Quote of the Day
Juan Cole on the recent debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on the value of religion:
“The best argument for religion might be that there is no secular reason for which to forgive either of these two for following George W. Bush around like puppies and assenting to his illegal war and occupation of a country that had attacked neither the US nor the UK. But the religions teach that neither of them is beyond redemption, and that the rest of us should worry about our own imperfections rather than obsessing about the foibles of others. But then, as Hitchens points out, the actually-existing believers in the religions seldom achieve that blessed state of minding their own business so often recommended to them by the great religious Teachers.”
Cole goes on to wish Hitchens well in his battle against esophageal cancer.
I continue to find debating the merits of “religion” pointless. Clearly Osama bin Laden’s religion does not regard either of those men as worthy of forgiveness…
I thought about this and actually if Bush or Blair or Hitchens came out and announced that they were converting to Islam – and specifically the Sunni Wahhabist strain (anything less is apostasy for bin Laden) I’m sure it would be considered a great victory for al Qaeda and bin Laden would be quite pleased. In his eyes this would be “redemption” and therefore would probably acquit these men of their crimes. We don’t need to move to a maudlin “all religions are equally true” sort of sentiment in order to affirm that at least in most missionary religions conversion really does allow someone to become a redeemed person in the eyes of their newfound co-religionists.
You are of course correct in one sense. However, the sense of Cole’s comment seem to be more strong:
“But the religions teach that neither of them is beyond redemption, and that the rest of us should worry about our own imperfections rather than obsessing about the foibles of others.”
I mean, what do you imagine: if Osama bin Laden was within 10 feet of Blair, would he be brushing up on his evangelism techniques or sharpening his knife? Perhaps hypothetically he’d accept a true conversion, but in the meantime he’s plotting to kill him (and, I’m sure in his mind, send him straight to hell).
I mean, what do you imagine: if Osama bin Laden was within 10 feet of Blair, would he be brushing up on his evangelism techniques or sharpening his knife? Perhaps hypothetically he’d accept a true conversion, but in the meantime he’s plotting to kill him (and, I’m sure in his mind, send him straight to hell).
Are you talking about bin Lade or Blair when you refer to “he” in this paragraph? I reckon the statement is equally true of both parties.
I was talking about bin Laden, though I’m sure what you’re saying is not too far from the truth (though I suspect Blair would prefer to apprehend him and put him on trial).
Which religious leaders say we should mind our own business?
Cole describing Hitchens describing religious teachers teaching religious people to mind their own business sounds like a paraphrase of an atheist saying what religious teaching would be good for if it were, indeed, good for anything. Yep, that sounds more or less like Hitch to me. I love that he rips on religion as a whole but still somehow finds room in himself to admire Solzhenitsyn. That’s just rich.
Of course maybe Hitchens has repudiated Alexandr by now for his Russian Orthodoxy.
When Jesus is addressing the Pharisees there is certainly an element of that, though I think that Cole is over-simplifying here (to put it mildly). He does respond to emails, so you could just ask him if you really want to know.
It is not simply over-simplifying–but wrong to an extreme. I wonder if for example Matt 25.31-46 could be extended to this: “I was oppressed by lunatic genocidal terrorist-dictator, and you never came to liberate me.” For one can hardly criticize those who have no means to intervene, but only those one who can give food, water, hospitality, who can clothe the naked or visit the prisoner. Those who have the power to intervene, yet they refuse to risk, would they not also be the target of the parable of Jesus? Would that not put those powerful nations which refuse to liberate an entire nation of oppressed people among the goats rather than the sheep?
By Juan Cole’s logic , religion would teach that one should mind one’s business when other nations fall into distress–whether because of a tyrant, an earthquake or a tsunami.
Religion is seldom merely a private matter, of minding one’s own business. Indeed, when Jesus says to take the plank out of one’s eye, he does not thereby suggest that Christians are not to practice community discipline, which requires requires judging one another; Matt 7.1-5 and Matt 18.15-20 are both in the same gospel and not incompatible exhortations, though modern liberals only want to focus on the former–but having the latter missing altogether, they usually fall away from the true Faith.
It leaves me wondering why you would choose to quote Juan Cole, if what he says is essentially over-simplified, to say the least.
You’re reading this way too narrowly, what Cole says is “But the religions teach that neither of them is beyond redemption, and that the rest of us should worry about our own imperfections rather than obsessing about the foibles of others.” I would take “our own imperfections” to include not extending mercy or aid or pursuing justice. If we accept poverty, oppression or injustice while remaining silent or inert, then this is not a state of perfection is it? I think you’re just annoyed that Cole is aware of what a complete disaster the “liberation” of Iraq has proved to be.
Is Cole aware that Iraq was harboring WMDs and Al-Quaeda terrorists within their borders? Is he aware that Saddam Hussein was an evil man that committed genocide against the Iraqi people and was a state sponsor of terrorism? Bush and Blair were aware of these things and that is why they felt it necessary to go to war, in a post 9-11 world, against that evil wicked despicable man that has received his just reward for his evil deeds.