|
This excerpt from Mr. Hitchens’ book is remarkable when one examines it for benign tolerance, reasoned evaluation of the facts, careful treatment of the historical record and unbiased conclusions about five thousand years of human history. Chris is giving us what he sees as fair and balanced treatment.
“Atheists’ Delight!” is how I would characterize this question. The only sensible answer is to stress voting for “the best qualified candidate,” which would “prove” that religion doesn’t matter. If one insists that religion become a qualification for office, that insistence makes the respondent not only a bigot, but also un-American. Pushing beyond the superficial first blush, however, there actually is a question here for people for whom faith matters.
At issue is not the religious preference of the voter, but the religious practice of the candidate. In other words, "What is the role of faith in making a candidate the best qualified?"
My experience with religion leads me to conclude that throughout history its members are mostly sinners. (I know that some religions call all their adherents “saints,” with the unfortunate connotation that everyone else is hell-bent. But that is a separate issue.) Current candidates for the presidency have likewise demonstrated a host of imperfections which makes them a lot like presidents who have won elections and turned flaws into major blunders.
As a professor, I was there to equip open-minded students to analyze religious experiences, rather than to get them to believe in the afterlife or disbelieve in spirits. My main objective was to have them prepared to understand that religion explains such events as evidence of life after death.
In my classes on religion over the past twenty years, a question about speaking with the dead always shows up in a course. I can practically recite my response with my eyes shut, making three points:
No. 1. Yes, there are para-normal experiences amply documented in the past and continuing into the present that as yet have no scientific explanation.
No. 2. Some people conclude there are reasons to attribute the events to spirits, thus indicating an after-life.
No. 3. Even in the face of evidence contradicting their pre-determined convictions, some will refuse to believe there is life after death.
The issue is not whether to love or be compassionate or forgive: at stake is whom do you love or forgive compassionately? On that point, we have almost as many formulae as we have religions.
Buddhism has an excellent record on the love, compassion and forgiveness for all as advocated by the Dalai Lama. Among Christians, denominations like the Quakers and the Amish, have distinguished themselves by abjuring all violence and conflict. They follow literally Jesus’ instruction to Christians to “turn the other cheek” and “to love your enemies.” But the histories of these religions pinpoint the problem: “What do you do when the other party uses violence unjustly?” In the case of the Buddhists of India in the 12th century, they lost hegemony to a renascent Hinduism and were driven back into monasteries in order to practice their religion. The Quakers – Society of Friends, officially – have carved out a small, but important niche in US society as frontline missionaries of compassion. However, their numbers remain very small. The Amish have established communities for their own people, not very different in function from the Buddhist monasteries. The Amish are among those who have learned that you do not need to confront the unjust violence of others if you live alone and apart all the time.
The answer to whether health care belongs to parents or government is “Yes to both.” The question ought not to be seen as an either-or dichotomy, but as a both-and harmonization.
What Islam Really Says About Violence, Rights and Other Religions
Gomaa, Fadlallah, Mubarak, Khan, Siddiqi, Ellison, others | On Faith
Comments (66)