even a god. Just as in the ancient Greek pantheon. But not in the West where in recent centuries, regardless of how much wealth or power you have or how much you starve yourself, you will never become a god or a saint. European monarchs never claimed divine descent, though they still claim their rule is by divine mandate. Here in Lebanon, political figures and warlords who met their demise on the battlefield or by assassination become mythical figures. But isn't this how early Christian zealots became martyrs? Just because they were mauled by a beast in a Roman arena?
Given all the preceding, if I, a Lebanese-American, decided one day to stand on the sidewalk in New York's Wall Street and burn a copy of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) or David Hume's Of the Balance of Trade (1752), would the New York Stock Exchange be so offended as to dispatch thousands of stock brokers to demonstrate in front of the Lebanese Consulate? The answer can be found in comparing the role played by economics and finance in the development of the human species with the role of religion. Despite the fact that economics and finance have also caused disasters in human history, the vast majority of humans still subscribes to them. The Bronze Age bullshitness of religions, however, is increasingly seen as deeply divisive and harmful to humans, though many numskulls still allow themselves to be convinced of the value of the illusions and fake promises of religions.
No comments:
Post a Comment