The scathing indictments of religion that have appeared in some British newspapers recently, such as the pieces of Polly Toynbee and Nick Cohen in the Guardian, are heartening to the extent that they demonstrate there are no longer any barriers to expressing such opinions. But I can't help thinking that, rather than mockery or apathy, a frank and respectful debate about what religion really means to us would be more helpful. Not with the pope of course, because you don't debate with fundamentalists, of any stripe, but rather with critical believers such as the reverend/philosopher Giles Fraser, or even Tariq Ramadan. The people who are trying to make the bridge between supposedly distinct "worlds" - like the so-called muslim world and the secular world.
This binary view has of course nothing to do with the reality, where the majority of believers from all faiths are perfectly adapted to life in "secular" societies, and are no less tolerant and open-minded than anyone else, they just happen to believe in God. To bring in a buzzword that may grate on some - hybridity has always been the "mot d'ordre" when it comes to religion, just like all other aspects of society. The fact that the main religions have become mythologised by a "purifying discourse" which paints them as sacred, coherent wholes that have eternally been that way ever since the day they were dropped from the sky, serves to obscure the fact that actually - all religions are an accumulation of a series of traditions and diverse influences that developped over time. They borrowed, shifted and evolved as much as all cultures do - because that's what they are - elements of culture.
But setting aside this assertion, which those who adhere to a faith would find it tough to swallow, elements of hybridity can be seen everywhere - whether in the surreal juxtaposition of islamisation and americanisation in the form of the "Hallal hamburger" at fast food joints in Europe, or the myriad ways in which religious people bend and alter the practices and requirements of their religions to render them compatible with their daily lives. And its not new. Practices undo discourses, and undo the notions of purity that surround systems of belief. Whether it's the extreme and rather unoriginal example of a priest molesting a child, or the trivial case of a Jew using a phone on the sabbath, the reality is not cut and dried, it's a messy muddle full of complexities and compromises.
We are not dealing with seperate worlds, as becomes abundantly clear whenever a few precious moments of press coverage are devoted to moderates, or in the proofs we encounter in our own lives that actually, co-existence in diversity is not only possible, its incredibly enriching. But as well as that, its incredibly mundane. We all know Muslims who are completely "European" in cultural terms, or Christians who practice their faith without judging anyone else. These people exist, we all know them, it's incredibly banal and yet it's the only thing capable of exposing the nonsense of the debate monopolised by extremists. It's not a lie to show pictures of people draped in stars and stripes holding up anti-islamic placards in NYC, nor is it a lie to show a pastor saying he wants to burn a Koran (well, now you mention it...) Those people exist too, those events are actually happening (or not happening, as the case may be). But it's disinformation to the extent that it ignores the other realities, which are not only far, far more prevalent, but also far more useful in constructing a meaningful, nuanced debate. What we have instead is the battle of imaginary "worlds" and general hysteria on all sides. Which is wholly unneccesary. Many religious people are not fundamentalists and do not seek to impose their beliefs on others. Many secularists respect the important role religion has in the lives of many and are not stubbornly campaigning for its abolition. There is nothing mutually exclusive here. So why whould we be placed in opposition to one another?
The pope's visit, thus far, seems to have been the occasion for mud-slinging in all directions, with secularists being blunt and sometimes mocking in their dismissals of religion, and then Catholics - predictably - defending themselves, often by attacking the atheists in return. Not only is this disconnected from the reality, it is a serious missed opportunity, to have a calm and respectful discussion, either about the metaphysical dimensions of the existence of God, which is always a fun one, or the place of religion in European society in the face of declining religiosity yet increasing fundamentalism and religiously-based identities. Is that too boring or too subtle for people to hear? Or for journalists to write about? Apparently so. If entertainment is the only imperative, then perhaps this justifies limiting the "debate" to caricatures, which are arguably easier to process, and certainly necessitate less thought to grasp.
So now we have Richard Dawkins and the Pope representing two warring worlds. This is the conclusion I would come to if I were a lifeform from another planet, who mistakenly landed on earth and decided to pass the time by perusing the media in recent days. This being said, I do have some sympathy for Toynbee's statement that,
"All atheists now tend to be called "militant", yet we seek to silence none, to burn no books, to stop no masses or Friday prayers, impose no laws, asking only free choice over sex and death."
This binary view has of course nothing to do with the reality, where the majority of believers from all faiths are perfectly adapted to life in "secular" societies, and are no less tolerant and open-minded than anyone else, they just happen to believe in God. To bring in a buzzword that may grate on some - hybridity has always been the "mot d'ordre" when it comes to religion, just like all other aspects of society. The fact that the main religions have become mythologised by a "purifying discourse" which paints them as sacred, coherent wholes that have eternally been that way ever since the day they were dropped from the sky, serves to obscure the fact that actually - all religions are an accumulation of a series of traditions and diverse influences that developped over time. They borrowed, shifted and evolved as much as all cultures do - because that's what they are - elements of culture.
But setting aside this assertion, which those who adhere to a faith would find it tough to swallow, elements of hybridity can be seen everywhere - whether in the surreal juxtaposition of islamisation and americanisation in the form of the "Hallal hamburger" at fast food joints in Europe, or the myriad ways in which religious people bend and alter the practices and requirements of their religions to render them compatible with their daily lives. And its not new. Practices undo discourses, and undo the notions of purity that surround systems of belief. Whether it's the extreme and rather unoriginal example of a priest molesting a child, or the trivial case of a Jew using a phone on the sabbath, the reality is not cut and dried, it's a messy muddle full of complexities and compromises.
We are not dealing with seperate worlds, as becomes abundantly clear whenever a few precious moments of press coverage are devoted to moderates, or in the proofs we encounter in our own lives that actually, co-existence in diversity is not only possible, its incredibly enriching. But as well as that, its incredibly mundane. We all know Muslims who are completely "European" in cultural terms, or Christians who practice their faith without judging anyone else. These people exist, we all know them, it's incredibly banal and yet it's the only thing capable of exposing the nonsense of the debate monopolised by extremists. It's not a lie to show pictures of people draped in stars and stripes holding up anti-islamic placards in NYC, nor is it a lie to show a pastor saying he wants to burn a Koran (well, now you mention it...) Those people exist too, those events are actually happening (or not happening, as the case may be). But it's disinformation to the extent that it ignores the other realities, which are not only far, far more prevalent, but also far more useful in constructing a meaningful, nuanced debate. What we have instead is the battle of imaginary "worlds" and general hysteria on all sides. Which is wholly unneccesary. Many religious people are not fundamentalists and do not seek to impose their beliefs on others. Many secularists respect the important role religion has in the lives of many and are not stubbornly campaigning for its abolition. There is nothing mutually exclusive here. So why whould we be placed in opposition to one another?
The pope's visit, thus far, seems to have been the occasion for mud-slinging in all directions, with secularists being blunt and sometimes mocking in their dismissals of religion, and then Catholics - predictably - defending themselves, often by attacking the atheists in return. Not only is this disconnected from the reality, it is a serious missed opportunity, to have a calm and respectful discussion, either about the metaphysical dimensions of the existence of God, which is always a fun one, or the place of religion in European society in the face of declining religiosity yet increasing fundamentalism and religiously-based identities. Is that too boring or too subtle for people to hear? Or for journalists to write about? Apparently so. If entertainment is the only imperative, then perhaps this justifies limiting the "debate" to caricatures, which are arguably easier to process, and certainly necessitate less thought to grasp.
So now we have Richard Dawkins and the Pope representing two warring worlds. This is the conclusion I would come to if I were a lifeform from another planet, who mistakenly landed on earth and decided to pass the time by perusing the media in recent days. This being said, I do have some sympathy for Toynbee's statement that,
"All atheists now tend to be called "militant", yet we seek to silence none, to burn no books, to stop no masses or Friday prayers, impose no laws, asking only free choice over sex and death."
But of course it can't be true. If all atheists want is unlimited free choice then those who levy charges of relativism and amorality against them would be spot on. Of course atheists want laws. They advocate tolerance but even that must be restricted, because obviously not everything can be tolerated. But the point is, the "we" which Toynbee uses to generalise about all atheists is as absurd as the "we" appropriated by religious spokespeople in the name of all the faithful. Atheists are scattered across a spectrum of values, they are no more a monolithic bloc than any other kind of "imaginary community". But it's an almost irresistible shorthand, and one I am equally prone to making myself. I advocate the view that allowing a few to speak in the name of many is always dangerous, or at the very least problematic. Carving up the world into blocs denies the realities which are evidenced by our own experiences. But its a tricky predicament and I don't have the solution. I would just like to see the debate opened. The kind of debate where each speaks frankly to his/her convictions, and the mud is left at the door.
No comments:
Post a Comment