Reza Aslan on The Daily Show

[Saxmoof]

Interesting interview on religious extremism, lots of debatable arguments made, some i agree with some i disagree with some i'm conflicted on - 

If you're going to blame religion for violence in the name of religion you have to credit religion for every act of compassion in the name of religion, you have to credit religion for every act of love in the name of religion, that's not what people usually think, they focus very much on the negatives. Part of the problem is that there's this misconception that people derive their values from their scriptures the truth is that it's more often the case that people insert their values into their scriptures, otherwise every Christian who read the bible would read it exactly the same way

I definitely do this (the focusing on the negative) but i'm not sure if it's irrational or not, the argument in my head goes like this, "People are naturally compassionate regardless of their religion, whereas the tribalist group mentality religion gives leads violent people to organise and be more focused with their violence"... but then it could be argued that the group mentality of religions also leads to stronger charity efforts etc. couldn't it? Is this a flaw in my anti-theistic world view?

If you are a violent misogynist, you will find plenty in the Qu'ran or in the Bible to justify your viewpoint, if you're a peaceful feminist, you will find just as much in those scriptures to justify your viewpoint

Really? Just as much? No, just not true

Without interpretation scripture is just words on a page it requires someone to read it, to encounter it to have any meaning, obviously in that transaction you are bringing yourself, your views, your politics, your social ideas into the text. How you read scripture has everything to do with who you are, God does not make you a bigot, you're just a bigot!

I don't think religious people have such a loose, balanced view of their religion as Reza seems to think, i'm not saying they're all fundamentalists but they definitely have less of a sense of reason and historical perspective than Reza, as a religious scholar has. There are people who do get their values from religious texts, and even if it's true that anyone who reads a particularly violent passage of a religious text and follows it was violent and bigoted to begin with, why are there such violent and bigoted things in the texts to fuel these people in the first place?

Stewart - The violence in that region is an outgrowth of a paucity of many things, religion not being the sole driver of these identity issues that are going on

Sometimes yes, religion is something oppressed people cling to and use as a weapon to strike back against some greater power, but often it isnt, often it happens in a total vacuum where the religion itself is the only possible explanation. If we include religious violence carried out by nation states (executions for apostasy, blasphemy etc.) most of those countries aren't being oppressed, they are the oppressors. You could argue that the extremist religious states come about because people need something to believe in in lieu of any real quality of life, economic opportunities, natural resources etc. (if we ignore countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei etc.) but religion also plays a big part in keeping people uneducated and holding back scientific advances

What drives me absolutely bananas is this constant refrain you hear, from some of your guests in fact, that "y'know what Islam really needs, it needs a reformation", and my answer to that is like, open your eyes man, people think that reformation is like, holding hands and singing kumbaya. Reformation is about a cataclysmic debate over who has the authority to define a faith is it the individuals, or is it the institution, that debate in Christianity led to the death of half the population of Germany alone. My point is that that argument is precisely what's at stake in the violence that we see in the Middle East

Is he arguing that the reformation is already happening, or that it doesn't need one? Without the faith, how could there be an argument over who has the authority to define it that could kill half the population of a country?

The wrong way to think about it is to just simply divorce religion from it altogether, I totally understand that sentiment... Stewart - Well it lends power to it, whenever you attach dogma to something, it lends power... Reza - Absolutely, but I do think we need to resist saying ISIS has nothing to do with Islam or that violence in the name of religion has nothing to do with religion, well of course it has to do with religion i mean look, if ISIS calls itself muslim we should probably take them seriously.. fine, they are muslim, great

Stewart - I would suggest that without that, they would find another organising principle, whether it be through a tribal affiliation or through a nation state, we are very adept at finding organisational categories for ourselves to belong to, to fight a group that belongs to a different one... Reza - And religion is a very good category, in fact it has the most currency for the masses

I don't think ISIS would find that other organising principle, not with as much reach at least. ISIS's leaders are probably just using religion to gain control of their country, but if they were honest about that with their recruitment and said to muslims in Europe etc. "come help us take Iraq back" the people in Europe would think, "why should i care who controls Iraq, that has nothing to do with me", but make it a holy war, a fight on behalf of Islam and then you have plenty of recruits

My whole thing is, that i'm ok with you saying that ISIS is muslim, as long as you also realise that the tens of thousands of people that they kill are also muslims and the tens of thousands of people that are fighting against ISIS are also muslim, so if ISIS is muslim, and their victims are muslim, and the people fighting them are muslim... that doesn't really say anything interesting about Islam itself, certainly nothing that you could make a generalisation about

Their victims and opponents are also muslim, but they come from different sects of Islam, war between different sects of the same religion is still religious war, and you can surmise something about Islam from this, which other religion produces such violence at this current point in history?

On your point about this anti-muslim fervour, i mean that's a very real thing, two thirds of Americans say that islamic and American values conflict with each other, half of americans say that muslims can't be loyal to America, one third of americans - that's one hundred million of us believe that muslims should be forced to carry special IDs identifying them as muslim and there's a historical analogy there i can't put my finger on

And that is the reality of what's happening here and I think it's important to understand that this fear is so manufactured by a news channel that has spun it into ratings gold, politicians who use it to get votes

I agree with most of this, the way people seem to not give Muslims the benefit of the doubt, for example, people need Muslims to say that they condemn terrorism instead of just assuming they do like they would of anyone else, is very worrying. To be worried about Islamic terrorism in a country like America is insane, it makes much more sense to be worried about mundane things like car crashes or heart failure, there's much more chance of dying from one of those. But worldwide, the terrorism is just the tip of the iceberg, out of 42 Muslim majority countries 10 of them execute gay people and 40% of them have the death penalty for apostasy. You can be worried about discrimination against Muslims at the same time as being worried about discrimination by Muslims, it's not that hard, but Reza creates this false choice of you're with me or you're with Fox News

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Just edit it out yourself. It's only been a minute.

[robvalue]

This here is my opinion only.

It's true, "religion" doesn't do anything. People do things, and credit/blame religion. If someone does something good and credits religion, it's misplaced. They should credit themselves. If someone does something bad and uses religion as an excuse, it is again misplaced. They should own up to making the decision themselves.

While there is an oral myth that these books are the "word of God" and some of these words are "kill unbelievers" and "smash in his head with a stone", there is a problem that cannot be easily dismissed. Sure, you would hope a liberal, reasonable person knows it's not really the exact word of God, at best it's man's interpretation or something and so they'd edit it in their mind.

If they tell their children "this is the word of God", the problem continues. It still says "Carve up the guy's head with the nearest sharp thing for asking awkward questions". It's irresponsible. How is the child supposed to marry the concepts that it's the word of God, but you should ignore most of it? Instead, how about being honest and saying "This is an ancient book that has a lot of history of our religion. But we've changed the way we do certain things, so not all of it is still relevant." Is that too much to ask? I'm not telling them how to run their religion. Actually, I am. Do what I say please.

The oral myth is where the danger lies. It contains all the power of the religion. Without it, the books lose all of their grip.

---

Can you imagine if I gave my kid an "atheist instruction manual" for how to live your life, and some of the instructions were to kill people for picking up sticks on a Sunday?

But I'd say, "Ah yes, we don't do that bit."
"Why not daddy?"
"We just don't. Atheist Jesus or something."
"Why is it on the list daddy?"
"One more question out of you and you're going back in the cellar."

[Pyrrho]

Interesting interview on religious extremism, lots of debatable arguments made, some i agree with some i disagree with some i'm conflicted on - 

If you're going to blame religion for violence in the name of religion you have to credit religion for every act of compassion in the name of religion, you have to credit religion for every act of love in the name of religion, that's not what people usually think, they focus very much on the negatives. Part of the problem is that there's this misconception that people derive their values from their scriptures the truth is that it's more often the case that people insert their values into their scriptures, otherwise every Christian who read the bible would read it exactly the same way

I definitely do this (the focusing on the negative) but i'm not sure if it's irrational or not, the argument in my head goes like this, "People are naturally compassionate regardless of their religion, whereas the tribalist group mentality religion gives leads violent people to organise and be more focused with their violence"... but then it could be argued that the group mentality of religions also leads to stronger charity efforts etc. couldn't it? Is this a flaw in my anti-theistic world view?

...

I will comment on a couple of things, starting with the above.  Although I think you are right that some people are "naturally" more compassionate than others, I think that religion does sometimes get people to be nice to each other in ways that they otherwise would not.  Many churches, for example, run soup kitchens for poor and homeless people, and I think some of the people involved in that do so out of religious devotion.

If you think about it logically, it makes sense that if religion is powerful enough to motivate someone to kill someone else, it is powerful enough to get someone to ladle up some soup for someone.  Of course, one is going to have to ladle up a whole lot of soup to 'make up for' killing one person, but that is just going to get us to the issue of whether, on balance, religion is more positive or more negative in its effects on people's conduct.


As for things like sexism, religion promotes that.  I can tell you from my own experience, having been raised a Southern Baptist (if you don't know anything about Southern Baptists, take a visit to the Landover Baptist site and it will give you the basic idea, though it is a parody site).  When I was a child, I believed that women were inferior to men.  Not because of any personal observation of women being inferior, but because the Bible says they are, and I was raised to believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, basically the word of God himself, and so I believed God had a low opinion of women.

When I became an atheist, the sexism was happily discarded or, rather, it was being discarded while I was becoming an atheist, as it was something I did not like about religion, even while I still believed in it.  (Not liking something does not make it false, and so that was not enough to get me to stop believing religious nonsense.)

Now, I was not actively discriminating against women myself when I was still a believer, but I was less outspoken about such things because of my religion.


The situation with homosexuality was similar, though less relevant to my life and consequently something I thought about less.  I was told, of course, that homosexuality was sinful and wicked, and not something that I should do.  I thought it very strange that people went on about it so much, as I had about as much interest in having sex with another man as I had in sticking an ice pick in my eye.  But, when I was a child and believed the Bible, I believed homosexuality was wicked and bad, and that was solely due to religion.  When I became an atheist, I thought about the question of homosexuality, and it seemed to me that there was no reason to object to other people engaging in homosexual behavior if that is what they wanted to do.  I presently do not care at all if my neighbor is gay or straight or bisexual or likes having sex with his toaster.

Now, I never engaged in violent behavior against homosexuals (or women), but I was not on the right side of the issues, when I was a believer.

Basically, one cannot believe what the Bible says and not be against women and homosexuals.  The Christians (if any) who are not against women and homosexuals reject part of the Bible (at least, reject it as being God's word).  There simply is no other way, as the Bible is clearly against women and homosexuals.


So, when I hear someone say that religion does not cause discrimination and bigotry, I know that is pure bullshit.



Back to one other point in your post.  Most Muslims do not have their own TV show or web site, so how the hell do you expect them to be "speaking out" against anything, such that you are going to know about it one way or another?  There are Muslim groups who have denounced violence done by other Muslims, but that sort of thing does not get much news coverage, so you are not going to know about it unless you look for it.  And even then, there is very little coverage of such things, as such things do not sell newspapers or get people to watch TV shows, so there is little to be found, but not because most Muslims are okay with groups like ISIS; most are not okay with ISIS.

[Saxmoof]

It's true, "religion" doesn't do anything. People do things, and credit/blame religion. If someone does something good and credits religion, it's misplaced. They should credit themselves. If someone does something bad and uses religion as an excuse, it is again misplaced. They should own up to making the decision themselves

There's this sort of tap dance that goes on whenever there's an act of religious violence, if someone kills someone for religious reasons and cites the verse backing them up people who defend religion will say, "well that part's not supposed to be taken literally" firstly, how do you know that? and secondly, this person clearly did take it literally! Those same people will quote the Qur'an verse, "if anyone kills a person it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind" whenever there's a killing in the name of Islam, ok so now it's peaceful people apparently do in fact take the Qur'an literally and derive their values from it

As Reza says in the interview, peoples interpretations of scripture are wildly subjective and every verse has a contradictory verse somewhere else, the only fair way to judge the moral output of a religion is to look at what people do in its name, i would argue that the sum total of all of these things throughout history is negative - i'm not sure why this is given that religions have some good things in their texts aswell, in theory a religious society could just as easily become a compassionate and peaceful one, but for whatever reason that doesn't happen

 Instead, how about being honest and saying "This is an ancient book that has a lot of history of our religion. But we've changed the way we do certain things, so not all of it is still relevant." Is that too much to ask? I'm not telling them how to run their religion. Actually, I am. Do what I say please.

I really think that religion would lose all it's attraction if people took that approach, which is probably why you want them to run it that way . There's something about having a universal, set in stone moral code that imo is the main appeal of religion (that and eternal life, which is some bonus) and that's incompatible with being able to take a step back and say "most of this just doesn't make sense anymore"

I will comment on a couple of things, starting with the above.  Although I think you are right that some people are "naturally" more compassionate than others, I think that religion does sometimes get people to be nice to each other in ways that they otherwise would not.  Many churches, for example, run soup kitchens for poor and homeless people, and I think some of the people involved in that do so out of religious devotion.


If you think about it logically, it makes sense that if religion is powerful enough to motivate someone to kill someone else, it is powerful enough to get someone to ladle up some soup for someone.  Of course, one is going to have to ladle up a whole lot of soup to 'make up for' killing one person, but that is just going to get us to the issue of whether, on balance, religion is more positive or more negative in its effects on people's conduct.

This makes a lot of sense, i was worried i was being contradictory by only focusing on the negative aspects of religion, but you can accept that religion can cause people to act compassionately while at the same time not using that to write off all the bad things religion causes in people - which, on balance, i don't think is excused by the good

I believed homosexuality was wicked and bad, and that was solely due to religion

The gay stuff alone invalidates the argument that people insert their values into religious texts rather than derive them from them for me. I can't think of any non-religious reason to be against gay people, sure there'd still be homophobia without religion but it would be more of a sort of visceral feeling of unease from some people at the sight of gay couples kissing etc... people wouldn't then make the leap to saying that it is immoral

Back to one other point in your post.  Most Muslims do not have their own TV show or web site, so how the hell do you expect them to be "speaking out" against anything, such that you are going to know about it one way or another?  There are Muslim groups who have denounced violence done by other Muslims, but that sort of thing does not get much news coverage, so you are not going to know about it unless you look for it.  And even then, there is very little coverage of such things, as such things do not sell newspapers or get people to watch TV shows, so there is little to be found, but not because most Muslims are okay with groups like ISIS; most are not okay with ISIS.

Totally agree, I don't think you mean me when you say "how the hell do you expect them..." but just in case, I didn't say anything like that

[robvalue]

I think the big problem with religion is what Phyrro said, it often has clear references in books that certain things are immoral which clearly objectively aren't. So it's bad enough this can be used as cover by bigots who don't want to own up to their own hate, but in fact it could drive good people to start hating certain groups when they otherwise wouldn't.

I agree Phyrro, I've never understood these prejudices against anyone. Never understood why people would be obsessed with other people being gay, or being a woman, and that somehow being a problem. Civilised society should have everyone as equal as possible, that seems rather obvious to me. Religious texts like the bible and Quran would upset this balance just by their words being acted upon.

So the important thing is what the attitudes are towards these books. And right now people seem to have a very confusing relationship with them, where it might as well be blank and they have just rewritten it for themselves. But the problem is that they haven't actually improved the wording at all in reality. So the next person who reads it and thinks "everyone says this is god's word" is going to read the horrific bit people want to sweep under the carpet. But of course, not everyone is trying to sweep them under the carpet either, some want to act on them and to regress society.