American Mahdi, continued

Herein we continue our somewhat discursive fulmination...

Simply because both law and religion have failed to rid us of such anti-social behaviors, it does not follow that they are both similarly useless. Indeed, if so many religious dictates weren’t so easily interpreted as “don’t gather firewood on Shabbat,” “women are dirty for a few days every month,” “beat your disobedient children,” “fly plane into building,” “exterminate the unbeliever(s),” and so on, I’d say that religion was just fine at keeping some of those anti-social types in check. Unfortunately, the threats of fire and brimstone and bolts from the blue are neither swift nor sure and serve less of a deterrent than the modern death penalty. Which brings us to the utility of secular law for dealing with conscienceless malcontents: we can lock these people up.

But let’s not stop with the impact of good religious values on one’s propensity to kill people. Surely, without a solid grounding in scriptural morality, courtesy of public school, all our young people will move to San Francisco and have lots of gay sex. Once again, this probably won’t happen. Not that I think gay sex is yucky (actually it’s pretty damn hot if you’re reading about it over at Jefferson's blog) [shameless plug], I just generally prefer vagina. And believe you me, the book of Leviticus (which I’ve (NOT!) just finished reading for the 3rd time…) does not go very far in enhancing one’s appreciation for vagina. If people are upset by such “immoral” behaviour, perhaps a bit of perspective might ease their angry hearts: if you think being gay is deviant or against nature, just think about all those folks who don’t feel anything is wrong with killing people who disagree about what constitutes the “law of God.” Believe me, you have scarier things to worry about – namely your more faithful neighbors who are certainly worth more in His eyes.

An aside: to the extent that the twits at Exodus International manage to turn gay people straight, it is in the same way that fundamentalist Islam allows otherwise intelligent, level-headed folks to strap explosives to themselves: by inculcating a sense of loathing of the state of the self and the world around them, by telling them that their deficiency lies in a deviation from God’s straw-man of perfection. And before you try to sue me in the UK, just remember that truth is an absolute defense to libel.

A rather bright professor recently described to me his thinking on how to mediate particularly intractable disputes (i.e. South Africa, Northern Ireland, Israel and the Palestinian territories). He said that what links individuals who have made substantial progress is that they are the sort of people who can evince in their adversaries a measure of trust that the future they envision would be tolerable to all concerned. Conflict is driven by a refusal to recognize a future environment that does not pose an existential threat to “the other.” The teleology of human freedom, if such a thing exists, points to systems that embrace dissimilar viewpoints and goals to the extent that we can all live with it. I would speculate, upon very little reflection, that there is more room in a community governed by Bill’O’s much-maligned “Secular Progressives” then in one run according the precepts of the Bible or the Koran – which might explain why nobody bothers to write such books in the age of globalization. By all rights, there should be less tolerance of apocalyptic religions than there is for SUVs: global warming will only drown us slowly, but the faithful doomsayers among us will doubtlessly cheer nuclear war as a sign of the rapture.

tags technorati : Culture Ethics Law Religion Society