1 thought on “Twitter: RT @ebertchicago: Hitchens …”
dcl
I actually thought the comments on the post turned out to be more interesting, in most cases, than what Hitch had to say. Though the number of comments has gone through the roof since when I read this over breakfast. So no idea if that still holds true. And I didn’t have time to read all of them then… So your millage may vary.
Hitchens doesn’t bring it up here, but his general thesis is that all religions pose a threat or danger. So it’s little surprise that he takes issue with Islam here. And I find that thesis hard to argue with in general. I don’t agree, however, that it is correct to single out Islam as particularly more dangerous, as a whole, than Christianity, or any other monotheism. (Polytheistic and non-theistic religions are a much more complex issue; they still have their issues as does any religion, but the analysis required is much more sprawling.) After all, saying, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” is rather a sly way of not actually answering the question. As is much of the Bible, old or new testament, replete with rather sly ways of not answering the question posed, either in the text or by its reader. And, of course, that’s the point. If it directly answered the question it wouldn’t be informative outside the context in which it was written. The Buddha and Socrates were also both gifted at not answering the question.
Any text, religious or otherwise, leaves itself open to the interpretation of its reader. In whatever context they bring to it, their disposition, political situation, etc. etc. During the Middle or “Dark” Ages it was the Muslims that possessed the more open, more tolerant, more scientifically forward culture. When the west was closed, waiting for the second coming, persecuting each other, the Jews and the Muslims and utterly Dogmatically mired. The sate of affairs has, rather obviously, shifted. But it is not a character of the religion, per se, it is a character, or perhaps predicated on the character, of the people who practice it. And there is no reason to assume that state of affairs can’t shift again–certainly if the Christian fundamentalist evangelicals get their way it will. Hence my overall thesis, that it would be wrong to say Islam is any better or worse than Christianity or any other religion.
If the reader comes to the Bible or the Qur’an looking for a call to peace, toleration, acceptance, love, charity, the rights of women and the oppressed that is what they will find there. But if the reader comes looking for war, dogmatism, control, domination, subjugation, hate, intolerance, calls to convert the masses, and the establishment of theocracy. Well, it’s quite possible to find that too–in either book. It is the people that matter not the book.
The interpretation, even a literalist one, is as much the product of the reader, their times, and their situation as anything else. The fundamentalists and literalists pick and choose just as much as anyone else. CF our own debates about the Constitution.
RT @ebertchicago: Hitchens discusses Imam Rauf’s support of law by cleric. http://j.mp/9PUJnq
I actually thought the comments on the post turned out to be more interesting, in most cases, than what Hitch had to say. Though the number of comments has gone through the roof since when I read this over breakfast. So no idea if that still holds true. And I didn’t have time to read all of them then… So your millage may vary.
Hitchens doesn’t bring it up here, but his general thesis is that all religions pose a threat or danger. So it’s little surprise that he takes issue with Islam here. And I find that thesis hard to argue with in general. I don’t agree, however, that it is correct to single out Islam as particularly more dangerous, as a whole, than Christianity, or any other monotheism. (Polytheistic and non-theistic religions are a much more complex issue; they still have their issues as does any religion, but the analysis required is much more sprawling.) After all, saying, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” is rather a sly way of not actually answering the question. As is much of the Bible, old or new testament, replete with rather sly ways of not answering the question posed, either in the text or by its reader. And, of course, that’s the point. If it directly answered the question it wouldn’t be informative outside the context in which it was written. The Buddha and Socrates were also both gifted at not answering the question.
Any text, religious or otherwise, leaves itself open to the interpretation of its reader. In whatever context they bring to it, their disposition, political situation, etc. etc. During the Middle or “Dark” Ages it was the Muslims that possessed the more open, more tolerant, more scientifically forward culture. When the west was closed, waiting for the second coming, persecuting each other, the Jews and the Muslims and utterly Dogmatically mired. The sate of affairs has, rather obviously, shifted. But it is not a character of the religion, per se, it is a character, or perhaps predicated on the character, of the people who practice it. And there is no reason to assume that state of affairs can’t shift again–certainly if the Christian fundamentalist evangelicals get their way it will. Hence my overall thesis, that it would be wrong to say Islam is any better or worse than Christianity or any other religion.
If the reader comes to the Bible or the Qur’an looking for a call to peace, toleration, acceptance, love, charity, the rights of women and the oppressed that is what they will find there. But if the reader comes looking for war, dogmatism, control, domination, subjugation, hate, intolerance, calls to convert the masses, and the establishment of theocracy. Well, it’s quite possible to find that too–in either book. It is the people that matter not the book.
The interpretation, even a literalist one, is as much the product of the reader, their times, and their situation as anything else. The fundamentalists and literalists pick and choose just as much as anyone else. CF our own debates about the Constitution.