[Assam] Defenders of the Faith -NYT Op ed

[Ram Sarangapani]

You are welcome C'da. And see I am not that "lungi kheda" anti this or anti
that (of religions) that some often would like to paint me as. :)

I too think this was a brilliant piece. Organized religion has done more
harm than good to the world, IMHO.

--Ram


On 3/16/06, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing it Ram.One of the finest
> pieces I have read on the subject with reference
> to current events. Brilliant!
>
> c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:28 PM -0600 3/16/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
> >This is an interesting article and advances the
> >importance of Atheism in the world religious
> >order. I think, many of us (even though we claim
> >to belong to some religion or the other) will
> >find the benefits of Atheism.
> >
> >______________________________
> >
> >Defenders of the Faith
> >By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
> >
> >London
> >
> >FOR centuries, we have been told that without
> >religion we are no more than egotistic animals
> >fighting for our share, our only morality that
> >of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said,
> >can elevate us to a higher spiritual level.
> >Today, when religion is emerging as the
> >wellspring of murderous violence around the
> >world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or
> >Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and
> >perverting the noble spiritual messages of their
> >creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about
> >restoring the dignity of atheism, one of
> >Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only
> >chance for peace?
> >
> >More than a century ago, in "The Brothers
> >Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned
> >against the dangers of godless moral nihilism,
> >arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist,
> >then everything is permitted. The French
> >philosopher André Glucksmann even applied
> >Dostoyevsky's critique of godless nihilism to
> >9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in
> >Manhattan," suggests.
> >
> >This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the
> >lesson of today's terrorism is that if God
> >exists, then everything, including blowing up
> >thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted -
> >at least to those who claim to act directly on
> >behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to
> >God justifies the violation of any merely human
> >constraints and considerations. In short,
> >fundamentalists have become no different than
> >the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom
> >everything was permitted since they perceived
> >themselves as direct instruments of their
> >divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress
> >Toward Communism.
> >
> >During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis,
> >Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered
> >an old woman who wandered down the street with a
> >dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl
> >full of water in her left hand. Asked why she
> >carried the two bowls, she answered that with
> >the fire she would burn up Paradise until
> >nothing remained of it, and with the water she
> >would put out the fires of Hell until nothing
> >remained of them: "Because I want no one to do
> >good in order to receive the reward of Paradise,
> >or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for
> >God." Today, this properly Christian ethical
> >stance survives mostly in atheism.
> >
> >Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good
> >deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn
> >salvation; atheists do them simply because it is
> >the right thing to do. Is this also not our most
> >elementary experience of morality? When I do a
> >good deed, I do so not with an eye toward
> >gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did
> >not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A
> >moral deed is by definition its own reward.
> >David Hume, a believer, made this point in a
> >very poignant way, when he wrote that the only
> >way to show true respect for God is to act
> >morally while ignoring God's existence.
> >
> >Two years ago, Europeans were debating whether
> >the preamble of the European Constitution should
> >mention Christianity as a key component of the
> >European legacy. As usual, a compromise was
> >worked out, a reference in general terms to the
> >"religious inheritance" of Europe. But where was
> >modern Europe's most precious legacy, that of
> >atheism? What makes modern Europe unique is that
> >it is the first and only civilization in which
> >atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an
> >obstacle to any public post.
> >
> >Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting for,
> >not least because it creates a safe public space
> >for believers. Consider the debate that raged in
> >Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, my home
> >country, as the constitutional controversy
> >simmered: should Muslims (mostly immigrant
> >workers from the old Yugoslav republics) be
> >allowed to build a mosque? While conservatives
> >opposed the mosque for cultural, political and
> >even architectural reasons, the liberal weekly
> >journal Mladina was consistently outspoken in
> >its support for the mosque, in keeping with its
> >concern for the rights of those from other
> >former Yugoslav republics.
> >
> >Not surprisingly, given its liberal attitudes,
> >Mladina was also one of the few Slovenian
> >publications to reprint the infamous caricatures
> >of Muhammad. And, conversely, those who
> >displayed the greatest "understanding" for the
> >violent Muslim protests those cartoons caused
> >were also the ones who regularly expressed their
> >concern for the fate of Christianity in Europe.
> >
> >These weird alliances confront Europe's Muslims
> >with a difficult choice: the only political
> >force that does not reduce them to second-class
> >citizens and allows them the space to express
> >their religious identity are the "godless"
> >atheist liberals, while those closest to their
> >religious social practice, their Christian
> >mirror-image, are their greatest political
> >enemies. The paradox is that Muslims' only real
> >allies are not those who first published the
> >caricatures for shock value, but those who, in
> >support of the ideal of freedom of expression,
> >reprinted them.
> >
> >While a true atheist has no need to boost his
> >own stance by provoking believers with
> >blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem
> >of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect
> >for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs
> >as the highest value can mean only one of two
> >things: either we treat the other in a
> >patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order
> >not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the
> >relativist stance of multiple "regimes of
> >truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any
> >clear insistence on truth.
> >
> >What, however, about submitting Islam - together
> >with all other religions - to a respectful, but
> >for that reason no less ruthless, critical
> >analysis? This, and only this, is the way to
> >show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them
> >as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.
> >
> >Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the
> >Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, is the
> >author, most recently, of "The Parallax View."
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >assam mailing list
> >assam at assamnet.org
> >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060316/dab03d62/attachment.htm>