Freedom From Religion
The Curse of Holy Writ
XXX Countdown
Against the Book
In the first chapter of The End of Faith, Sam Harris (Xenosh alert) makes two outstanding observations: first, “most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book,” and second, “criticizing a person´s faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture.” These are obvious facts of modern life, but the peculiar force of Harris´s argument throughout the book consists in his stating the obvious in such a way that it looks at once novel and alarming. Once it is said, in just so many words, that most people believe God has written a book, the belief looks patently absurd. Yet we know this belief is universal, deep seated, and longstanding. It determines the way a good many of people on this planet behave.
Now, if suddenly countless numbers of people who hold this belief and adhere to The Book were to repudiate it, that would be an event worthy of Long Count expectations. That would be a paradigm shift to exceed the wildest prophecies of Jenkins and Calleman. It would also be the shift consistent with the historical profile of Kali Yuga sketched in the above paragraphs. Recall that we identified two nodal dates, 551 BCE and 731 CE, when the composition of the patriarchal agenda was highlighted. These were key dates in establishing domination by The Book: the Bible in 551 BCE and the Koran in 731 CE. Does the moment 2012 portend the opportunity to disempower or even reverse those earlier moments? Are such massive trends in psychosocial behavior reversible?
The End of Faith may indicate what can really happen in the endtime better than any number of prophetic tomes that purport to describe what will happen, or what is hoped to happen, such as Jenkins’ speculations in his books on galactic alignment.
But is mass-scale rejection of Abrahamic faith likely to happen? Consider the certainty of world-shattering events, such as terrorist biological attacks and geophysical catastrophes, and what do you conclude? I would guess that when such events occur, most people will go scrambling for The Book, rather than chuck it away. The certainty of frightening events that will disrupt or even destroy social and personal security almost totally precludes the possibility that masses of people will opt to throw off the narrative spell. On the contrary, they are likely to hunker down into it ever more deeply. They will fall on their faith when the system fails. They will die with clenched hearts, believing rather than liberated from belief.
§ Cue Sophianic Animism, PT lite.
Yet there will be some spellbreaking in the endtime. The mass awakening of the human species may be a comforting fantasy to some, but others are perhaps more inspired by a different scenario in which a few people break through the spell that still holds the vast majority of human beings in thrall. Is this an elitist view of the endtime opportunity? No, but it may be a genuine survivalist view.
It would be foolish, I think, to expect that between now and December 2012 untold millions around the world will renounce the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran, and liberate themselves from the stupid, vicious, and irrational beliefs stated in those texts—but there may be a more reasonable expectation for the endtime. If the antireligious debate signaled by The End of Faith were to escalate into an open public controversy, we would find ourselves living through an event that truly reflects optimal change for humanity. To openly challenge in public debate the sexual apartheid of Islam, for instance, would be a momentous event and a vast gain for positive change and social healing. The problem today is, not only that sexual apartheid exists—most blatantly in Islam, but also in the other two Abrahamic religions, not to mention in Indian and Chinese religion—but that it cannot be called into question, due to perceived political incorrectness and fear of offending Muslims.
Let´s recall Harris´s second observation of the obvious: it is absolutely taboo in our society today to challenge or criticize matters of faith. But what if this taboo also were suddenly to be challenged and overridden? Suppose that it became acceptable to confront and even offend people on their beliefs. Suppose the tables were turned, and it was the offended party, not the offending party, who must go on the defensive in the debate over religious beliefs and faith-based principles. That would be a shift in social reality and social syntax consistent with a breakaway from the narrative spell of patriarchy that has dominated Kali Yuga.
It would be a tremendous shift to start offending believers and have them be accountable for what they believe, and for what is done by blind adherence to their irrational, threatening, and intolerant convictions.
No Exemption
A recent court ruling on religious offence in England established that “offence is not incitement.” This ruling introduces what could be a radical shift in the rules of discourse on faith issues. It changes the syntax of the debate over faith issues. The case concerned the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, who described Islam as a “vicious” religion. Regardless of the source of the remark, it is true that offence is not incitement. Griffin did not say that Islam is a vicious religion and Muslims ought to be hanged. The latter phrase is sure-fire incitement. With the privilege of free expression comes the responsibility to use language in a sober, rational, and measured way: to be careful what you say, but not be so cautious that you never challenge or offend. Any sane person of good conscience knows what it is to talk incitement, and what it isn´t.
The argument that offensive talk leads automatically to incitement is invalid and supports the plea for special exemption that is antithetical to open debate in a free society. Likewise for the argument that offensive talk alienates the offended people from positive dialogue that could lead to social reconciliation and better integration: to take being offended as an excuse to withdraw from open social discourse is just another way to extort special exemption. The offence response is specious and rejects the creative dissonance that makes a functional society possible.
Living in an open society, we are all exposed to a lot of offence, things said and done that offend us for one reason or another, in one way or another. I for one are offended by the use of sex in advertizing, by the exploitation of children as fashion icons, by the entire educational system of Western culture, and a lot more. The risk of being offended is a consequence of the free expression offered in an open society. Currently, it is taboo to offend Jews, Christians, or Muslims by saying anything critical or derogatory about their faith, their beliefs, and their customs, including how they dress, how they treat their children, and how they slaughter animals. The fear of offending is not a measure of compassion or consideration, although it disguises itself as such. It a concession to the demand for special exemption exerted by members of these religions, who seek the advantage of enforcing their agenda by operating on values and beliefs that cannot, they insist, be questioned, criticized, or ridiculed. But the demand for special exemption on any issue whatsoever is inconsistent with the principles of an open society (or civic society, as Harris calls it).
The demand for special exemption is a disguised tactic for spreading tyranny and totalitarianism, the rule of The Book. There can no special exemptions from open social critique of any subject in a free society, least of all religious beliefs that drive social behavior and religious practices that define social identity. The society that succumbs to this demand is committing moral suicide (which is precisely what´s happening in Europe, Bruce Bawer argues in his disturbing study, While Europe Slept.) But the West, and especially European society, has become ever more and more compliant with this demand over the last few decades.
I submit that the policy of appeasement signals the terminal decadence of Kali Yuga and the end of the long countdown to a planet-wide orgy of righteous self-immolation. Defiance of the taboo against religious offence would be a true paradigm shift with worldwide repercussions for the good. This is the kind of mass behavioral change to look for in social life as the Maya endtime approaches. This is something worth discussing, not as a mere expectation, but as a challenge for the 2012 moment.
Belief Change
My book, Not in His Image, attempts to challenge and break the narrative spell of patriarchy. It presents a radical critique of faith in The Book. So do many articles on this site. Metahistory.org proposes belief change as the single most powerful act that can make a difference for human life on this planet today. Some essays on this site exemplify realistic expectations we might hold for a positive grand finale of the Long Count: for instance, The Promise of a Lonely Planet essay.
People of faith can be as offended as they want to be—that is their problem. When they make it the problem of others, they act spitefully and destructively against the principles of open, democratic society, the very principles that allow them to hold their beliefs. It is no crime to hurt someone´s feelings, nor to discount what they have invested in their identity. In fact, it is a sign of a healthy society that this can be done without fear of reprisal. But if a society at large complies with the demand for special exemption, the faith-based program of patriarchal domination that got rolling into high gear at the start of Kali Yuga will prevail, down to the last man standing.
Breaking the narrative spell is only possible if open debate on religious beliefs can unfold without restraint and without fear of reprisal, in a theatre of non-threatening debate, guided by the principle that offence is not incitement. As it stands now, anyone who even jokes about the Prophet can be threatened with death. It is bad enough that Muslims feel this way, but worse that infidels in the “democratic West” are willing to appease their feelings. Freed of the threats routinely expressed by outraged Moslems, the antireligious debate would grow to considerable proportions, or at least it would have a chance to grow.
Although it is, I believe, unlikely that many people will renounce their beliefs and break away from the spell of The Book, societies around the world would be hugely improved if some people could at least talk openly about what they see as insane and inhumane in religious traditions. (We started to do this on this site back in 2002, with a slim ten-year lead on the endtime.) Many people could then become involved in the debate, and who knows how many might undergo a radical change of heart regarding God, salvation, and survival? To see something like this happening in the next six years would be one of the best outcomes of the Long Count.
Breaking the narrative spell by open, non-inciting debate on faith issues is not the only way that the rendezvous in 2012 could turn into a profound healing moment for humanity. There is also another major path toward the breakthrough into a future safe for debate, discernment, and difference…