Those Endless Religious Wars

 

Friend Maximilian laments that too many people are convinced that only their religion is true; leading to endless strife. If only we could get past this religious prejudice and become more tolerant.

This is a common view. Like most common views, it is the opposite of the truth.

If you do not believe your religion is true, you do not believe your religion. If you nevertheless attend services and go through the public motions, you are a hypocrite.

“When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private.”

“These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

If you believe your religion is true, it follows that, wherever another religion differs from yours, you believe it is false. 

Now, does believing another person’s religion is false lead to strife? Do you commonly beat someone up for being in error? Do you want to kick someone down the stairs for thinking 1 + 1 = 7?

Religion imposes on its sincere followers rules for moral conduct; that is what the word “religion” means: “binding.”  These involve respect for the rights of others: in a phrase, “do unto others as you would be done by.” All the major religions do this. In that they impose these moral obligations on their followers, they are the main bulwark we have against strife. Laws alone are useless without a moral populace. If the people are not moral, they will not follow them anyway. If the police are not moral, they will not enforce them. If the judges are not moral, neither will they. Religion is the cement for all social order.

There are and have been wars of religion. There is a problem when two moral systems try to coexist in close proximity. But historically, most wars of religion involve the Muslims. Islam is curious in this regard: it is not just a religion, but a political ideology. It requires control of the secular power. This is not true of Buddhism other than Vajrayana, of Hinduism, of Judaism, Taoism, or mainstream Christianity. All are “mystical” faiths operating on the individual level, lacking a political agenda. Protestant sects vary on this point.

So subtract Islam from the equation. 

How many religious wars have there been, then, really? 

Northern Ireland comes up. But note, Sinn Fein and the IRA were Marxist, not Catholic, and condemned by the Catholic Church. The Ulster Protestants were motivated by religious prejudice, perhaps, but not the other side. In such a case, to blame “religion” or “religions” in general means blaming the victim. Blame the specific religion, or its errant followers.

Take away religion, on the other hand, and what do you have historically? Nazi Germany—the Nazi leadership was pagan or anti-religious, in revolt against Judeo-Christian morality. Soviet Russia and Maoist China, both officially atheist and hostile to religion. The Khmer Rouge and North Korea. The Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France. You have genocide. Inevitably.

Religion is the chief bulwark preventing social chaos, in which the strong simply prey on the weak.

Of course the strong resent religion, and will condemn it if emboldened. Be deeply suspicious of any force or source or opinion that stands against religion.

The Origins of Cancel Culture

 

You might be wondering what’s behind “cancel culture.” How did we so quickly descend into apparent mass psychosis?

The answer, I believe, is postmodernism. Specifically, it is the idea that there is no objective truth. If this is so, everyone invents their own narrative, making the world whatever they want it to be.

The current battleground is transgenderism because it establishes the basic principle: I can be whatever I want to be; I can choose my reality.

The naïve postmodernist imagines this leads to a world of “live and let live,” in which everyone gets to be and do whatever they like. But the necessary consequence is the opposite. Without any objective standard to appeal to, there is no possibility of compromise of or coming to any accommodation. Instead, when my “reality” inevitably conflicts with your “reality,” the only course is to silence you, and ultimately a battle to the death.

That is what we are seeing now. A quite similar movement, operating from the same premises, led to Nazi Germany.  It is the triumph of the will.

More on Statue-Tipping and Bust Trusting

Image of unknown provenance forwarded by Diana Roney

The statue hysteria continues. I learn of local initiatives to rename Winston Churchill Road and Dundas Street. 

These examples show clearly enough how illegitimate the entire enterprise has been. Strike out the name of Winston Churchill? The man who, less than a century ago, saved civilization?

It seems to me conceptually impossible to pull down Churchill without, implicitly, endorsing Adolph Hitler and all the latter stood for. That is the necessary symbolism. Anything else about Churchill must pale in comparison. And those who want to do so, at some level, know this. At some level, they prefer Hitler.

Just as those who pulled down statues during the Cultural Revolution did so implicitly in support of Mao Zedong, a worse mass murderer than Hitler. Just as Winston Smith put inconvenient history down the memory hole. Pulling down the heroes of the past is, again symbolically, pulling down all restraints on behavior in the present.

And Dundas Street? That would, in the first place, be viciously destructive. Yonge-Dundas Square has become the symbolic heart of the city; it would be like, in New York, renaming Times Square, or, in London, Piccadilly Circus.

Henry Dundas was a leading Scottish abolitionist. I would assume this is why he was commemorated here, by Lord Simcoe, another passionate abolitionist. As a barrister, Dundas got slavery declared illegal in Scotland; his summation was historic, praised by Boswell and Johnson. 

Henry Dundas, First Viscount Melville.

"As Christianity gained ground in different nations, slavery was abolished … I hope for the honour of Scotland, that the supreme court of this country would not be the only court that would give its sanction to so barbarous a claim.…. Human nature, my Lords, spurns at the thought of slavery among any part of our species.”

Then he shepherded legislation through the Commons to ban it throughout the British Empire.

It is hard to interpret removing his recognition as anything other than a tacit endorsement of slavery. The official alibi is that he sponsored an amendment to the anti-slavery bill to make its abolition “gradual.” This was transparently a strategic move: the bill had previously been soundly defeated without this amendment. By adding it, he got the bill through.

This is not worthy of our respect? It can only be attributed to envy. There is no other possible explanation. These men are to be brought down not because they did something wrong, but because they did something very right.

So what are we to do for our fellow citizens who say they are offended by having to see these statues?

I have often heard the suggestion in recent days that such controversial statues should be moved to museums, out of the public eye. This is not a practical solution; the statues are too large and too numerous to be exhibited in the typical existing. Realistically, if they are not simply to be mothballed, you’d have to build a lot of new, specially designed museum space.

Most of these statues were originally private donations to the public, financed by public subscription. If some of us want to be protected from them, then fairness and decency dictates at a minimum that such people should show respect for their fellow citizens, and for the generosity of the original donation, by funding the construction of some new museum space to exhibit them in a suitably dignified manner. And the cost of moving them.

I do not see anyone setting up such crowdfunding sites.

Someone suggests they be replaced with statues of Jesus. Surely we can all agree on Jesus as a good man? One would think so, but of course, the demand came only a few days ago to smash all images of Jesus.

Nor is the demand new. When it comes to the public square, it was where this all began. Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled against displays of religion in the public space. On the perfectly spurious grounds of “separation of church and state,” a concept that appears nowhere in either the US or Canadian constitution, but was read in by the courts. Jesus was actually the first figure we tore down, as well as the ultimate target. Perhaps all else has followed.

Another suggestion often heard currently is “replaquing.” The government is supposed to put new plaques on such “controversial” statues to give a balanced view.

I doubt this idea is workable, and it is disturbing to begin with: it is the government telling us what to think. Those who, say, admire Columbus as a fellow Italian, will probably see such a plaque as a defacing of his monument. Those who think he was a monster will probably not be mollified by such a plaque, so long as the statue still stands—after all, a statue does not necessarily imply unqualified or even qualified support in the first place. Only that the figure is culturally or historically important, worth remembering.

There is a simpler solution, if those who dislike the statues were prepared to respect their neighbours. Simply let people develop enhanced reality apps keyed to all such monuments, locally or nationally, offering a choice of politically acceptable interpretations to interested onlookers. Those who are passionately opposed to Winston Churchill can happily point their smartphones at his effigy, and hear all about the horrible fellow he was. While those who cherish his memory can point their cell phones, and hear a selection of his great speeches. 

She

Something like that has actually long been done with public monuments in Asia. For any given major cultural site, there seems to be a Buddhist interpretation, a Taoist interpretation, a Hindu interpretation, a Confucian interpretation, a Muslim interpretation, and/or a Christian interpretation. This foot print on a mountaintop was left by Adam; or it is Rama’s; or the Buddha’s. This figure is Kwan Yin, the goddess of Mercy; or it is the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, or it is Mary, the mother of Jesus. As you prefer.

Civilized people do not tear down art. Civilized people do not tear down one another’s most precious memories.

Postmodernism and Intolerance

A map of postmodern logic. Escher.

Postmodernists will represent their own position as one of tolerance, because everyone gets to believe “their truth.” But this, if you will excuse the term, is the opposite of the truth.

There is nothing intolerant about believing in or asserting a truth, because the act of doing so does not and cannot impose that truth on anyone else. It cannot compel another to believe. They are still equally free to believe in or assert something else. I can say that the Catholic Church teaches the truth, and this does not do a single thing to interfere with any Muslim or Hindu in the practice of his religion.

Postmodernism will not, on the other hand, tolerate any assertion of absolute truth of any sort. It wants to shut up and shut down both Muslims and Catholics, and everyone else except Postmodernism. No alternative position is tolerated. This is the ultimate intolerance.