The liberal blogosphere is rightly upset with Mr. Douthat's column today, in which he lauds Pope Benedict's attempts to woo Anglicans into the Catholic fold. Douthat, a Catholic himself, is understandably enthusiastic about the idea of buffeting his faith's numbers. But what is bothering many folks is why Douthat seems to think this is such a good idea: a "united front" against Islam.
Let there be no mistake, while I intend to give Douthat the benefit of the doubt, his language is not murky: he is not pretending that "all paths lead to God." Check it out:
Okay, so he's talking about a "conflict." Not a "discourse" with Islam, nor even a "debate," but a conflict--a "global encounter" even--with a "resurgent" and "entrenched" Islam. All words that recall combat. There's more.. . . in making the opening to Anglicanism, Benedict also may have a deeper conflict in mind — not the parochial Western struggle between conservative and liberal believers, but Christianity’s global encounter with a resurgent Islam.
Here Catholicism and Anglicanism share two fronts. In Europe, both are weakened players, caught between a secular majority and an expanding Muslim population. In Africa, increasingly the real heart of the Anglican Communion, both are facing an entrenched Islamic presence across a fault line running from Nigeria to Sudan.
. . . What’s being interpreted, for now, as an intra-Christian skirmish may eventually be remembered as the first step toward a united Anglican-Catholic front — not against liberalism or atheism, but against Christianity’s most enduring and impressive foe.A "front" against a "foe." No wonder he's making people nervous!
Again, I don't think there's anything here that explicitly or even implicitly calls for violence or Christian imperialism. (At least I hope not!) As a secularist and an atheist, however, it does bother me that the editorial page of the New York Times features what I think is a troublesome call for one religion to attempt to overpower another, an encouragement for a mass subscription to one absurd, Bronze Age myth at the expense of another, equally baseless.
Douthat claims this grand coalition is done in defense of the "Western way of reason," and perhaps when we're talking about degrees of reasonableness, Catholicism may have some modern-day legs up on Islam, but even that is not so clear when one considers the Pope's recent claims that birth control helps to exacerbate AIDS in Africa. You know, where it's killing people by the millions. It is unfortunate that a respected, usually-sane public intellectual like Douthat is cheerleading consolidation around one particular irrational dogma instead of just counseling an uptick in rationality.
But of course, to Douthat, this is rational. Douthat cites in particular the creep of sharia law into European societies, something that makes us both shudder. Where he and I differ is in the solution: I think oppressive superstition must be opposed with reason and compassion. Douthat seems to have decided that the solution is a different, opposing superstition. And he wants his superstition's team to be bigger.
But I also said at the beginning of this post that this is refreshing honesty, and it is. If nothing else, I feel that our public discourse about religion and its place in society is too often diluted by poses of interfaith tolerance and insincere paeans sung in praise of respect for other faiths. Mr. Douthat is a Catholic, a Christian, and in his column he makes it pretty clear: he thinks Islam is the wrong religion--Muslims have the wrong idea about God. If a person sincerely believes that their religion is the "correct" one, then to pay lip service to mutual respect of differing theologies is anathema, and should probably be untenable. This is why we should take Douthat at his word when he calls Islam a "foe."
Now, that does not mean he sees Muslims as foes. I, too, in a way see Islam as a foe--a foe of reason, science, human rights--just as I see almost all religions as "foes." The difference between Mr. Douthat and myself on this point is that I think all of the religions are wrong. Douthat thinks he has stumbled upon the lone correct one.
But human beings themselves, each and every one, are potential allies. I think we both also see that. So do not mistake me; it's certainly better for all of us if people of differing faiths can sincerely find reasons not to be in conflict, to unite for the betterment of the species and the planet. But at the same time, we have to come by that unity honestly. To pretend that Islam and Christianity are not in conflict is absurd. Adherents have to acknowledge this fact, and then choose to overcome it. Even as an atheist, I can hope for and applaud that. Can Mr. Douthat?
Note: I would be remiss if I did not mention that I felt a slight touch of relief when Douthat said that his Christian "front" was not necessarily going to be focused on combating atheism. Perhaps that's because opposition to atheism is supposed to be a given, but I hope it's because he at least doesn't see us as a threat to civilization.
Related Secularism Examiner Articles:
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment