On Misguided Sincerity

I learned some interesting things while reading Joseph K. Grieboski's column in the Huffington Post about America's apparent need to have an Ambassador for Religious Liberty. Despite his exhortations, I find myself unable to agree with Grieboski's premise. Every problem he wants the next Ambassador for Religious Liberty to address could (and should) be addressed by a variety of other members of the Department of State.

Rep. Peter King, R-NY

Aside from the domestic political realities preventing this position from being filled--Obama's limited political capital quickly comes to mind--there simply isn't a need to fill this position. In fact, I think it should be eliminated. Why, for example, must an Ambassador for Religious Liberty be appointed before our foreign policy experts begin to address the persecution and violence faced by Copts in Egypt? Furthermore, why isn't human suffering alone enough to warrant intervention? I would hope that the religious practices of a people in peril would not be a prerequisite for international assistance. Callous as it may be, these issues have likely not been addressed to Greiboski's satisfaction yet because of the enormous list of things the Department of State consider more important.

We must not ignore the problems fueled by religious discrimination. Still, it is not the responsibility of the United States to provide representation for oppressed groups to their own governments, which is partly what Grieboski means when he vaguely references giving "a voice" to oppressed religious peoples.

I see nothing in Grieboski's article that convinces me we should further blur the lines between secularism and religion in the government by promoting bureaucratic redundancy through an appointment to the position of Ambassador for Religious Liberty. And even if I did agree that the country needed this position filled, we would have to overcome the image problem caused by our own religious intolerance before we could ever be taken seriously by the leaders of other countries.

Read more »

The Desert Strikes Again

It's disappointing to see how long I've left my "new" blog alone, given the pomp and circumstance I showered on its creation. Life makes it hard to write, but that's not a valid excuse anymore. Things won't get any easier.

Back in November, when I threw myself into reading everything I could about religion, I quickly got distracted by economics, politics, current events, and other interests. I should've seen that coming. I've been reading more material by people I (usually) disagree with but (always) respect: Reihan Salam, the folks at Modeled Behavior, and Conor Friedersdorf. I do this because I like reading opinions that counter to my own. But, at some level, I force myself to do this to feel like I'm confronting people I disagree with me without actually engaging them. The mental back-and-forth is enough, until it's not. My hiatus was as much about my fear of being wrong as it was about learning more.

I will overcome my fear of being wrong--and this blog will become successful--when I post regularly and avoid constricting myself too much. Accordingly, you'll see a steady stream of new content about a variety of topics.

And so, we go onward and upward! Don't forget that you can poke and prod me on Twitter as well as the comment section of each post.

Onward and upward!

Read more »

I'm Not an Asshole, I'm Just a Little Confused

Exploring religion is an immense undertaking, and as a starting point I need to delimit the scope of my endeavor.  First, the term religion must be redefined for the sake of brevity in my writing.  A deep interest in American politics and world history has, in combination with my multi-religious upbringing, focused my frustrations and questions on the Abrahamic religions.  As these are the most dominant religions in western cultures, the term religion will, on this blog, refer exclusively to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The spread of Christianity and Islam, shown respectively in red and green.

Secondly, it must be said that I predictably come to the start of my journey with a fair amount of bias and opinions.  I was raised a Catholic, but no longer consider myself to be a part of that community.  Indeed, I would label myself an atheist, though I don’t think I could be considered an antitheist quite yet.  I could not bring myself to believe in any kind of formal religion anymore, but truly do not begrudge those who do.  I grew up with people of great faith and still occasionally envy their ability to believe, but I simply cannot picture myself following in their footsteps.

In this respect, I am a very different creature than Christopher Hitchens, who works tirelessly to eradicate religion completely.  I believe that religion is primarily a negative influence on human affairs, but not wholly so.  Hitchens will play a significant role in this blog’s content, but my flight from formal religion was very gradual and began long before I knew his work.  Hitchens’s influence on my thinking is a recent phenomenon and I strive to use his work as a road to be driven, not a destination to be reached.

As I’ve moved away from formal religion, I have not forgotten the ways I have benefited from it.  Most of what I learned about the procedures of practical community service was derived from my time in a Catholic youth group.  I remain grateful for these formative experiences and will never deny their impact on my life. 

With these caveats now behind me, I present the most general and basic contention I have with organized religion:

At its core, the very basic requirement of religion is, in a variety of forms and guises, to exclude others.  This sense of exclusivity promotes kinship and brotherhood among followers, but does not allow for any kind of communal understanding.  It promotes arrogance.  If the dogmas of the monotheistic religions are taken to their logical conclusions, there is no room for compromise.  Even if you are not actively crusading against the existence of non-believers, you are unwilling to accept them as viable candidates for entering heaven.

I will move this discussion forward with another post soon, but I wanted to take a verbal picture of my starting point before I set out.  As always, feedback is welcome, but if a discussion should break out in the comments below, keep it civil.  

I’ll end with something that everyone should watch: a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath.  Rarely do I hear proponents of religion make points the way Alister McGrath did.  I think Hitchens is much more cutting and fun to watch in other debates, but he’s never boring.  Please, if you watch this at all, watch the entire thing:

Read more »