Something doesn't seem to add up. Wasn't Jesus the one who advised to love your enemies and turn the other cheek? Wasn't he the guy who, as he was being arrested, urged one of his followers to renounce violence and put away his sword, because “all who take the sword will perish by the sword”?
82
How can a religion inspired by such a man end up glorifying a perverted concept such as a holy war?
Unfortunately, besides including these very peaceful ideas, Judeo-Christian scriptures also contain extremely brutal celebrations of religious warfare. All Christian holy warriors need to do in order to justify themselves is forget the former and quote the latter. Some passages of the Bible, in fact, tell us that God himself sometimes enjoys a good act of genocide. Remember Phinehas, the guy who skewered a Jewish man and his wife with a single spear thrust while they were making love? Shortly after that episode, Moses put him in charge of an army marching against a rival pagan tribe, the Midianite, as God commanded. As it turns out, even Phinehas is too soft for the job, since he
only
kills all the adult males among the Midianites, but brings back as prisoners of war the women and children. This infuriates Moses who promptly Moses orders his army to “kill every
male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by lying with him.”
83
To add the icing on this genocidal cake, Moses also sanctions rape by ordering to “keep alive for yourself” the female virgins.
84
God also orders the Jewish armies to carry out holy wars of extermination on a few other occasions as well. Here is some sweet advice straight from God: “you shall consume all the people which the Lord your God shall deliver to you: your eye shall have no pity upon them.”
85
Or try this: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”
86
Hungry for more? OK. “You shall save nothing alive, but you shall utterly destroy them.”
87
Jesus' pacifist advice is easily lost in this orgy of bloodshed. Considering how many times God openly sanctions murdering even the infants among the enemies, we may understand why Christian holy warriors find plenty of inspiration in the Bible.
88
The war of extermination against the Cathars, the Crusades, and the religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants that turned Europe into a bloodbath are but leaves in a forest of violence. Even the colonization of the Americas can be seen as an extension of this holy war mentality, since massacring Indians and stealing their land was typically justified as part of a religious duty to bring new territories under the control of God's religion.
89
If genocide were an Olympic event, however, Islam would be giving Christianity a tough competition for the gold medal. After a long and successful career, Christian fundamentalists have now lost a step when it comes to killing thousands of people in acts of holy war. Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, show no signs of slowing down. Just in the last few years, their “Holy War World Tour” has passed through Russia, Spain, England, the United States,
Bali, China, and plenty of other countries. At every stop, scores of civilians have paid with their lives.
For some bizarre reason, many Western fans of multiculturalism plagued by a sense of guilt over their colonial past have tried to justify these acts of terrorism by writing them off as unfortunate reactions to the imperialistic policies of Americans and their allies. According to them, religion has nothing to do with it. And yet, as author Sam Harris has pointed out, the United States has caused much more suffering throughout Latin America than they ever did in Muslim countries, but you don't see Guatemalans bombing American civilians.
Religion has nothing to do with this, eh? Just ask Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who shot the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh and cut his throat for making a movie criticizing the treatment of women in Islam in 2004. “I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. If I ever get free, I would do it again,” Bouyeri said. Addressing his victim's mother, he added, “I don't feel your pain. I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're a nonbeliever.”
90
Clearly, not all Muslims are wannabe terrorists dreaming of wiping unbelievers off the face of the earth. If you look for them, you'll find in the Koran several passages counseling peace and tolerance.
91
But peace and tolerance are intermixed with advice such as, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads.”
92
Far from being something to be regretted, righteous war is a duty, for in an echo of the biblical, “Cursed be he that does the work of the Lord deceitfully, and cursed be he that keeps back his sword from blood,”
93
the Koran admonishes the faithful: “If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place.”
94
In the hands of Muslim fundamentalists, all the Koranic passages showing contempt for
unbelievers, and praising martyrdom in the name of God, have provided the necessary rationale for Holy War to this day.
In that beautiful hymn to freedom entitled “Burn One Down,” Ben Harper sings,
My choice is what I choose to do
And if I'm causing no harm
It shouldn't bother you
Your choice is who you choose to be
And if you're causin' no harm
Then you're alright for me
This sounds to me like a perfect ethical law. You are free to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on somebody else's freedom. The government's role should be simply to protect common goods (i.e., the environment) and the rights of individual citizens. Nothing more and nothing less. For, as the Tao Te Ching warns, “The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people become.”
95
This libertarian philosophy is much easier for those who live by inclusive worldviews to accept than it is for those who want everyone to obey the dictates of their One True Way. Yet another legacy of the exclusive mentality, in fact, can be seen in the existence of laws designed to enforce morality. I can't think of a better litmus test for one's commitment to freedom than support or opposition for laws legislating personal choices. It always cracks me up when the rhetoric of freedom comes from people who would like nothing better than to prohibit anything outside their accepted standards. “We love
freedom!” they say. “But if you use it in ways we disapprove of, we'll send you straight to jail.” Even though they like to pay lip service to liberty, the reality is they don't value freedom nearly as much as having their ideals imposed on everyone else.
The same impulse that pushes people to wage holy wars also makes them prone to pass laws upholding morality—that is,
their
morality. If God spells out moral standards for human beings to follow, then allowing people the freedom to make their own choices is a sin. As fundamentalist theologian R. J. Rushdoony wrote, “Freedom as an absolute is simply an assertion of man's ‘right’ to be his own god; this means a radical denial of God's law-order.”
96
The idea that every aspect of life needs to be brought under God's control gives exclusive ideologies a good push toward totalitarianism.
This horrendous threat to freedom rests on the illusion that we know exactly which behaviors enjoy God's stamp of approval and which ones don't. The censor, as an agent of God, knows what's best, and limits choices in the public interest.
This conflict between moral crusaders and defenders of free choice is still raging today, but over the last few decades the moral crusaders have been losing ground. The Comstock laws targeting any printed discussion of sex, the Mann Act that allowed the prosecution of an unmarried couple crossing state lines together, and the prohibition on alcohol are long gone. The right to divorce and the right to use birth control are now no longer threatened. But the ghost of a state-enforced morality survives in the laws on euthanasia, prostitution, gambling, and drugs—just to name a few.
The War on Drugs, in particular, shines as a glowing example of the irrational determination to pursue a failed policy in the name of fighting against “sinful” behaviors. Despite a price tag of many
billion dollars a year, the War on Drugs manages not to affect the supply of, or demand for, drugs. Some of its only tangible effects are the early releases of violent criminals from overcrowded jails to make room for nonviolent drug offenders, and a gift of sizeable profits to criminal organizations. But in an effort to hold the line against “sin,” our government keeps flushing money down the toilet prolonging a suicidal policy.
If we are so determined to prohibit things that are bad for us, why don't we outlaw fast foods? Why don't we force people to eat broccoli and exercise three times a week under the watchful eye of a government employee? If nothing else, this would show consistency rather than a selective application of moral outrage.
Regardless of the specific examples, though, the desire to shove by law one's ideals down everyone's throats is a glaring indication of insecurity on the part of the moral crusaders. If they had any faith in the attractiveness of their message, in fact, they wouldn't need laws to force people to follow it. You believe your way is the best? Fine, but why not have the honor and the guts of trying to convince others by words only, and ultimately letting them choose for themselves?
Pluralism is the lifeblood of the modern world. The once heretical idea of allowing individuals a wide range of choices on how they want to live their lives is becoming more common. And yet, this is planting fear in the hearts of millions of people throughout the world. In their minds, pluralism opens the door to a loss of morality, and a descent into absolute relativism. With no dogma to guide them, they feel lost. This is the reason why, paradoxically, fundamentalism
is growing at the same time as pluralism is expanding. One is a reaction to the other.
The irony is that the fundamentalist rhetoric of claiming unshakeable, absolute truths puts on an impressive show of confidence, but it has very limited success in producing positive, tangible results. Exclusive fundamentalism rarely produces a stronger moral order, but it regularly delivers wars, squashing of freedoms, and bloodshed. Fundamentalists are masters at projecting the illusion of solid morality. Too bad they are not as skilled at promoting the real thing. Both within the United States and throughout the world, the places where fundamentalism is strongest are also the places with the worst statistics of social dysfunctions (from abortion to sexually transmitted diseases, from murder to rape). In the United States, bulwarks of conservative religion like Kentucky and Arkansas have twice the divorce rate of liberal Massachusetts.
97
Having said this, if someone can manage the difficult task of believing there's only one right way to follow but is at the same time willing to allow others full freedom of choice, I have nothing against them. Unlike the grandma from hell and the cannibal settlers of Jamestown, I respect everyone—regardless of their ideology—as long they behave decently toward me. I value actions over stated beliefs.
My problem is with the far too common cases in which exclusive claims to absolute truths give way to flirting with totalitarianism. Whether we are talking about Osama bin Laden or Stalin, Moses or Hitler, it makes little difference: anyone willing to impose their ideology by force is equally an enemy of freedom, and a danger to everyone else. Tolerating their repressive efforts is not a sign of open-mindedness, or enlightened multiculturalism. It's just stupid.
Tolerating those who want to ban tolerance is plain suicidal. Freedom doesn't extend to those who wish for nothing better than to restrict the freedom of others.
Much of the world is stuck in a sad dichotomy pitting tough, strong-willed fascists against sweet but feeble liberals. Too often, when people rid themselves of dogma, they turn weak and lose a sense of purpose. The challenge we face is to combine the ability to be open-minded with an iron will. Openness without strength is useless; strength without openness is oppression. The love for freedom needs to go hand in hand with strong values. The future of our world depends on developing religions able to bring these qualities together.
A tiger knows how to do one thing very well: be a tiger. The same story goes for any other species on earth; their natural instincts guide their paths. Humans are unique in having a greater range of conscious choices regarding their relationship with nature. They can embrace it or reject it, preserve it, or dramatically alter it. No other living being is quite in the same position.
Most religious traditions have addressed the question, how should humans interact with nature? Even though the nuances in these answers are many, they can be broadly divided in two camps. On one side, we have those worldviews placing human beings on a pedestal, above all other forms of life, somewhat removed from nature (anthropocentrism). On the other side, we have those ideologies considering human beings a part of nature, just one interesting species among many.
Typically, anthropocentrism has been a staple in Western religions. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition tells us that only human beings were created “in God's image.” This clearly marks them as something other than animals. Moreover, only humans have an immortal soul, whereas plants and animals do not.
This hierarchical view is clearly expressed in both the Bible and the Koran. In the Koran, Sura 36:71 recites, “We have created for them [humans] the beasts of which they are masters. We have subjected these to them, that they may ride on some and eat the flesh of others; they drink their milk and put them to other uses.”
98
Judeo-Christian scriptures echo this sentiment at the very beginning of Genesis. Here, we find divine instructions for Adam and Eve to “subdue” nature and “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
99