So where does this funny idea that religious ideas are human come from?

When I say religious ideas are human, I mean that people grant religious ideologies the same status as human beings. Attacking the idea that the Koran is the perfect word of god is seen as persecution, oppression and bigotry in the same way that actually attacking someone because they are black is.

As if the religious ideas themselves had feelings, as if they had blood, as if the beliefs themselves had beating hearts and deserved all of the protection and rights we grant to human beings.

A set of ideas should not be given rights or held above criticism.

Brucepig,

On the whole, I agree with your point. However, I think you oversimplify a little here, and your reaction to Balak’s rhetoric might be leading you into a bit of an unfair overlooking of the relationship between religion, identity, and prejudice. Religion and identity are deeply linked for many people. Being Jewish is an ethnic and a religious identity, and the two are hard to disentangle sometimes. I still think of myself as Irish Catholic in many ways, though I am effectively an atheist intellectually. When you attack someone’s religion, you not only attack a set of ideas that may form the foundation of their understanding of the world and a major source of comfort and structure and security, all of which are sufficient to stir unpleasant and strong feelings. You also do attack their identity, their sense of self in a way quite similar to attacking their ethnicity. So while I wouldn’t argue that we should not vigorously critique religious ideas, it is a bit unfair to claim that to do so is a purely intellectual, dispassionate process unconnected with feelings about idneitity, including bigotry. It is possible to be an anti-Catholic bigot, and this may be expressed in vicious criticism of the religion and lots of prejudiced assumptions about the people who follow it. Not all criticism of Catholicism is in this vein, of course, but it is understandable that Catholics might be suspicious that it is and have reactions and associations that stem from historical experience with anti-Catholic prejudice. The same, of course, applies to Judaism, Islam, and any othe rbelief system which is corrleated or associated with ethnicity and identity. So while I’ve read enough of your posts not to thik you are motivated by bigotry, I don’t think the dismissal of all concerns that criticising a religion might be an expression of bigotry and a bit more personal than a philosophical critique of abstract ideas is supportable.

bpig: Hedges is another leftist who is labouring under the dogmas that the West is malevolent and that all Muslims are peaceful, noble, underdogs who must be supported in their wars against the West.

The circularity here is the tip-off to the real impulse.

It all comes back to the neo-con trope of “Muslim wars against the west"(!). What wars are these exactly ? Clearly there are some people here who can read such assertions of ‘Western victimhood at the hands of Islam’ without doing a double-take. But to do so requires a shared, and implicitly racist view of the world.

I am aware of several wars and military occupations of Muslim countries (among others) by Western imperialism (not ‘the West’ - used here as a racist ideological construct and likewise promoted by the ‘clash of civilisations’ crowd).

The U.S. led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the zionist occupation of Palestinian lands. Horrific proxy wars stage-managed by various imperialist interests in the Horn of Africa; the imposition of various gangster-regimes headed by colonels, sheikhs and theocrat-kings with US backing in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc., going back several decades, against the will of their populations… to name just a few more obvious examples.

But where are these “Muslim wars against the west?”

As to the fig-leaf excuse that one is attacking not ‘brown people’ as such but merely their ‘religion’, this is laughably transparent.

As late as the 1980s the opposition to imperialism in these countries was predominantly secular. It was, for example, unusual to see a Palestinian woman in a veil or headscarf as recently as 20 years ago. Hamas, initially a marginal formation, was set up with the encouragement of the Israeli military to counteract the hegemonic influence of the secular-nationalist PLO. Also recall the CIA-backed insurgency against the secular-reformist PDPA government - and later the Soviet intervention - in Afghanistan. This particular Islamic fundamentalist force - which eventually spawned Al Qaeda - was entirely the creature of U.S. imperialism.

Does this make ‘nature’s noblemen’ out of the brutal, women-hating advocates of political Islam? No. Aside from defending their legitimate right to strike at the military forces occupying their countries, Marxists forthrightly oppose these reactionary movements and always have.

Arguments which posit ‘Western victimhood’ while systematically ignoring the actual history of imperialist military and political interventions in the Middle East may have little in the way of guiding coherence, but they certainly have a common denominator, which should be called by its name - racism.

Once again, the operative word here is ‘imperialism’; ‘The West’ is an ideological construct inseparable from the same ‘collective guilt’ rationale serving the mutual purposes of the ‘white-man’s-burden’ racists and the reactionary supporters of political Islam.

inthegobi - 14 March 2008 08:05 AM

From Salon: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/

A rather provocative article, but on the narrow issue of the ‘New Atheists’ it sounds solid. The phrase ‘the epistemology of television was spot on.


(Wish he wouldn’t use ‘fascist’ and ‘secular fundamentalist’ tho - too much like the very writing he’s unhappy with.)

Kirk.

Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges discussed on this forum—see
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/21488/

mckenzievmd - 19 March 2008 08:53 AM

On the whole, I agree with your point. However, I think you oversimplify a little here, and your reaction to Balak’s rhetoric might be leading you into a bit of an unfair overlooking of the relationship between religion, identity, and prejudice. Religion and identity are deeply linked for many people. Being Jewish is an ethnic and a religious identity, and the two are hard to disentangle sometimes. I still think of myself as Irish Catholic in many ways, though I am effectively an atheist intellectually. When you attack someone’s religion, you not only attack a set of ideas that may form the foundation of their understanding of the world and a major source of comfort and structure and security, all of which are sufficient to stir unpleasant and strong feelings. You also do attack their identity, their sense of self in a way quite similar to attacking their ethnicity. So while I wouldn’t argue that we should not vigorously critique religious ideas, it is a bit unfair to claim that to do so is a purely intellectual, dispassionate process unconnected with feelings about idneitity, including bigotry. It is possible to be an anti-Catholic bigot, and this may be expressed in vicious criticism of the religion and lots of prejudiced assumptions about the people who follow it. Not all criticism of Catholicism is in this vein, of course, but it is understandable that Catholics might be suspicious that it is and have reactions and associations that stem from historical experience with anti-Catholic prejudice. The same, of course, applies to Judaism, Islam, and any othe rbelief system which is corrleated or associated with ethnicity and identity. So while I’ve read enough of your posts not to thik you are motivated by bigotry, I don’t think the dismissal of all concerns that criticising a religion might be an expression of bigotry and a bit more personal than a philosophical critique of abstract ideas is supportable.

Hello mckenzievmd, you make a reasonable point but I have to say you are wrong.

I come from an Irish area in London and grew up through the troubles. I have Irish family and most of my friends are just like you. Totally secular but with an Irish Catholic background. When I was growing up things where rather touchy and to say things about paddy’s or micks was seen as potentially racist but to criticise the dogmas of Catholicism would have in no way been seen as racist.

Jews are different and unique because they are the only race that are actually identified by their religion. So to call someone a kike or accuse them of being stingy because they are Jewish is racist.  But to criticise the tenets of Judaism is in no way racist.

Christianity and Islam are massive religions that claim universality and have been spread across the globe. It is impossible to be racist about all Christians because Christianity is not a race. If I was to make my harsh criticisms of Christianity you would assume that I was criticising white folk but coming from London most white English, Irish and Scottish are secular. If I criticise the actions and beliefs of Christians in London it would be a predominantly African, Brazilian and Polish flock. No one would be tempted to call that racist.

I used to run a cab stand and most of my drivers were Muslims. I love them all dearly despite thinking their beliefs are stupid.

The majority of my drivers came from Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey. Now Anyone who has traveled or grown up in a truly multi cultural community will know that these nationalities/races are totally different. Muslim is not a race. We even had a few Albanian Muslim drivers who are of course white. Islam is not a race.

Racists criticise Islam that is true that is why it is so important not to accuse everyone who criticises Islam of racism. It’s important to listen carefully to what is being said and withhold judgment especially on the internet because we don’t know who we are talking to. I could demonise Islam in the language used by the BNP but I could be a Blackman from Nigeria where conflict between Christian and Muslim is rife. My Egyptian friend who suffered opression in his own country because of his Christian faith is even more critical of Islam than I am. Is he racist?

People like Balak do not deserve to be taken seriously, not only because he is incapable of answering questions but because their kneejerk reactions and demonisation of people as racist is wrong, counterproductive and potentially dangerous.

Jackson - 21 March 2008 12:52 PM

inthegobi - 14 March 2008 08:05 AM

From Salon: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/

A rather provocative article, but on the narrow issue of the ‘New Atheists’ it sounds solid. The phrase ‘the epistemology of television was spot on.


(Wish he wouldn’t use ‘fascist’ and ‘secular fundamentalist’ tho - too much like the very writing he’s unhappy with.)

Kirk.

Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges discussed on this forum—see
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/21488/

Ah, is there a transcript of the audio?

Thanks for the link,

Kirk

inthegobi - 22 March 2008 08:57 AM

Jackson - 21 March 2008 12:52 PM

inthegobi - 14 March 2008 08:05 AM

From Salon: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/

A rather provocative article, but on the narrow issue of the ‘New Atheists’ it sounds solid. The phrase ‘the epistemology of television was spot on.


(Wish he wouldn’t use ‘fascist’ and ‘secular fundamentalist’ tho - too much like the very writing he’s unhappy with.)

Kirk.

Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges discussed on this forum—see
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/21488/

Ah, is there a transcript of the audio?

Thanks for the link,

Kirk

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070617_religion_politics_and_the_end_of_the_world/

As you surely know from following the links,
The WWW link at truthdig.com has a written statement by Chris Hedges (with the catchy “I don’t believe in Atheists” line) and a well-written rebuttal by Sam Harris as well.  I haven’t been able to find a transcript using Google—but I think the *.mp3 files and these essays cover it pretty well (the essays might be more important because the authors have given some thought to how to present the key points in sequence).

Beg pardon.