[ed.]Combating Religious Intolerance

[X]

N.B.: If this is too much to read (i.e. if reading reams of dense print on computer screen gives you a headache, like it does me) scroll down to the bottom of this post for my concluding summary. It's separated by a bold header so it can be found easier.


And now to the OP:

I've been thinking (a dangerous thing to do...)


There seem to be many atheists/agnostics who view organized religion as a problem. There are several individuals who are firmly anti-theist, and hold the general view that religion should be, if possible, abolished.

While I can't argue their reasons, I can't agree to the outright removal of religion. For one thing, most Christians where I live are moderate (I'm going to focus primarily on Christianity, as I have no experience in Judaism or Islam) go to church partly out of obligation/habit, and partly for the social aspects. For another, it is, for all intents and purposes, and impossible goal.

I wish to put forward for discussion an alternative I feel is more workable.

Instead of viewing the "Big 3" as organizations which are devoted to being at the throats of those who don't follow their specific system of belief, and thus as institutions to be torn down, perhaps education is a better alternative.

Among the theologians I know, the general consensus is that the Bible is indeed a holy book. They may conduct their lives (loosely) around the teaching of the Bible (or the Torah, or the Qur'an), but they realize it's a human book. And there is ongoing effort, at the scholarly level, to discuss such things with scholars of other faiths.

But what does this solve? Nothing. Even if experts in their ivory towers agree that the big 3 have a somewhat common basis, and explore the history of their beliefs, and realize it's just a religion, like any other, what of it? It means nothing to the parishioners who simply learn the rote lessons of the person at the front giving a sermon. And, unfortunately, at least in my experience (United Church, and Roman Catholic masses through school (although i confess I never paid attention at RC mass)) the sermons from the pulpit are seldom more educational than the ones given to the children in Sunday School.

This is what I think needs to change.

The mass populace needs to be educated on the history of their faith and others, and taught how to think critically. More importantly, they need to be able to think critically about their own faith as well as other faiths. That's probably the biggest obstacle.

Again returning to my experience, most church-goers tend to be the elderly, and families with young children. In addition, most of these people attend their church mostly because they attended church as a child. It's just something they've always done. The alternative (i.e. lack of belief) is alien to them. Completely and utterly alien. And this is where much of the distrust and misconceptions of atheism/agnosticism come from, in my opinion.
(Aside: I have been doubtful at best about the existence of god for years, but until i read Dawkins' God Delusion over the summer, I honestly didn't even know atheism was an option. I spend years trying to work out some belief in god that fit with the doubts I had, because,a far as I knew, everyone believed in something. Much like how kids don't really perceive other as having lives substantially different than their own.)

Unfortunately, the "habit" of going to church, couple with the rote repetition of the same, overly-simplified version of church doctrine the people are fed creates a situation where most of the older members are acclimated to it. Alternatives are not worth consideration, because, well, the indoctrinated don't even know the reasons for other opinions exist. Things simply have always been the way they know things to be.

Getting these individuals to accept that their faith has a history (as fascinating as such things are) that may not agree with everything they believe will be difficult. Even in moderate denominations.

But what about the children?

Most adults are rational beings to some degree or another. Perhaps biased against critical analysis of their own faith (which they "know" to be true), but still willing to admit there are some absurd things in the bible when pressed (obviously, things aren't so simple with those faiths that believe their holy book contains the literal word of god), even if they tend to rationalize them back into some quiet comfy corner of their mind.

I suggest, therefore, some changes that the big 3 should strive for:

1)

It's unrealistic, and won't be widely popular, but make a rather drastic change to the style of sermons preached in most churches. The preacher will discuss the history, evolution, and tenets of the faith in a rational manner instead of spouting placating interpretation. Personally, I'd probably still be going to church if they'd actually done this.​

2)

Change the way Sunday School kids are taught. Read them the Bible (not all of it, as some is definitely not for children), and have them discuss it. I think most kids can pick up on outright baloney when they're not being repeatedly told it's true.
For example, the younger crowd can discuss stories like the creation accounts, Noah's ark, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat (what can I say? I like that musical), Jonah and the whale, to name some popular ones. Most kids, if made to discuss this, and helped along with the critical thinking, can easily realize the account is a story, or impossible, as the case my be.
Older kids can move on to more, erm, adult accounts, and discuss why these accounts may have been put into the Bible to begin with. In this case it becomes important to actor int he history of the faith.
And so on and so forth up the age groups, as their growing cognitive abilities allow.
And in addition to their own faith, it is important to educate the people about other common faiths.​

My feeling on this is that if the people are made to recognize that their faiths but one interpretation, among many, of ancient myths and superstition, then they will be less inclined to view other religions as harmful traps that are trying to pull their families and loved ones into fiery torment. Most people will, naturally, try to prevent their relations and friends being thrown into damnation. To them, the risk is real. This, I feel is the source behind much of the inter-religious violence. Everybody thinks they do it to protect their families.

But if the common masses (I hate to call them that, as it sounds demeaning) realize that all the faiths (theirs included) are based on ancient tradition, superstition and myth, then they will be less likely to view other belief systems as dangerous to them and their families/friends.

- - - CONCLUSION - - -

I suppose the easiest way to sum up my idea here is that understanding breeds tolerance. So if we can make the adherents of certain beliefs understand the root of other beliefs, as well as their own, the violence will be greatly reduced.



Anyway, go ahead and discuss my ideas.
Is it workable? Is it, as I feel, more practical than trying to abolish religion?

I know there are a few people of Jewish faith/descent on this board, who will be able to provide insight into how this idea might work in their lifestyle. I hope there are some people of Islamic persuasion (either currently or previously) who can do the same.

and.... GO!

 

[Soapy Sam]

Organised religion is not the problem.
The problem is nonsense. Organised or disorganised, nonsense is nonsense. Teaching nonsense to children is propagating nonsense.
Teaching different kinds of nonsense merely compounds the problem.

Let's get all religions together and teach them the facts as we know them. Then stop.

 

[Fnord]

Organised religion is not the problem.
The problem is nonsense. Organised or disorganised, nonsense is nonsense. Teaching nonsense to children is propagating nonsense.
Teaching different kinds of nonsense merely compounds the problem.

Let's get all religions together and teach them the facts as we know them. Then stop.

Aye, there's the rub.

Even churches of the same name don't often get together, and if they do, they don't often agree on teaching methods, or even what to teach!

I say let the secular schools add Reasoning to their "Three-Rs" curriculum.

 

[blobru]

My understanding is that liberal sects of the big 3 do already encourage discussion and interpretation of their texts, though maybe not to the extent specified in the OP. So far, I think this is great; hope it's inevitable! Religion isn't going away any time soon, if ever; so the trend towards a democratic, bottom-up -- away from an authoritarian, top-down -- faith is very good news.

Religion is only dangerous I feel where it replaces common sense, critical thinking with unthinking submission to authority -- dogma is always out of touch with reality. Any system, religious or political, based on submission to someone else's ideals is kind of pathetic for starters; and often lethal in the end.

That's the only "religion" I'm against. A threat to its own and others, it should be ratted out and ridiculed every chance we get. Religion that teaches, as opposed to preaches, ethics based on myth, that knows its limits, that questions and contextualizes itself, that encourages generosity and diversity and acceptance, and in the bargain makes people feel better... though I can't buy into the metaphysics myself, to those who can I say "shalom".

 

[Mister Agenda]

There is an atheist charity called EARTHWARD (don't ask me what the acronym spells out) dedicated to helping the victims of religion-inspired violence.

 

[Fnord]

There is an atheist charity called EARTHWARD (don't ask me what the acronym spells out) dedicated to helping the victims of religion-inspired violence.

Since you provided no link, I have to ask; Would they help the victims if those victims were fundamentalist Christians?

Have they ever done so, or is their help extended only to victims of violence committed by erstwhile Christians?

Seriously, I'm asking.

 

[X]

Google is your friend.

EARTHWARD is a nonprofit, nonpolitical, nonmembership public-benefit charity organization that provides humanitarian relief aid to civilian victims of religiously motivated violence ranging from acts of violence by individual extremists or terrorist organizations that claim religious justification for their actions to full-scale holy wars waged by religiously dominated governments.

It specifies civilian victims, but does not specify religious prerequisites.

From the FAQ:

Q: Do you only help atheists?
A: No. We do not discriminate against victims based on religious belief, nonbelief, or affiliation (nor on the basis of sex, age, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation).

This seems to confirm the above interpretation.


However, this is off-topic.
I'd kind of like to see this thread stay within the realm of discussing the idea that educations in history and critical thought is a valid and viable way of bringing about and end to or reduction of religiously motivated intolerance.


Afterthought: Can a moderator please change the title of this thread to "Combating Religious Intolerance"?
It's more appropriate, and that leftover capital letter is getting on my nerves.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I agree with most of what you said in the OP. For the time being, my 2 cents would be to have secular schools make required classes out of Basic Logic and Biology, as well as include world religions in the Social Studies curriculum so that students can learn about religions other than their own. Students should also be taught about non-conventional family structures in their Family Life class.

 

[kmortis]

Aye, there's the rub.

Even churches of the same name don't often get together, and if they do, they don't often agree on teaching methods, or even what to teach!

I say let the secular schools add Reasoning to their "Three-Rs" curriculum.

Ahh, but there's a problem, you see. If we added Reasoning to the "Three-R's" then it would no longer be the "Three-R's", would it? No, it'd suddenly become "The Two-R's, an A and a W" cause as soon as Reasoning is invoked you realize that only one of the classic R's actually was an R.

I'm pretty sure that we can add in a "Pedanditry" course or two to ensure that the next generation of JREF posters get the proper training.

 

[drkitten]

While I can't argue their reasons, I can't agree to the outright removal of religion. For one thing, most Christians where I live are moderate (I'm going to focus primarily on Christianity, as I have no experience in Judaism or Islam) go to church partly out of obligation/habit, and partly for the social aspects.

Unfortunately, that's a fair description of most mafiosi as well. Most "organized crime" is fairly moderate, focused on relatively harmless vices such as gambling, prostitution, and pornography --- or on crimes-against-the-state such as smuggling. (Indeed, the Mafia in the US got most of its early money from bootleg whisky, and later, after the lifting of Prohibition, from tax avoidance, such as bootleg cigarettes). They spend most of their time (read Donnie Brasco) sitting around, socializing, playing cards, and figuring out an easy way to make money. Most of Henry Hill's crimes were bookmaking (and related gambling charges, such as point shaving), drug smuggling, cigarette smuggling, and cargo truck hijacking, which wasn't even considered a serious enough crime for the cargo companies to hire security for their trucks and drivers.

That's why they were accepted, and indeed, protected, in their local neighborhoods. They also provided a valuable service that police couldn't or wouldn't provide in terms of protection for many of the locals, as well as financing many local charitable institutions like local hospitals.

Are you suggesting that we should support the Mafia, because most of the time they aren't murdering people?

That's also a fair description of most of the homegrown terrorist organizations; most KKK members were well-spoken, friendly, church-going folk twenty-nine days out of the year. Only rarely did they put on the white sheets and go hang some uppity n*****r.

Instead of viewing the "Big 3" as organizations which are devoted to being at the throats of those who don't follow their specific system of belief, and thus as institutions to be torn down, perhaps education is a better alternative.

I have a better idea. How about we recognize that Christianity, by collecting money from people either by false promises of benefits or threats of eternal punishment, is a criminal organization devoted primarily to fraud and extortion, and therefore a criminal racket.

Why screw around? How many hospitals would Al Capone have to endow to make him not a murderer?

 

[X]

Interesting points, drkitten.

You've drawn some parallels and interpretatopns I have never considered.

Anybody else want to weight in on those opinions, or provide alternates for me to consider in addition?

I still feel that eductation is the most realistic option, but now I have to figure out how (or if) I differentiate organized crime syndicates from the organized religion.
I will admit it forces me to consider the (to me unp[leasant) notion of destroying a thing which so many otherwise good people love.
I really don't want to be the one to tear such a thing away from people.

I will say one thing right now, though. The hope I have for the idea of education is not to destroy the institutions themselves (it seems likely, however,that teaching critical and rational thinking would severely decrease their membership), but rather the simpler goal of removing the source of the intolerance that causes them to fight with each other.

It appears I have got some serious thinking to do.

Thank you, drkitten, for your perspective.

 

[drkitten]

I still feel that eductation is the most realistic option,

From a tactical perspective, you're probably right.

but now I have to figure out how (or if) I differentiate organized crime syndicates from the organized religion.
I will admit it forces me to consider the (to me unp[leasant) notion of destroying a thing which so many otherwise good people love.
I really don't want to be the one to tear such a thing away from people.

Well, a lot of "otherwise good people" loved the Mafia, too. It existed because it fulfilled a social need (protection for people who couldn't/wouldn't go to the authorities to redress their grievances, and who had no other way of achieving economic stability). In a climate where sticking up an Italian grocer was regarded as "not a real crime," because the victim was only an immigrant Italian --- or where the housing authority didn't care if a landlord never turned on the heat in winter -- to whom do you turn?

Have you seen The Godfather? Remember that scene at the opening, where the undertaker is asking Don Corleone for protection (and justice) for his daughter after the American authorities have specifically failed to provide it? If Don Corleone is willing to make sure that your grocery store isn't robbed -- and the cops aren't -- isn't it worth a little "protection money?"

And breaking through this is one of the hardest tasks that the FBI had to face in their various anti-Mafia operations. They had to educate the people about what the FBI really had to offer, what the Mafia was really offering, and to make sure that what they were saying was actually true. (I.e. they had to start responding to holdups, even of Italian grocery stores.)

There's the same problem today in the black drug gang culture. Because, for all the demonstrable social harm that drugs and drug gangs do, it's still one of the few ways for a black "on the street" to make enough money to buy decent clothes. I'm not even talking about "a house in the suburbs"; just clothes, and enough money to take a fine-looking woman out for a drink or two. And because enough police departments are perceived as being more dangerous to the locals than the drug gangs they're supposed to be controlling.

rather the simpler goal of removing the source of the intolerance that causes them to fight with each other.

I think you've got it exactly backwards. Bear in mind that some of the most vicious fighting is between extremely closely related groups : Shiite vs. Sunni, Anglican vs. Catholic. (Be honest; it's not even like CoE are "real" Protestants, except in Northern Ireland.) The intolerance is not borne of ignorance of the real religious differences. Everyone knows that the CoE worship the same God (alcohol) as the Irish. But the religious differences are enough of peg to hang social unrest upon -- and no matter how small the religious differences are, they will still be that peg.

The way to destroy religous differences is to destroy religion, period. At which point, the people who want to kill each other will continue to do so, over favorite colours of clothing (Crips vs. Bloods) or favorite football teams (Arsenal vs. Man U.)

Thank you, drkitten, for your perspective.

You are, of course, welcome.

 

[andyandy]

i'd agree insomuch as i think that the best way to combat intolerance and the way to lessen the strength of religion is through edumacation...

I started a thread a while back

"should religious education be taught in schools" - which touches on my own opinions as to how to reduce the impact of religion in society....basically twofold,

1. RE for all children as a necessity
2. A proportion of state controlled church schools

this is the model which is used in the uk, and the discussion (surprisingly heated at times ) was whether this could be transferable to the US....


With regards to (1), the teaching of RE; The key factor to remember is that RE should be an education of ideas - an exposure to and discussion as to why people believe what they do.

And in this atheism is the central most important component - the default against which everything is calibrated. When one learns of a single faith from parent or church no such calibration is necessary - your default is the religion which you are provided with. But a full and open discussion of all the major faiths renders this calibration inadequate - if one has been raised a christian, then one will be approaching something akin to an atheist position with regards to say Hinduism or Islam - and suddenly saying I don't believe in your god is less taboo. It may be easy to say I don't believe in Allah, or Vishnu when you don't really know about them, but exposure to other gods is what allows the empathy with an atheist position (I don't believe in your god) to be fostered. It's an absolutely basic requirement for children to learn.

If this education does not happen in the classroom, then most children will only be exposed to that which their parents tell them. If one wishes to produce children who have a broad understanding of religion then one certainly can't rely simply on parental influence.


I'd argue it's preferable for children who will be sent to church by their parents to have been exposed to some actual education about religion rather than simple church indoctrination. Looking at the polls, atheists are the least trusted minority in America - why? One presumes because of ignorance and a lack of education on religion. Surely we have to believe that if people were better educated about religious beliefs in general, that they would be able to form their own more educated opinions. Why then should people oppose an opportunity to provide that education? When the only exposure to religion is dictated by parents who themselves may hold sterotypical views then it should be no surprise that sterotypes persist.


With regards to (2) I think the co-option of the Church of England has been quite successful when comparing British religiousity with that of the US. But i think the greatest (religious) challenge the UK faces right now is in how best to co-opt and control Islam. In the UK whilst there are umbrella organizations (like the Muslim Council of Britain) they represent an ad hoc collection of groups, which can't easily be tied down - unlike the CofE. But despite this I still think that through a number of state controlled religious schools one can better regulate religion - and regulated religion in a controlled setting is far more preferable to back-street radicalism.

This is one step further than RE lessons in which children are taught about religion, and one which i believe some people will find even more unpalatable, but i think that a relatively small number of government regulated religious schools offer significant advantages. They provide an outlet for parents who will regardless of school provision be bringing up their children in their faith - and so it's the best opportunity to regulate the religious education they will actually receive.

A brief synopsis of the argument from the thread - indeed the whole thread is quite a lively read