God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Book Report/Review Example

Religious Violence: Perhaps one of the most publicized case of religious violence is the 9/11 bombings of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Such act of aggression has led the world to label Muslims as “terrorists” and reignited the war between religions. Because of the War Against Terrorism launched by then-president George W. Bush against Muslim extremists (particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq), Islam has received a bashing from many Christian communities. For example in 2010, a Florida pastor attempted to burn copies of Koran as a sign of protest against the establishment of an Islamic center near Ground Zero (Cave and Barnard). Meanwhile, early this year, U.S. service members in Afghanistan burned copies of the Muslim holy books which has led to the attack of at least six U.S. military personnel (Sieff). With the refusal of the United States to recall its forces in Islamic territories and the countless complaints against human rights violation in Saudi Arabia, it is no longer a wonder why Islam is the first thing that comes to mind when one talks about religious violence. But history shows that religious violence is not isolated among Muslims, it can also happen among Christians. In this article, the author attempts to show that religious violence is mainly a Western concept. Instead of religion promoting the acts of aggression, violence done because of religion is a manifestation of a bigger issue that involves a power struggle and a misunderstanding among various world traditions. The idea that religion causes violence is prevalent in the West. This view is best explained by Christopher Hitchens’ book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. In his work, Hitchens criticizes the major world traditions of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism and Hinduism because of the violence these religions promote. He says totalitarianism is like religion because it aims for perfection, hence even the atheist regimes of Stalin and Kim Jong-Il may be classified as a religious impulse. Of religion he says: [It] is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less they can hope to tell us the “meaning” of later discoveries and developments which were…either obstructed by their religion or denounced by them. And yet -- the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what “he” demands of us. (Hitchens 10) Hitchens’ words are common among individuals rallying against fundamentalism and dogmatism in religion. He says that religion is violent, as proven by the violence found in the Bible (the crucifixion of Christ, the throwing of stones to punish an erring woman, etc.) and the Koran (war among the different tribes, etc.). Using this same logic, Hitchens claims that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a religious personality because he was non-violent. Religion poisons everything because it leads people to become irrational – because it poses an absolute truth despite the reality that imperfect human beings interpreted such absolute truths. Hitchens’ claims were supported by another article from Psychology Today which says that “disagreement [between religions] have little to do with the existence of God, but everything to do with claims of communication with ‘Him’, of whose holy books contain ‘accurate’ divine revelation” (Niose). For both Christian Hitchens and David Niose, the affairs of man has contributed to the aggression between different cultures. The irrationality that pervades “religious” debate hinder individuals from seeing the negative effects of their actions. Religious violence may be rooted with man’s constant need to be affirmed, and perhaps also due to the fame and fortune that comes with being correct. Having said that, we may now come to William T. Cavanaugh who says that religious violence is a myth. He says, “the ‘myth of religious violence’ is the idea that religion is a transhistorical and transcultural feature of human life, essentially distinct from ‘secular’ features such as politics and economics” (Cavanaugh 3). He says that “religion” is a Western concept used to describe a particular configuration of power wherein an “unseen” is deemed as the highest authority. Cavanaugh says that religious violence is a concept that “marginalizes a religious other, prone to fanaticism, to contrast with the rational, peace-making secular subject” (Cavanaugh 4). For example, all Muslims are construed as terrorists, or villains because they cannot remove religion (or belief in a Supreme God) in their way of life, hence making them irrational. Other religions, as represented by the United States, are rational. In order to contain their (Muslim) violence, we have to bomb them in order to force them to democratize their territories. Cavanaugh says that the problem of violence is not because individuals believe in a different god, but rather because one group wants to impose its beliefs on another. It is a power struggle wherein the winning group comes out with the greatest number of followers. For Cavanaugh, the idea of religion promoting violence comes from the history where a divine will was used to explain oppressive political and economic regimes. Religions were used to promote imperialism and the curtailment of women’s rights. Aside from the terror brought about by the Inquisition in Europe, modern Muslim fundamentalism also served to strengthen Hitchens’ view that religion is a poison. The brutal facts of the past has shown that religion is intertwined with violence, but Cavanaugh maintain that “religion” is not properly defined in such case. He says, “’everybody knows what we mean when we say religion’. When academics say such thing, it is a sign that something is probably wrong” (Cavanaugh 16). Religion is just one of the many complications of culture. It is difficult for researchers to find the fine line that separates religion from politics and society. Saying that one religion is concerned with “god”, politics with the government, and society with the people, it is only the concentration of power that differs. Religion of the past was absolutist, divisive and non-rational – the same words which can be used to describe the political regime of the time. One can then say that religion of the past was simply an extension of the human ruler’s power. It was “created” to provide legitimacy to the regime. Past violence was due to the need to eradicate all other belief systems that serves to question the authority of the king, the holy representative of the gods. In a sense, religious violence of the past is due to man’s wish to exert influence to more people, thereby allowing him to utilize various resources which were not originally available to him. In this view, religious and secular violence have no difference because the motivations for aggressive behavior stems from politics and economics. John C. Raines corroborates this belief. Using Sam Huntington’s thesis on the clash of civilizations which is often equated to the war between Islam and the West, a war that touches on religion and religious beliefs. Raines says that this conflict between civilizations is a contention for supremacy of legitimacy, a supremacy for cultural correctness. It is a struggle that aims to benefit the elite, allowing them to control wealth, power and world view. Hence, in this sense, we reiterate that religious violence stems from political, social and economic struggles. Joahn Galtung says that direct violence between religions is due to two factors: “First, the idea of being a Chosen people, which could instill in believers a high level of self righteousness which, in turn, may lead to concepts of Holy War or at least a Just War….the second dimension would be aggressive missionarism”. Galtung says that the first dimension of violence, the chosen people-ism, does not immediately translate to aggression. When believers retreat from the rest of the world because they are too good to socialize with barbarians, they tend to impose structures that will protect the “purity” of their community. Any person which attempts to affect how the Chosen People thinks or interpret the words of their “god” are treated with hostility. Of course, not all religions impose defensive structures, others take the more active approach. Because these traditions feel that they have the duty to educate the world, they take on steps toward aggressive evangelization. This happened to Christianity wherein the Portuguese and Spaniards went to Asian countries to spread the faith. Aside from Catholic missionaries, their ships brought military backup to act as protection to the priests. We all know the outcome of these conquests – we know how much of the world fell under Christian imperialism and how many people fighting against it died. For monotheistic religions, their religion promoted the world view that the world should be under a centralized authority. But as all aspects of culture, religion has evolved. It has become less absolutist, more unitive and more rational (Cavanaugh 16). The task of society is no longer about determining which religion is right or wrong. Instead, religious dialogue has led to an integration of the various belief systems. This is proven by the creation of ecumenical groups and the dialogue between various world traditions. Pope John Paul II has initiated religious dialogues in the attempt to connect the truths of various religions in order to create a more holistic understanding of what “god” is, and what “his” desires are. Even the battle between science and religion is slowly waning as both sectors are finding the connections between them. The findings of quantum physics and astrophysics shows that there is a certain pattern to the universe, and that perhaps there is a force (or god) that planned and created that pattern. Meanwhile, religion is seeing the importance of science as it provides greater information on the nature of man and the environment. Through science, religion sees how it can promote the well-being of man and the planet. Hence, from the previous discussion, one can already see that a new form of religion is emerging, and that the old form, the same one blamed for religious violence, is slowly disintegrating. Johann Galtung said, “every religion contains, in varying degrees, elements of the soft and the hard. For the sake of world peace, dialogue within religions and among them must strengthen the softer aspects”. All of the world’s religions may be found on a single religious landscape. They share the same features, and people have to be ready to realize the connections between them in order to deal with the issue of religious violence. No single religion holds the absolute truth, rather, only through the dialogue between the different world traditions can an absolute truth be found. Aside from Islam and Roman Catholic, old world traditions have resurfaced and are finding new ground. Galtung says that the original definition of religion is being rediscovered – “mystic union, with all life, all humans, with the Almighty, regardless of religious discourse, beyond any language, and culture and religion, just one-ness, the one-ness that is the  mysterium tremendum et fascinans. In this oneness not only violence but even contradiction becomes meaningless, impossible, contrary to the idea of oneness”. To resolve the issue of religious violence, one has to go back to the basics and rediscover why religion was made in the first place. When people realize that we are connected by our own humanity, then the demarcation made by difference in religion, politics, economics, culture starts to dissolve. Peace can never be equated with passivity. Active nonviolence, or peace in action, is a conscious struggle, and in itself can be classified as a religion. But unlike the religions of the past, it is pure religion in that it attempts to discover the meaning of everything – from culture to politics, rituals and beliefs. When people realize the basis of religion – the unity of all life, then dogmatism and fanaticism makes no sense because religion becomes a dynamic process of becoming. Various forms of philosophies then start to make sense. Rationality and morality will no longer be contradicting ideas. And religious violence can then be eradicated because faith is no longer based on unknown beings, but rather, it will be about respecting the other, and recognizing the spark of creation in everyone. References Cavanaugh, William T. The myth of religious violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Cave, Damien, and Anne Barnard. “Minister wavers on plans to burn Koran.” The New York Times 9 Sept. 2010. Galtung, Johan. “Religions, hard and soft.” Cross Currents. 1997. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. Hitchens, Christopher. God is not great: How religion poisons everything. New York: Hatchette Book Group USA, 2007. Print. Niose, David. “What does religious violence say about religion?” Psychology Today 2 Apr. 2011. Raines, John C. “The politics of religious correctness: Islam and the West.” Cross Currents. 1996. Print. Sieff, Kevin. “U.S. probe of Koran burning finds 5 troops responsible, officials say; Afghans demand trial.” The Washington Post 2 Mar. 2012. Read More