Ramadan is beginning and many American Muslims are dismayed at how radical jihadists around the world have grabbed attention with terrorist acts such as the one in Manchester, England, timed most likely to coincide with Ramadan.
Actually, more than just Muslim Americans should be dismayed; anyone who believes that if their religion, ideology, religious leader, scripture or manifesto calls for harming others for a religious or ideological reason should ALSO feel a sense of guilt and dismay. Why? Because it is that rationalization, that harm to others for the sake of ideology is justified, that leads to all sorts of harm and misery across the planet.
It was not long ago that a majority of ALL Americans, Christians in particular, believed that making the lives of gay persons WORSE by denying them rights that were available to heterosexuals was justified, usually because of their Christian beliefs. That attitude has been changing but the foundational problem remains: that right or wrong can be based on a religious or secular ideology. It cannot.
Right and wrong or ethical and unethical depends on whether someone is unjustly harmed or whether human well being is helped by a behavior or policy. Offending a god or religious or ideological leader is NOT justification - it is an abdication of each of our's responsibility to do what is right or wrong. If a terrorist's religion compels them to kill infidels, the only counter argument is that their religion is irrelevant - we must do what we can determine to the best of our ability makes the world a better place.
Obedience to our "belief" is not moral - it is shirking our moral responsibility. We must always be asking moral questions.
So here is the question to the reader; do you believe right and wrong is determined by your religion or ideology? If you believe right and wrong is determined by your god, scripture or ideological leader, then you agree with terrorists on this issue. It is only random good fortune, then, that your ideology is not as brutal as theirs.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Friday, May 26, 2017
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Rights vs. tolerance vs. intolerance
The so-called President's trip to Saudi Arabia put a renewed focus on religion and intolerance. It's a strange thing about intolerance - it can be used by a group and against that same group and the intolerance can be unethical in both cases, ethical in some cases and ethical in all cases. Think about the case of rival criminal gangs - they may both be intolerable.
But consider the strange mix of ingredients we have here; a so-called President who advocated for a Muslim ban and who says "Islam" hates the U.S. and then turning around and selling hundreds of millions of dollars of arms to Saudi Arabia, home of the most extreme sect of Islam and birthplace of Al Qaeda and most of the 9-11 hijackers!
You also have the attempt to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., and its modification by limiting it arbitrarily to certain Muslim countries that, coincidentally, the so-called President does NOT have business interests in. And then you have the protests AGAINST that ban by numerous Americans who know a violation of the Constitution when they see one.
This is complicated; are all religions to be respected and accepted merely because they are major religions? If they are not, is it OK to ban their spread?
I like to keep it simple and here is my take:
1) We should all have the right to practice any religion until this practice interferes with the rights of others (including the rights of minors, by the way).
2) We should all be subject to the same laws of the land in a free, liberal democratic republic where certain rights are guaranteed for all as per the First Amendment, among other rights.
3) The First Amendment guarantees the rights of all of us to choose our religion, choose no religion and respect any religion we choose to respect or to not respect any religion we choose not to respect. 4) Not respecting a religion in no way diminishes the rights of those persons who practice that religion. In fact, not being allowed to criticize a religion is a diminishing of our right to freedom of religion!
This is my reasoning for opposing any law that singles out or exempts a religion or singles out or exempts a religious practice for no reason other than it is the practice of a particular religion.
The Saudi Arabia trip buy the so-called President represents almost entirely the opposite of all these principles outlined above: the Muslim ban he previously proposed singled out a single religion was totally unconstitutional and the nonsense spouted in the speech in Saudi Arabia by the so-called President gave respect to a police state theocracy that enslaves women, persecutes gays and even executes all but true believers. We need to respect the rights of others; but we should judge their beliefs on the merits, the kindness,the ethics and the humanity of those beliefs. What we have gotten was entirely the opposite.
Here is some news from around the world to show why rights must be protected while withholding respect if warranted:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/2-men-in-indonesia-caned-dozens-of-times-for-gay-sex/ar-BBBrpC4?OCID=ansmsnnews11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/post_10496_b_8544540.html
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1554629,00.html
But consider the strange mix of ingredients we have here; a so-called President who advocated for a Muslim ban and who says "Islam" hates the U.S. and then turning around and selling hundreds of millions of dollars of arms to Saudi Arabia, home of the most extreme sect of Islam and birthplace of Al Qaeda and most of the 9-11 hijackers!
You also have the attempt to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., and its modification by limiting it arbitrarily to certain Muslim countries that, coincidentally, the so-called President does NOT have business interests in. And then you have the protests AGAINST that ban by numerous Americans who know a violation of the Constitution when they see one.
This is complicated; are all religions to be respected and accepted merely because they are major religions? If they are not, is it OK to ban their spread?
I like to keep it simple and here is my take:
1) We should all have the right to practice any religion until this practice interferes with the rights of others (including the rights of minors, by the way).
2) We should all be subject to the same laws of the land in a free, liberal democratic republic where certain rights are guaranteed for all as per the First Amendment, among other rights.
3) The First Amendment guarantees the rights of all of us to choose our religion, choose no religion and respect any religion we choose to respect or to not respect any religion we choose not to respect. 4) Not respecting a religion in no way diminishes the rights of those persons who practice that religion. In fact, not being allowed to criticize a religion is a diminishing of our right to freedom of religion!
This is my reasoning for opposing any law that singles out or exempts a religion or singles out or exempts a religious practice for no reason other than it is the practice of a particular religion.
The Saudi Arabia trip buy the so-called President represents almost entirely the opposite of all these principles outlined above: the Muslim ban he previously proposed singled out a single religion was totally unconstitutional and the nonsense spouted in the speech in Saudi Arabia by the so-called President gave respect to a police state theocracy that enslaves women, persecutes gays and even executes all but true believers. We need to respect the rights of others; but we should judge their beliefs on the merits, the kindness,the ethics and the humanity of those beliefs. What we have gotten was entirely the opposite.
Here is some news from around the world to show why rights must be protected while withholding respect if warranted:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/2-men-in-indonesia-caned-dozens-of-times-for-gay-sex/ar-BBBrpC4?OCID=ansmsnnews11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/post_10496_b_8544540.html
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1554629,00.html
Saturday, February 4, 2017
You don't have to like Islam to oppose "the Travel Ban"
One of the more difficult-to-understand concepts involved in maintaining a free country is granting equal and full rights to those with whom you disagree. Far too many citizens in the U.S. (and elsewhere) believe that in a democracy, the majority get their way, period. Not so in the United States, thank goodness.
There are certain rights that are NOT subject to majority whim and these are the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As the key example is the First Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please note the very first mandate of this Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
The author of the First Amendment, James Madison, was clear in his intent. He wrote, “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. [Letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, January 1, 1832]” ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3"
Just to further demonstrate Madison's intent to limit the power of the majority, he also wrote “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.” ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3"
Now I understand that just because it's in the Constitution and James Madison made his intent clear, it does not mean it is the best policy for us to follow. However, after over 200 years of experience it has become clear that Madison's First Amendment has served us well. In fact one could make the argument that no sentence in the history of humanity has served humanity better than the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: it is perhaps the greatest sentence ever written. It IS the greatest sentence ever written! Thank you James Madison.
What does this have to do with the current travel ban proposed by executive order of President Trump? Clearly Trump campaigned and gained tremendous support on the basis of his proposed ban on all Muslims attempting to travel to the U.S. He clearly sought advice, from Rudy Giuliani for example, on how to achieve his previously stated goal while passing legal muster. This is a ban intended to target Muslims and the "carve out" exemptions in the ban for Christians and other non-Muslims proves this. His "travel" ban is fooling no one; it is the beginning of a process to ban Muslims from traveling to the U.S. The fact that he did not ban travel from a number of countries that have actually had its citizens travel to the U.S. to kill Americans would be confounding until you realize they are countries he has business interests within! If a President Hillary Clinton had done something similar there would be calls for impeachment, probably justifiably.
It is obvious to many, except Trump and his supporters, that many Muslims are persecuted within these and other countries, not just for being the "wrong" kind of Muslim, but for being moderate, reasonable and in fact, freedom loving Muslims. To Trump, it seems, all Muslims are the same.
The above all being said, I am not a Muslim, and you can bet your last dollar, I will never become a Muslim. I cringe when I hear someone say "Islam is a religion of peace". I also cringe when someone says "God is love" or whatever anyone else claims about their chosen religion or ideology. I know these claims are not true by the results, by history.
Some critics of Islam claim that up to 51% of Muslims in the U.S. believe that they should be allowed to live under sharia law in the U.S. I have not verified this claim from a reliable pollster, only from less reliable pollsters, but the claim is widely repeated. If you parse this concept carefully, it does not necessarily mean that U.S. Muslims believe that everyone would have to live under such law, but instead only those who choose to governed this way, but this distinction is still unacceptable. All Americans of all religions are to be governed under the same law and treated equally. The government should never be placed in a position to enforce a religious law even if the citizen wants to be governed in this manner.
But please note that while the above unverified claim about American Muslims is disturbing, it is not that much different from what reliable pollsters such as Pew Research found in October 2006 about American Christians. "When asked which should have more influence over the laws of the country, the Bible or the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the Bible most Americans (63%) say the people’s will should have more sway. A significant minority (32%), however, believes the Bible should be more important." (http://www.pewforum.org/2006/08/24/many-americans-uneasy-with-mix-of-religion-and-politics/#intro) This is not that incredibly different from the claim about Muslims except that in this case you can be sure the 32% meant imposing law on ALL Americans. If you were to poll Trump supporters ONLY, I suspect that the percentage would exceed 51%.
You don't have to like ANY religion or ideology (such as liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism, socialism, libertarianism, etc.) to allow those that hold those beliefs to retain their rights under the Constitution. You don't have to like Islam to oppose the travel ban - you need to love justice and equality under the law.
There are certain rights that are NOT subject to majority whim and these are the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As the key example is the First Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please note the very first mandate of this Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
The author of the First Amendment, James Madison, was clear in his intent. He wrote, “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. [Letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, January 1, 1832]” ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3"
Just to further demonstrate Madison's intent to limit the power of the majority, he also wrote “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.” ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3"
Now I understand that just because it's in the Constitution and James Madison made his intent clear, it does not mean it is the best policy for us to follow. However, after over 200 years of experience it has become clear that Madison's First Amendment has served us well. In fact one could make the argument that no sentence in the history of humanity has served humanity better than the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: it is perhaps the greatest sentence ever written. It IS the greatest sentence ever written! Thank you James Madison.
What does this have to do with the current travel ban proposed by executive order of President Trump? Clearly Trump campaigned and gained tremendous support on the basis of his proposed ban on all Muslims attempting to travel to the U.S. He clearly sought advice, from Rudy Giuliani for example, on how to achieve his previously stated goal while passing legal muster. This is a ban intended to target Muslims and the "carve out" exemptions in the ban for Christians and other non-Muslims proves this. His "travel" ban is fooling no one; it is the beginning of a process to ban Muslims from traveling to the U.S. The fact that he did not ban travel from a number of countries that have actually had its citizens travel to the U.S. to kill Americans would be confounding until you realize they are countries he has business interests within! If a President Hillary Clinton had done something similar there would be calls for impeachment, probably justifiably.
It is obvious to many, except Trump and his supporters, that many Muslims are persecuted within these and other countries, not just for being the "wrong" kind of Muslim, but for being moderate, reasonable and in fact, freedom loving Muslims. To Trump, it seems, all Muslims are the same.
The above all being said, I am not a Muslim, and you can bet your last dollar, I will never become a Muslim. I cringe when I hear someone say "Islam is a religion of peace". I also cringe when someone says "God is love" or whatever anyone else claims about their chosen religion or ideology. I know these claims are not true by the results, by history.
Some critics of Islam claim that up to 51% of Muslims in the U.S. believe that they should be allowed to live under sharia law in the U.S. I have not verified this claim from a reliable pollster, only from less reliable pollsters, but the claim is widely repeated. If you parse this concept carefully, it does not necessarily mean that U.S. Muslims believe that everyone would have to live under such law, but instead only those who choose to governed this way, but this distinction is still unacceptable. All Americans of all religions are to be governed under the same law and treated equally. The government should never be placed in a position to enforce a religious law even if the citizen wants to be governed in this manner.
But please note that while the above unverified claim about American Muslims is disturbing, it is not that much different from what reliable pollsters such as Pew Research found in October 2006 about American Christians. "When asked which should have more influence over the laws of the country, the Bible or the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the Bible most Americans (63%) say the people’s will should have more sway. A significant minority (32%), however, believes the Bible should be more important." (http://www.pewforum.org/2006/08/24/many-americans-uneasy-with-mix-of-religion-and-politics/#intro) This is not that incredibly different from the claim about Muslims except that in this case you can be sure the 32% meant imposing law on ALL Americans. If you were to poll Trump supporters ONLY, I suspect that the percentage would exceed 51%.
You don't have to like ANY religion or ideology (such as liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism, socialism, libertarianism, etc.) to allow those that hold those beliefs to retain their rights under the Constitution. You don't have to like Islam to oppose the travel ban - you need to love justice and equality under the law.
Monday, June 13, 2016
The Terror in Orlando: Is Something Good Because God Says So?
It is perhaps the central philosophical/theological question of all: Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
What do YOU believe?
The perpetrator (I will not repeat his name here) of the horrific killings in Orlando, Florida earlier today, June 12, 2016, probably believed the following; that gays were an abomination and that God (the one that he believed in, not the one YOU might believe in) endorsed the killing of gays and their sympathizers.
From the Koran (7:80 - 7:84) "And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty."
The "rain" referred to above is probably something like "brimstone" which would lead to the death or "the end of the guilty."
This is not much different than the following from the Old Testament which is actually more clear in its viciousness: (Leviticus 20:13, New International Version) "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
One would think that since the source of belief in the Christian God and the Muslim God (and Jewish God) are the Holy Books quoted above, that opposition to homosexuality would be common among Christian and Muslims. One would be correct in thinking that. It is only very recently in the history of Christian society that homosexuality has approached majority acceptance and indeed not nearly all American or other Christians are on board with that opinion just yet. Ted Cruz was infamously endorsed for President by a Pastor this year who prefaced his endorsement with his reminder that homosexuals should be executed according to his infallible Bible. Ted was pleased with the endorsement. (Go to "Why Is the Media Ignoring Ted Cruz’s Embrace of ‘Kill the Gays’ Pastor?"" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/post_10496_b_8544540.html .)
So I ask you again; what do YOU believe? Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
Of course I can hear you objecting by saying that the "True God" would NEVER tell you to do something that is wrong. The problem is that the perpetrator of the horror in Orlando would agree. Yes, ISIS would agree. Bin Laden would have agreed. ALL the terrorist fanatics would agree. That is the problem - if God says to do it, it becomes the RIGHT thing to do. It becomes the thing you MUST do. This argument is of no use.
This leaves basically the final feeble argument against where we are inevitably heading; the objection that the perpetrator did not believe in the one "True God." His God was a "false" God and the answer/solution is to believe in the "True God."
What is a "false" God? Answer: Basically a "false" God is what the other guy believes in. What you believe in is the "True God." And what your "True God" says to do is, of course, "good."
And, of course, the perpetrator believed he worshiped the one and only "True God." That was his opinion and your opinion is no more than that - an opinion. As much as you'd like to transform your opinion on the nature of the "True God" into a fact, you cannot do it anymore than the perpetrator could do it. At the very best all you can do is present the evidence for the one "True God" and test your conclusion.
Unfortunately even believers often admit that their God cannot be tested. The Book of Job reminds us "who are we to question God?" The evidence for which God is the "True God" is not evidence at all; instead belief in the "True God" is built upon faith - and faith is supposedly a gift from very the same True God whom we are trying to test and by no definition of the word can "faith" be considered reasonable evidence. Furthermore I have never heard a rational process for determining which faith is a "True Faith" and which faith is not. To claim that there are many contrary "True Faiths" is to accept that sometimes 2 = 3. Is a God that is Jesus the same as a God that is not Jesus?
Is your faith the "True Faith"? Is your Holy Book the "True Holy Book"? Is your God the one "True God." For all of these questions the perpetrator of this act of terror and all other religiously inspired acts of terror, would answer "yes". These fallible humans all elevate their fallible opinions to indisputable facts. Conversely, reasonable persons understand that the "facts" they believe are true are conditional and probable - not certain and taken on faith. Reasonable persons use evidence, logic, and science and accept that "facts" can be tested and subject to disproof.
Those who instead rely on faith for determining their absolute truths all uniformly and conveniently claim that reason, evidence and science cannot answer the deepest questions of human existence while implying that their personal opinions CAN answer them in an absolute manner. This certainty on the part of the faithful in knowing the Truth is seen as a virtue by them as opposed to the incredible danger and arrogance it actually presents. The scientific viewpoint is uncertain, conditional, testable and ultimately far more humble.
If you have managed to read this to this point, I will ask one final time: Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
What do YOU believe?
The perpetrator (I will not repeat his name here) of the horrific killings in Orlando, Florida earlier today, June 12, 2016, probably believed the following; that gays were an abomination and that God (the one that he believed in, not the one YOU might believe in) endorsed the killing of gays and their sympathizers.
From the Koran (7:80 - 7:84) "And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty."
The "rain" referred to above is probably something like "brimstone" which would lead to the death or "the end of the guilty."
This is not much different than the following from the Old Testament which is actually more clear in its viciousness: (Leviticus 20:13, New International Version) "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
One would think that since the source of belief in the Christian God and the Muslim God (and Jewish God) are the Holy Books quoted above, that opposition to homosexuality would be common among Christian and Muslims. One would be correct in thinking that. It is only very recently in the history of Christian society that homosexuality has approached majority acceptance and indeed not nearly all American or other Christians are on board with that opinion just yet. Ted Cruz was infamously endorsed for President by a Pastor this year who prefaced his endorsement with his reminder that homosexuals should be executed according to his infallible Bible. Ted was pleased with the endorsement. (Go to "Why Is the Media Ignoring Ted Cruz’s Embrace of ‘Kill the Gays’ Pastor?"" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/post_10496_b_8544540.html .)
So I ask you again; what do YOU believe? Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
Of course I can hear you objecting by saying that the "True God" would NEVER tell you to do something that is wrong. The problem is that the perpetrator of the horror in Orlando would agree. Yes, ISIS would agree. Bin Laden would have agreed. ALL the terrorist fanatics would agree. That is the problem - if God says to do it, it becomes the RIGHT thing to do. It becomes the thing you MUST do. This argument is of no use.
This leaves basically the final feeble argument against where we are inevitably heading; the objection that the perpetrator did not believe in the one "True God." His God was a "false" God and the answer/solution is to believe in the "True God."
What is a "false" God? Answer: Basically a "false" God is what the other guy believes in. What you believe in is the "True God." And what your "True God" says to do is, of course, "good."
And, of course, the perpetrator believed he worshiped the one and only "True God." That was his opinion and your opinion is no more than that - an opinion. As much as you'd like to transform your opinion on the nature of the "True God" into a fact, you cannot do it anymore than the perpetrator could do it. At the very best all you can do is present the evidence for the one "True God" and test your conclusion.
Unfortunately even believers often admit that their God cannot be tested. The Book of Job reminds us "who are we to question God?" The evidence for which God is the "True God" is not evidence at all; instead belief in the "True God" is built upon faith - and faith is supposedly a gift from very the same True God whom we are trying to test and by no definition of the word can "faith" be considered reasonable evidence. Furthermore I have never heard a rational process for determining which faith is a "True Faith" and which faith is not. To claim that there are many contrary "True Faiths" is to accept that sometimes 2 = 3. Is a God that is Jesus the same as a God that is not Jesus?
Is your faith the "True Faith"? Is your Holy Book the "True Holy Book"? Is your God the one "True God." For all of these questions the perpetrator of this act of terror and all other religiously inspired acts of terror, would answer "yes". These fallible humans all elevate their fallible opinions to indisputable facts. Conversely, reasonable persons understand that the "facts" they believe are true are conditional and probable - not certain and taken on faith. Reasonable persons use evidence, logic, and science and accept that "facts" can be tested and subject to disproof.
Those who instead rely on faith for determining their absolute truths all uniformly and conveniently claim that reason, evidence and science cannot answer the deepest questions of human existence while implying that their personal opinions CAN answer them in an absolute manner. This certainty on the part of the faithful in knowing the Truth is seen as a virtue by them as opposed to the incredible danger and arrogance it actually presents. The scientific viewpoint is uncertain, conditional, testable and ultimately far more humble.
If you have managed to read this to this point, I will ask one final time: Is Something Good Because God Says So? Or is Something Good Because it Makes the World a Better Place?
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Tragedy at the Hajj and the Irrelevance of Religious Morality
Once again hundreds of religious pilgrims died from trampling each other at a "holy" site in Mina, near Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The actual death toll was over 700 as of last week. The trampling took place near the location where the ritual of throwing pebbles at the "devil" takes place. In 1990, 1426 died in a stampede associated with the pilgrimage, that time in a tunnel leading to "holy" sites in Mecca.
It is an obligation to make the pilgrimage at least once in one's lifetime if one is able to arrange it. Since there are over a billion Muslims, this means many converge upon Mina and Mecca, particularly during religious holidays, and the crowds have become unmanageable leading to stampedes and the deaths of innocent people, despite the efforts of the Saudis. Please note that this pilgrimage is entirely a religious exercise - nothing is accomplished as far as I can see that could not be accomplished without this pilgrimage, except for the pilgrimage.
It is instructive to read how a Muslim, Nima Elbagir of CNN, views the Hajj: " For Muslims to complete the Hajj is to be reborn. To die in the Hajj is a blessing. You are considered to have been martyred, cleansed of sin. In the space of less than a week, during the Hajj, millions of Muslims stream along prescribed routes, undertaking the same rituals within the same narrow window of time. Islam requires the rites of the Hajj be completed only once in a lifetime and even then only if you are able. There's a reason for that -- the Hajj is hard. I've done it only once. It was one of my first big assignments when I joined CNN. As a practicing Muslim, it was an almost indescribable experience. As you walk for hours among Muslims of every possible color and nationality, the physical toll of the Hajj is meant to humble you. And it does.
In the press of humanity, it doesn't take much to spark panic. Muslims believe the rite of "stoning the devil" is a re-enactment of the temptation of the prophet Abraham by Satan on the same site. As you throw the stones, you are conjuring your own personal demons...
When pilgrims set off, they know there is a real possibility that they might not come home. Many truly hope they won't... As the families of the victims of this tragedy struggle to come to terms with their loss, they will also be struggling to come to terms with the knowledge that the risk was always there. As they grieve, they'll be told these were the lucky ones. And some will pray that they will be lucky, too..."
If I understand the situation correctly, some, if not many Muslims believe, or claim to believe that dying during a Hajj is a blessing and they are "martyred." This is not unlike hearing, at a Christian funeral for example, that the deceased is "in a better place" or that God "wanted them" in heaven for some undisclosed purpose. Many Christians who died for their beliefs, and their beliefs alone, were considered "martyred" and many have been "sainted." They are revered by many and their deaths are seen as heroic, not futile.
These are the problems with religious belief, religious morality and religion itself; the belief in the afterlife distorts our view of our life while we're alive; and what is considered moral may have no relationship to human well being and may even be very bad for us. If there is an eternal afterlife, our real lives on this earth in this lifetime are almost irrelevant. What is less than 100 years in life on earth compared to an eternity in heaven? The answer is basically NOTHING - unless heaven does not exist and/or the believer's version of the divine is in error, and then our earthly lives becomes all important and worthy of cherishing. With an afterlife, however, dying pointlessly for some supernatural purpose otherwise becomes all important, again, unless it is in error, of course. Please keep in mind however, that non-Muslim religious persons see no point in dying in the Hajj while non-Christian believers see no point in dying defending the idea that Jesus is God. To the vast majority of humans on this planet, dying for someone else's mistaken belief system is a tragedy not a blessing and not martyrdom. In actuality almost everyone agrees on this subject with the exception being when their own beliefs are considered.
If we want to promote a better life for humanity on this earth in our lifetimes, a humanistic approach is a requirement. Caring about others is the source and starting point of a real morality, not belief in one or another supernatural myth. We need to get past the martyrdom that helps no one.
It is an obligation to make the pilgrimage at least once in one's lifetime if one is able to arrange it. Since there are over a billion Muslims, this means many converge upon Mina and Mecca, particularly during religious holidays, and the crowds have become unmanageable leading to stampedes and the deaths of innocent people, despite the efforts of the Saudis. Please note that this pilgrimage is entirely a religious exercise - nothing is accomplished as far as I can see that could not be accomplished without this pilgrimage, except for the pilgrimage.
It is instructive to read how a Muslim, Nima Elbagir of CNN, views the Hajj: " For Muslims to complete the Hajj is to be reborn. To die in the Hajj is a blessing. You are considered to have been martyred, cleansed of sin. In the space of less than a week, during the Hajj, millions of Muslims stream along prescribed routes, undertaking the same rituals within the same narrow window of time. Islam requires the rites of the Hajj be completed only once in a lifetime and even then only if you are able. There's a reason for that -- the Hajj is hard. I've done it only once. It was one of my first big assignments when I joined CNN. As a practicing Muslim, it was an almost indescribable experience. As you walk for hours among Muslims of every possible color and nationality, the physical toll of the Hajj is meant to humble you. And it does.
In the press of humanity, it doesn't take much to spark panic. Muslims believe the rite of "stoning the devil" is a re-enactment of the temptation of the prophet Abraham by Satan on the same site. As you throw the stones, you are conjuring your own personal demons...
When pilgrims set off, they know there is a real possibility that they might not come home. Many truly hope they won't... As the families of the victims of this tragedy struggle to come to terms with their loss, they will also be struggling to come to terms with the knowledge that the risk was always there. As they grieve, they'll be told these were the lucky ones. And some will pray that they will be lucky, too..."
If I understand the situation correctly, some, if not many Muslims believe, or claim to believe that dying during a Hajj is a blessing and they are "martyred." This is not unlike hearing, at a Christian funeral for example, that the deceased is "in a better place" or that God "wanted them" in heaven for some undisclosed purpose. Many Christians who died for their beliefs, and their beliefs alone, were considered "martyred" and many have been "sainted." They are revered by many and their deaths are seen as heroic, not futile.
These are the problems with religious belief, religious morality and religion itself; the belief in the afterlife distorts our view of our life while we're alive; and what is considered moral may have no relationship to human well being and may even be very bad for us. If there is an eternal afterlife, our real lives on this earth in this lifetime are almost irrelevant. What is less than 100 years in life on earth compared to an eternity in heaven? The answer is basically NOTHING - unless heaven does not exist and/or the believer's version of the divine is in error, and then our earthly lives becomes all important and worthy of cherishing. With an afterlife, however, dying pointlessly for some supernatural purpose otherwise becomes all important, again, unless it is in error, of course. Please keep in mind however, that non-Muslim religious persons see no point in dying in the Hajj while non-Christian believers see no point in dying defending the idea that Jesus is God. To the vast majority of humans on this planet, dying for someone else's mistaken belief system is a tragedy not a blessing and not martyrdom. In actuality almost everyone agrees on this subject with the exception being when their own beliefs are considered.
If we want to promote a better life for humanity on this earth in our lifetimes, a humanistic approach is a requirement. Caring about others is the source and starting point of a real morality, not belief in one or another supernatural myth. We need to get past the martyrdom that helps no one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)