Here.
I'm in the midst of Dawkins's The God Delusion, and just this week, I finished Letter to a Christian Nation. Both books roundly criticize religion for its many ill-effects on the world. They blame religion for unrest and riots, wars and genocides.
Some of this, no doubt, is fair. But to what extend can we separate religious movements from tribal movements. That is, to what degree is people's religious identity wrapped up in their cultural one. I suspect that these proselytizing atheists may blame religion for tribal conflict, when, in actuality, its the opposite way around. That is, religion divorced from tribalism is not dangerous. Consider Liberal religious movements in the U.S. and elsewhere. You don't see these people starting wars and encouraging violence--cultural or physical. And these movements are almost never tied to a specific cultural identity. That is to say, these people don't really see their religion as their identity the way, it seems, members of Conservative religions do.
Let me put this another way. In the most recent round of ugliness to spew forth from the McCain/Palin campaign, we saw some of the country labeled "pro-America" and others labeled, well, nothing, but we can assume something less than pro-America. Palin is clearly appealing to a specific culture here in the U.S. that believes people like me--liberal, more or less agnostic--are not as pro-America as others. Part of this tribal identity is, I would argue, wrapped up in the idea that America is a Christian Nation and if you don't believe that, you don't love America. When Newt Gingrich came to Oberlin, this is what I wrote:
The problem with Newt Gingrich is that he believes that God makes America great. Let me rephrase. He believes that a specific--and wholly sectarian--God is the font from which all that is good in America flows. And, as such, to claim--as many on the Left do--that there are some structural problems in America is to claim that there is something wrong with God.
The flip side of this coin is that, according to Newt, to argue—as many on the Left do—that we ought not force Newt Gingrich’s conception of God into the public sphere is to argue that we ought not to put back what makes America great.
Here is the crux of Newt Gingrich’s persecution complex, the crux of his bile and scorn. In the good ol’ days, men were men, women were women, and America, blessed by God, was a land of puppies, unicorns, and post-marital orgasms. Now, he sees that world slipping away; the elitists, the commies, the hippies, and the secular Left have taken prayer out of schools and God out of the government. And since Gingrich, and his Christianist brethren, have confused piety for patriotism, the inescapable conclusion is that public secularism is anti-American.
This is the intellectual side of this "pro-America"/"anti-America" nonsense that Palin (and others) have been spouting. But there's more to it than that. There is also, I believe a deep mistrust of liberals that extends far outside the scope of religion. We are an alien other culturally, and in ways that are not shaped by religion: geography, cultural values, tastes and preferences, just to name a few (there's an argument to be made here about education and income level, but I'm not going to make it).
Here's my bedtime question: If Dawkins got his wish and everybody stopped believing in God (or Gods or gods or superstition or what have you), to what degree would that affect tribalism and tribalistic conflicts. That is to say, is religion the cause or the effect of tribalism?
|