I have had numerous debates about whether religion in itself is bad. There are many atheist liberals that feel religion is a scourge - a source of problems that delivers few benefits. For a while, before the 2006 and 2008 elections, that group seemed to dominate the Democratic party. Thankfully, that has changed, at least for now. But those people are still out there.
In this post, I will lay out my side of those arguments.
The arguments from people like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others seem to rest on two assumptions. First, God definitely does not exist. Second, belief in this nonexistent God causes more harm than good.
The first assumption is one I want to spend only a little time on because a real argument would likely prove fruitless here - since there is little proof one way or the other, arguments on this point tend to go around in circles.
Personally though, I find it hard to believe in a God - or if God does exist, He does not strike me as someone worth worshiping. But two things keep me from exercising the kind of certainty that hard core atheists do. First, there are some things that I cannot shake - a feeling that there is some justice in the world and there seems to be more everyday. Maybe that is a sign of the existence of divinity. Second, in general I know that I must exercise some humbleness and admit that even without my doubts, I could be wrong. Allowing for that, I should allow for those who do believe to continue to believe.
I think the more important argument though is on the second assumption. I fundamentally believe that people, not religions or ideologies, are responsible for good and bad. Christianity (and other religions) can, and has been, a force for both great good and terrible evil. And in either case, it was the people themselves that created the good or the bad, not the religion. When it comes down to it, people interpret things however they want to, or find things to interpret to benefit them. People will always find reasons to separate each other and unite against "the other". Ending violence comes through understanding, not through removing differences.
One of my favorite people to debate suggested that religion is bad because it causes people to believe they lack control over their own lives. This can therefore impede their growth or improvement. I am really glad she brought this up because it gets at my point. The fact is that people, religious or not, can feel a lack of control over their own lives. Some attribute this to God's will, while the less religious call it fate. So as I see it, removing religion does not remove the feeling that one is not in control over their life. If you take away God, what remains is a belief in fate.
In fact, it is the Christian faith that teaches free will - that God gave us the ability to choose to love Him or not, to chose the path of righteousness or not. So one could argue that a proper understanding of the Christian faith would lead people to feel in control over their destiny (while also having the strength that comes from knowing that they will always have God's support).
You can make the same argument about some of the intolerance that comes from Christianity. While the Bible can give people a fall back to explain their intolerance, removing religion is unlikely to remove people's hatred of things they do not understand. I find it slightly naive to think that if you could take religion from people, that they will suddenly understand and embrace things they now reject - like homosexuality. (At the same time, I believe that people who do good in the name of religion would do it anyway if religion were to disappear.)
What I am getting at is that we need to deal with people's attitudes and biases, not the things that they use to understand or justify their biases. You empower someone by showing them that they are in control over their lives. And you introduce someone to the GLBT community to teach them tolerance. Tolerance and free will fit perfectly inside of modern Christianity. But intolerance and a feeling of powerlessness also fit perfectly in modern atheism.
Christianity was used in the past to justify segregation, apartheid and policies that banned interracial marriages. We did not eliminate these things by banning religion. Instead we changed minds, which changed the way people understood their religions.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Powell as Foil
I just finished reading Reputation, the next posthumous book by Marjorie Williams. This book is just a collection of her political profiles. Her ability to analyze a person and really get to their flaws and strengths - to really see the entire person - was amazing. It is one of the many qualities she had that the world is now deprived of. Unfortunately, only some of the people were really interesting, which made the book good, but not great. By far the best profile was the last one - Colin Powell. Her profile of him, before he had decided not to run for President in 1996, is probably the best analysis of him I have ever seen.
In her profile of Colin Powell, she manages to say what people see in him, but also what they don't see - things the less astute among us (myself included) are only really seeing now.
The fact is, Democrats love Colin Powell - he is the perfect foil for George Bush and the Iraq War. In fact, he is the perfect foil for all Republicans - although Neo-Cons especially. He is humble, poised, respectable and basically without any domestic policy beliefs. Most importantly, he is a prominent Republican with significant military credentials who is cautious in his use of military force. But in fact, we find him such the perfect foil that we ignore his incredible faults.
The thing Democrats most revere is probably the thing that on careful analysis should be what causes us (liberals) the greatest trouble. His belief in overwhelming force for any military operation, based on his experience in Vietnam, is a perfect contrast to Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq. However, by revering that, we ignore the box this puts us in when it comes to genocides and human rights abuses.
This same bias causes us to ignore the role he played in America's (Clinton's) decision not to get involved in Bosnia. In fact, he was more vocal on Bosnia than he was on Iraq. Think about that for a minute - Colin Powell, as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, vocally opposed intervening in Bosnia, effectively tying the hands of his boss, President Clinton (although you could argue Clinton was unwilling to intervene anyway). But in Iraq, as Secretary of State, he loyally trumpeted the cause for war and stood by his boss until the end. Though he opposed both, in the end he was only vocal in the conflict that we should have been involved in, and remained loyal on the war we should not have.
Although liberals' love of Powell existed long before Iraq, it is interesting how Iraq has dominated liberals' judgments. This Atlantic article did a really good job of putting Donald Rumsfeld in a new light for me. While I think his decisions in Iraq showed callousness and poor judgment, I have also long claimed that his general military policy was flawed - a policy to make our armed forces smaller and more agile. The article, contrary to what I thought, shows that these forces are likely to help, not hinder, peacekeeping. More agile forces are more able to respond quickly and effectively, when / if actually called upon, to peacekeeping missions. It is unlikely that this was Rumsfeld's purpose, but it seems to be its effect.
So despite our superficial judgments, I am coming to the conclusion that Powell is no one to celebrate, and that Rumsfeld was a little better than we thought. I long wanted Powell to run for president. I am now very glad he did not.
In her profile of Colin Powell, she manages to say what people see in him, but also what they don't see - things the less astute among us (myself included) are only really seeing now.
The fact is, Democrats love Colin Powell - he is the perfect foil for George Bush and the Iraq War. In fact, he is the perfect foil for all Republicans - although Neo-Cons especially. He is humble, poised, respectable and basically without any domestic policy beliefs. Most importantly, he is a prominent Republican with significant military credentials who is cautious in his use of military force. But in fact, we find him such the perfect foil that we ignore his incredible faults.
The thing Democrats most revere is probably the thing that on careful analysis should be what causes us (liberals) the greatest trouble. His belief in overwhelming force for any military operation, based on his experience in Vietnam, is a perfect contrast to Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq. However, by revering that, we ignore the box this puts us in when it comes to genocides and human rights abuses.
This same bias causes us to ignore the role he played in America's (Clinton's) decision not to get involved in Bosnia. In fact, he was more vocal on Bosnia than he was on Iraq. Think about that for a minute - Colin Powell, as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, vocally opposed intervening in Bosnia, effectively tying the hands of his boss, President Clinton (although you could argue Clinton was unwilling to intervene anyway). But in Iraq, as Secretary of State, he loyally trumpeted the cause for war and stood by his boss until the end. Though he opposed both, in the end he was only vocal in the conflict that we should have been involved in, and remained loyal on the war we should not have.
Although liberals' love of Powell existed long before Iraq, it is interesting how Iraq has dominated liberals' judgments. This Atlantic article did a really good job of putting Donald Rumsfeld in a new light for me. While I think his decisions in Iraq showed callousness and poor judgment, I have also long claimed that his general military policy was flawed - a policy to make our armed forces smaller and more agile. The article, contrary to what I thought, shows that these forces are likely to help, not hinder, peacekeeping. More agile forces are more able to respond quickly and effectively, when / if actually called upon, to peacekeeping missions. It is unlikely that this was Rumsfeld's purpose, but it seems to be its effect.
So despite our superficial judgments, I am coming to the conclusion that Powell is no one to celebrate, and that Rumsfeld was a little better than we thought. I long wanted Powell to run for president. I am now very glad he did not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)