Imposing 21st century standards on social evolution from thousands of years ago, many secularist atheists and agnostics tend to regard religion with contempt, seeing it as a major source of divisiveness, superstition, and violence. But just as one would adjust for inflation when comparing the cost of certain commodities over a period of time, one ought to adjust for what is often called the Shifting Moral Zeitgeist when assessing the effects of various ideological developments throughout history. When doing so, I think there is no escaping the conclusion that religious figures like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were in fact liberal progressives, courageously fighting against major societal injustices that were largely driven by religious fanaticism.
If one could reduce the story of Moses to its core, it would be that he overcame substantial pressures and confronted the supreme authority of his time (Pharaoh) as a false god, and fought for his people's freedom from slavery. Jesus, too, challenged the religious authorities of his time, insisted on deemphasizing dogmatic practices and redirecting faith towards a moral core of compassion, love, and forgiveness ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), and universalized that message so it is no longer tribal, earning even the respect of hardline atheists like Richard Dawkins. Muhammad arrived at a place and time where widespread superstition had people worshiping idols, and engaging in all sorts of cruel and outrageous rituals. He, too, disregarded social pressures and insisted on ridiculing the worship of idols, arguing that god is this driving force behind the universe which is beyond our imagination, and fighting for social justice (against slavery, for women's rights, etc.).
None of this is to argue that there aren't disturbing passages in religious scriptures, or that what these impressive human beings conceived of as a just social order wouldn't fall drastically short of what we in the contemporary era would think of as that. Rather, this is to argue that these figures were the leading progressive revolutionaries of their times. Analogously, the founding fathers of the United States were admirable figures, but only insofar as one assessed them in their time. Were they alive today with their views (& actions) on slavery and women's rights intact, they would be rightly scorned as some of the worst people around. But had such exceptional thinkers been educated in modern times, they would be the first to condemn their earlier attitudes.
Setting aside the arbitrariness of concepts like geographic or demographic pride, we can easily understand by looking around that someone can be really proud to be an American without having to agree 100 percent with everything the founding fathers thought or did so long ago. However, religious commitment can be less flexible than nationalist commitment, because when the divine is invoked and the stakes are as high as eternal bliss or eternal damnation, orthodox and outdated interpretations calcify. This calcification is by no means absolute: when listening to remarkable thinkers like Catholic priest George Coyne or Muslim scholar Muhammad Shahrur, one can clearly see how an evolved interpretation and conceptualization of religion is perfectly compatible with our contemporary era. But this doesn't change that, by and large, the spirit of faith has been abandoned and religion has been reduced to dogmatic sets of beliefs and rituals that are bound to become outdated every time the moral, social, and intellectual zeitgeist evolves.
One of the tragic outcomes of the calcification of religion is that it has taken it out of the hands of peace and justice advocates on the left into the grip of dogmatic and divisive leaders on the right. It is raving lunatics like Pat Robertson and John Hagee, with their superstitious nonsense and hateful apocalyptic worldviews, and their counterparts in other religions, who have the loudest megaphones and biggest cult followings. But if Jesus were to come back today, would he side with them in favor of war, bigotry, cutting social services for the poor, and so on? Or would he fight for peace and justice and in defense of the poor and ostracized as he did 2000 years ago?
John Stuart Mill once correctly said: "The principle itself of dogmatic religion, dogmatic morality, dogmatic philosophy, is what requires to be rooted out; not any particular manifestation of that principle." True, but that principle is most difficult to root out in religion, given the stakes I mentioned. There needs to be a revolution in the way people understand faith. There needs to be a loosening of strict literal commitment to ancient metaphors and outdated practices, and a reemphasis on the spirit of faith as a means for connecting with the oneness of our universe and behaving decently towards our fellow human beings. Fanaticism within the world's most prominent religions has to be fought with the same courage and vigor that the founders of these very religions fought against the superstitious madness of their time. If Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were to return today, there is not a doubt that they would be the first to lead that effort.
Follow Omar Baddar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omarbaddar
John Backman: Can Humility Change the World?
Max Perry Mueller: Obama, Cal Thomas and the Mark of Cain
What atheists want to do is put back in the reality check. As to fix the dogmatism problem. And when you do that, you have to abandon religion, or at least much of the Abrahamic religions.
As for the Abrahamic god. The ultimate message is so awful. Believe in me or I will torture you by burning in a lake of fire forever and ever.
The penultimate abusive partner: "Look what you made me do to you. Why can't you just love me, then everything will be ok? I won't hurt you if you love me."
Pleh! Why would I want to believe in a deity that I wouldn't want as a neighbor much less my god?
What is important is that the one who fulfills the prophecies of the ancient prophets is indeed a progressive, because the judgment he delivers will help and enable humanity to progess and advance beyond the present state of conflict and division.
If you wonder what I'm talking about, read http://messenger.cjcmp.org
That's a valid point, up to a point.
But compare early Christians to their pagan and/or skeptical contemporaries. That is perhaps a more edifying comparison. Nominal pagans were not always, upon closer inspection, very religious at all. Some took their pagan religion very seriously, and consulted fortune tellers, and sacrificed animals and attempted to find guidance in the entrails of the sacrificed beasts, and freaky stuff like that.
Others reacted to the Christians very much as modern skeptics do. Let's hope we have a little more success this time around.
-Baha'u'llah
http://www.bahaullah.org/
Additionally, it's as if you think "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", was never spoken before it was written in the Bible. This is yet another issue with Christianity; the fact that people think the Golden Rule, parables, and other Biblical stories originated in the Bible and weren't already in existence. Just because Jesus utters the Golden Rule, doesn't mean he invented the entire concept of respect.
Could be wrong. Just sayin'.
I agree that we have to consider and make allowance for the times in which the great leaders of the past lived, and that goes for both religious and political leaders.
We have the benefit of hindsight and history (although the trouble-makers obviously haven't learned from it). And while we can realize the obvious errors made by those who went before, we can also appreciate their contributions, and their wisdom.
I just wish more people who are listening to and following the divisive demagogues would realize they are being deceived and misled. I will more people would get the message at http://cjcmp.org
This is a love that you might find familiar, but I do not.
The commandment Jesus advocates is different to the Ten Commandments of Moses: Jesus' commandment is pretty simple: :"Love. Please. For God's sake, just LOVE. Less people get killed." I suspect Yeshuachrist knows this, but it doesn't suit the argument.
1. Jesus was crucified and his apostles martyred because their overall message was rejected because they did not preach the overthrow of the Roman governor (and government) and a return to home-rule of Palestine and a powerful Jewish state.
2. Today, liberal progressive carries within itself the concept of social justice (which can be reconciled, within reason, with Christianity). Social justice reaches to Marx and Engel and the type of society (and its ills) surrounding an industrialized society that had long sense moved beyond agrarian norms. These apostles and their followers would have no understanding of the complexities of industrialized society (and our own society’s attempts to move beyond it).
“Or would he fight for peace and justice and in defense of the poor and ostracized as he did 2000 years ago.”
Of course, Christ would fight for the poor. But remember, he did establish a Church that does that very thing (and continues within his tradition). Remember, that Christ did say he was the son of the living God. That sort of statement does have some repercussions for those of us who do believe in his divinity.
We care for more people with HIV/AIDS, cancer, malaria, etc. than any other group.
In the United States 70 years ago, our hospitals disobeyed government orders in giving health care to people of all colors. We are doing the same with regard to immigrants (look at Alabama).
If someone in the Church let you down, please do not let that turn you away from it. The Church is imperfect in its temporal dealings. From her clergy to her members, we are all poor sinners.
the beauty of using the latter is that it is not tied down by thousands of years of dogma and superstition.
"ridiculing the worship of idols,"--Who is Muhammad to ridicule the worship of idols??
"arguing that god is this driving force behind the universe which is beyond our imagination"--The same unimaginable God sends angels to select people, tells stories, and is going to judge people after they die, sends people to heaven or hell..what a load of nonsense and you even have the temerity to write this article...
I call on the author to restate his position without slurring two of the most profound spiritual traditions in this world.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda
"In 1193, the Nalanda University was sacked by the Islamic fanatic Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk;[10] this event is seen by scholars as a late milestone in the decline of Buddhism in India. The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism and plant Islam by the sword;[11] the burning of the library continued for several months and "smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills."[12]"