Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation: a review and update about the issues of human rights within religion!
It is advisable you read the earlier post here – A short introduction to the rather new ‘Atheist’ [antitheists] movement!
Harris is perhaps one of the most intelligent people in the field of neo-antitheism, the author of two books on the subject. He speaks with confidence and shows not only a deep concern but also an even deeper knowledge about the things he talks about. His intelligence is often scary and it is certainly clear that he comes from the philosophical stand point being one of the few that have issues with the word atheist although he is right about its misuse. While this does appear to be a small issue of semantics, having been accused of being an atheist by religious people, the Harris method of pointing out we are all atheists about something is often very helpful. He speaks with clarity and passion in ‘Letter to a Christian nation’. Although it is short it is a healthily pack book directed towards America which is not only a lovely starting point but also offers a great overview & introduction to the damage of religion. In the latter part of the book he turns towards the very common, at least to anyone that offers discourse on the subject, response that religious people come back with when they feel threaten along with the role of science in relation to religion and the fear that comes with being labelled an atheist. Although it is all directed at Americans it does deal with more universal issues and comparisons are made between America and Europe but also between less religious states in America with the more religious ones.
Harris does address the issues of moderate believers to a degree, although not at great length, to argue that while there are those that think Jesus will come back in their lifetime many others are happy to remain on the fence thus permitting others to have their faith just as long as there is a faith around, regardless of which one. All these different versions of the same faith should be treated in the same light, one of the major sticking points with most people is the issue of “special protection” faith is given. Harris has made many comments on moderate religious people, so perhaps more on the subject should have been found in this book still Harris does say the following two things; that the respect granted to religion by our society offers a place for extremists to grow and the bible is very good for justification of any action which otherwise would be considered wrong. The arguments for and against slavery and how different parts of the bible could add support for either side is an example of these justifications. This is what has happened a lot in my travel through talking about religion; passages are often presented with the idea that therefore the bible is good and true, the golden rule is a great example of this where compassion for others is the highest demonstration of the divine. What Harris is trying to show is that using holy text in such a way is not only hypocritical but it still allows for the more extremist perspective to live on since religious texts have not been updated to remove perversion, so it will always be there for later justifications. Also when people argue that Jesus is about compassion, forgiveness and love and not other evil or nasty things we could indicate they are really missing the point of their own religion. If we take this back to the consequences of truth then it certainly does mean that those things moderate religious people believe in are seen as true by them but from the outsiders perspective or to an extremist that belief is seen as immoral or at least incorrect. What has happened is we first seek our belief and then only later come to find in religious texts the confirmation. Truth is simply in this case what you would like it to be rather than what it actually could be or in other words the truth should never be seen as so black and white since it is never that simple.
Moving towards the concept of proof Harris does cite a number of cases to why religion is not true; most of these are based on the logical errors people tend to make. Such as while we can see that other people’s religion has no real evidence of being true we are somehow unable to understand why people see our own faith as also lacking real evidence. Still these are not the only problems with faith since a very common concern about attacking religion is that we gain our morality from the bible and if we are to stop believing in it then society would fall down around us. Harris along with many others argue that this is not the case at all and anyone that claims it would happen is wrong if you consider what the Old Testament & Jesus endorses as moral behaviour. Harris goes so far to point out that the less religious nations are then better places to live than nations with more faith based on a number of factors including charitable giving and crime. The Ten Commandments are a prime example as to the suggested morality that religion can give us; after all I remember a debate between Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Christopher Hitchens, about how of course we did not kill and steal before the commandments but Rabbi Boteach argues that unlike man made laws these are God’s laws this gives more weight to them. First of all Harris points out that the first four are really about religious faith rather than anything else, such as you must not worship other Gods, these are not moral things and as such if you choose to follow them it’s really a personal decision. Whereas five to nine are nobler in their attempts to promote good things, it is suggested that really people tend to do those things anyway; we don’t need them to be reinforced rules since if we did not follow them then society would simply fail to work. Perhaps Rabbi Boteach could explain why God guaranteed rules seem to offer little improvement in the lives of those living in more religious places compared to less religious ones, as Harris points out. The issue of where we get our morality from is very complex so to say it comes from the bible means that not only is the bible misunderstood by its followers but they are also ignoring the possible true factors behind it.
The harm is present almost everywhere and what I like about Harris is that he views a problem very much unlike Christians do. Using the quote by Hitchens about Mother Teresa and the issues concerning sex Harris does three very interesting things with the conclusion that [Christian] religious people are more concerned about sex than the suffering it could cause. For example virginity pledges that teenagers make in the name of Jesus often lead to a delay of first sexual intercourse by about 18 months and once this does happen not only is pregnancy more likely so are STDs due to the assumption that teenagers don’t need to know about these things because they are Christians & everyone just thinks they don’t need to know about safe sex. Condoms are a very interesting concept when dealing with Catholics after all they are things which could stop the genocide that is going on in Africa but what are Catholics more interested in? Well abortion, the suffering of a few cells which more often than not won’t become a person is given more concern than the suffering of millions of actually alive people. With the last example Harris talks about El Salvador where if a woman goes into hospital she is checked to make sure that a back street abortion has not taken place as it is against the law even in cases of incest or rape, a woman can get up to 30 years in prison for something which in Europe is a choice! Considering that contraception is also illegal it removes the rights of women at all levels. This is what the Catholic Church wants; they want every single nation on the earth to be like El Salvador which is against the idea of human & equal rights. If you support the Catholic Church in any way you are also part of the problem I don’t see how you could justify yourself as a moral person. I don’t have a conclusion about abortion, I don’t know if it is right or wrong but I do know it is something which should be discussed and talked about.
The reason to why ‘Letter to a Christian nation’ is such a useful introduction is that it is a powerful, thoughtful and condensed look at the role which religion has in our societies, it introduces the consequences of belief, proof and harm in a measured and intelligential way. If the aim of the book is to convert then it will always fail but if the aim was to give everyone an outsider’s perspective on the Christian way of life then it should be considered a complete success. I don’t want to create a false dilemma but Harris puts it like this “The choice is clear, we either allow for the modern discourse which can include science and philosophical arguments gained through the last two thousand years or we can confine ourselves to first century conversation…[such as] in the bible.” Do we allow ourselves and the people that live with us to keep on a track that is harmful based on the notions of truth and respect or do we decide that we are going to start looking at things in a rational way. Don’t forget at the time of the enlightenment was a period in history when religion suffered but where humans gained the start of a better world. Do we decide to have the better world based on evidence that it can get better or do we go back to the first century conversation. I know which I pick…
I do have two more examples of the first century conversation and the special treatment that is given to religion, both of which are from Islam although I could equally find examples in other faiths. The first is that a male dentist in Britain refused to treat patients unless women covered up or men removed any gold they are wearing. These are examples of the dentist religion not the patients, this dentist did not have his licence taken away although I think it should have been. Put this in a different context, although religion is a choice (somewhat to many) if this dentist refused to treat black people he would have been labelled a racist and his licence removed – it does not matter what your religion is if you offer a public service you have to offer that service to anyone otherwise it is against the law. However, this dentist remained in his post and that is what is meant by special protection which religion should never receive. Secondly still stuck in the first century a woman was flogged for the crime of being seen with a man who was not her husband – this is not only disgusting but the result of idiots. Why are men so important in Islamic culture? I am guessing that it is due to the unchallenged rights given to the key holders of religion in those societies, men! I think that these Pakistanis are animals not humans and they have no right to claim morality. These two recent examples not only support the work of Harris but also how even though the book was written in 2006 the issues are still as relevant as ever!
A short video to introduce ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ and Sam Harris: (Recorded before the new president of America overturned the block on stem cell research)
Sources: letter to a Christian nation, telegraph online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5292031/Muslim-dentist-refused-to-treat-woman-unless-she-wore-headscarf.html and Richard Dawkins .net (Guardian): http://richarddawkins.net/article,4013,Video-of-girls-flogging-as-Taliban-hand-out-justice,Guardian
Hmm… I read blogs on a similar topic, but i never visited your blog. I added it to favorites and i’ll be your constant reader.