I've finally finished my entry for the above competition, and I've decided to post the essay here.
Enjoy :-
“The history of religion should only be written by the irreligious” - Discuss
Irreligion is defined as the absence of, indifference towards, and/or hostility towards religion.
Contextually, this may mean anything from antireligion, atheism or agnosticism, to scepticism, secular humanism or free-thought. Although these six branches of irreligion vary widely in their ‘beliefs’ – from the pseudo-militantism and totalitarian bent of antireligion, to the logical and moral stance of secular humanism – they all share common ground in their rejection of, and resistance to, religion – whether organised and dogmatic, metaphysical and scholarly, or meditative and esoteric.
However, does the irreligious’ uninvolvement in religion, independence from religion, and impartiality towards religion make them the only reliable religious historians, and therefore the only people who should be allowed to write about the history of religion?
On the one hand, it may be argued that this should not be the case, simply because the irreligious are not impartial, however much this is believed to be the case.
As stated by René Descartes, the fact and act of thinking leads to the conclusion that the thinker exists. However, the act of thinking also leads to the formation of opinion.
By analytically studying and documenting the history of religion, the historian thinks – even an irreligious historian – thus creating opinion. The presence of opinion makes impartiality an impossibility, therefore any history of religion written by the irreligious is no more – nor any less – valid, accurate, or believable than any written by the religious.
Also to be considered is the fact that certain among the irreligious would like to bring an end to religion.
Of personal acquaintance is an individual, who defines themself as an ‘antireligious sceptic’, and whom believes that religion is the primary cause of many of life’s ills, such as the spread and expansion to pandemic proportions of sexually-transmitted infections and diseases, gender-related oppression and political-doctrine enforcement (i.e. “It is the Divine’s will that it be so.”). Evidently, one would not expect any account of religious history presented by this individual to be reliable.
This individual, and others of their persuasion, would undoubtedly use their writing of a religious history to display their own opinions of various historical events, and attempt to persuade others to share their opinions. These opinions may be as harmless and mundane as that one should only practice religion when it is convenient, and fit it around their lives, as opposed to vice versa, or as extreme and potentially harmful as antireligiously-inspired attempts on religious figures’ lives, or even on the lives of ordinary people of a religious persuasion.
These facts evidently refute the possibility of an unbiased historical account.
Another point that disagrees with the statement that only the irreligious ought to write religious history is the fact that they may be involved with religion, in one capacity or another, and to a greater or lesser extent.
The (in)famous irreligionist Professor Richard Dawkins, whom some may – quite justifiably – describe as the arch-irreligionist, is well known as a result of his arguing against the need for religion by attempting (and it must be conceded, often succeeding) to undermine religion. He seizes every opportunity to snipe at religion, for example stating that the terrorist atrocities of 9-11 were proof that any and all religion is a bad idea (“...11th September...revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense...”), even though it is only a minority amongst the religions that support such horrendous acts of violence. In his 1991 essay, “Viruses of the Mind”, Professor Dawkins claims that religions, especially those based on faith (i.e. belief that is non-evident), are among the world’s great evils. He also compares religion to the smallpox virus (Variola vera) – estimated to have caused around 400 million deaths – the only difference being that religion is harder to eradicate (the World Health Organisation certifies the eradication of V. vera in 1979).
Yet this man describes himself as a ‘cultural Christian’, on account of spending the majority of his life in England and the USA, which can quite confidently be described as ‘Christian countries’. This man, who attacks, ridicules and vilifies religion at every turn, was the subject of (in his own words) “...a normal, Anglican upbringing...”. This means that Professor Dawkins was involved with religion, and still is by identifying himself as even a cultural Christian. Christian influences will still ring true in his life, as Western cultures (and hence cultural Christianity) are, by and large, influenced by Christianity.
What right would this man have to write on religious history? Would it not be fair to say that he would have no more right – and should have no more right – than a religious individual to write on religious history? Is it not true that he would display – however unintentionally, or otherwise – an equally subjective and opinionated point of view as a religious individual?
A case in point is the suppression of any and all forms of religion during the Marxist-Leninist Stalinist regime in Russia and the USSR. During the period between 1922 and the death of Stalin in 1953, all religions were actively oppressed by the state, with the ultimate goal being the eventual suppression of all religion in Russia and the USSR. The religious oppression restarted in 1957, under Brezhnev, and continued until the mid-1970s.
This irreligious (specifically atheist) suppression of religion shows that the irreligious can show an enormous bias against religion – occasionally even going as far as happened in Russia, with the murder of almost 50 Russian Orthodox bishops, and nearly 2,000 Russian Orthodox priests.
These points all contribute to the opinion that an irreligious historian – however unbiased towards, unjudgemental towards or unallied with religion they may be, or claim to be – has no more, nor any less, right to write on religious history. Their account could be said to be no more, nor any less, right than any written by a religious individual.
However, what of religion’s – ANY religion’s – belief that only that particular God (by any name), gods (however many), or even just its beliefs (if it has no gods) are the only genuine ones?
Christianity’s stance against non-Christians has historically been shown to have been intolerant, to say the least. From the Jews’ confinement to the ghettoes of Elizabethan England, to the merciless slaughter of thousands of captured ‘heathen’ Saracens during the Crusades, to the blinkered torture, mutilation and execution – by various imaginative means – of the Cathars (and not a few ‘tainted’ Christians) during the Albigensian Crusade, to the oppression and militaristic brutality towards South Americans by the Spanish Conquistadores in the 16th and 17th centuries. Massacres – some on such a scale that the label ‘genocide’ may perhaps be a more accurate one – have often been carried out by Christians. Srebrenica is a perfect example – the barbarous slaying on 8,000 (officially, although the true figure is believed to be much higher) Bosnian Muslim males of all ages by soldiers of the Bosnian-Serb army. This was the army of an Orthodox Christian nation.
Another unarguably more famous instance of genocide was the Holocaust – the calculated, cold-blooded and industrial slaughter of over 6,000,000 Jews at the hands of the Nazi regime. Germany was (and still is) a constitutionally Christian country.
Less widely known is the fact that around 500,000 homosexuals, astrologers, gypsies, philosophers and Russian Orthodox priests were also murdered. Even less widely know than that is the fact that these killings were all but blessed by the then Pope Pius XII. To say that his Holiness was in collusion with Hitler and his Nazis over the matter of these killings would be extremely unjust. However, what would be true to say would be that Pius was well aware of these killings, yet did nothing to attempt to stop them – not even to chastise the perpetrators.
An example of more intricate and intimate conflict is the one in Northern Ireland. This is ultimately a conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism – both branches of Christianity – over the ownership of Northern Ireland. Although having developed to be a political struggle, which stemmed from the invasion of (Catholic) Ireland by (Protestant [Puritan]) Oliver Cromwell, the conflict started earlier, with clashes between Protestantism and Catholicism. The political allegiances of individuals was remarkable in that one set of political ideals seemed to sit perfectly with the religious ideals of the Protestants, and another with the religious ideals of the Catholics. Indeed, it would not be wrong to say that each set of political ideologies was shaped and influenced first and foremost by religion. The political battlefield was merely an extension of the religious conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism.
This aside, the important question is this – could an historical account of Catholicism written by a Protestant be trusted? Equally, could an historical account of Protestantism by a Catholic be trusted? Another facet of this point is as follows – would an historical account of Catholicism written by a Catholic be reliable? Would an historical account of Protestantism written by a Protestant be reliable?
The simple answer is no. Each branch of Christianity would seek to glorify their own achievements, and vilify the other’s, even to the extent of lying – whether about their own religion, or the other.
Another scenario is the Israeli/Arab conflict, which is ongoing to this day. The same questions may be asked of these two religions as may be asked of Protestantism and Catholicism – namely, would any religious history of one or the other, written by one or the other, be reliable?
Again, the simple answer is no. Each religion is at the other’s throat, and would seize the opportunity to aggrandise their own beliefs, whilst seeking to cast aspersions on the other’s.
Taking this matter to the next level, we must attempt to envisage what opinions religious figureheads would have of other religions.
Would the man now known as Jesus Christ – repeatedly implied to have been the ‘King of the Jews’ – give an unbiased account of Christianity’s history, were he alive today? Could he be trusted to give unbiased historical accounts of other religions, such as Zoroastrianism (a Persian, transcendental, pseudo-philosophical religion), Jainism (an Indian, pacifist, philosophical religion) or Islam – perceived as modern Christianity’s greatest ‘foe’?
Islam and Christianity are constantly at loggerheads with each other. Each attempts to influence, outmanoeuvre and – ultimately – cease the other’s existence, whether by religious activism, philosophical debate, or even military action.
By the same token as Jesus’ bias, would it not also be justifiable to suppose that Islam’s greatest prophet, Muhammad, would also be biased towards other religions? Might he not attempt to emphasise the negative aspects of the history of, for example, animism (the belief that souls exist not only in humans, but also in animals, plants, thunder etc.), whilst extolling the virtues and glories of Islam?
To focus solely on Abrahamic figureheads would be entirely unjust. Siddhattha Gotama (Buddhism), Guru Nanak (Sikhism) and Pantojali (author of “Yoga Sutras”, an important Hindu text) might also be susceptible to the same bias. This shows, as do the preciously listed points, that the religious would be incapable of writing a wholly unbiased account of their own religion, nor of any other, and would therefore have no more – nor less – right than the irreligious to be the sole writers of religious history.
An interesting topic is that of Saloth Sar.
A Communist Cambodian politician – latterly warlord and dictator – he raised a Communist army called the Khmer Rouge (“Red Khmer [the name for ethnic Cambodians]), and took control of Cambodia in a series of conflicts with the Cambodian government, culminating in the capture of Phnom Penh, Cambodia’s Capital, by the Khmer Rouge on April 17th, 1975. Saloth Sar took the nome de guerre Pol Pot (from Politique Potentielle [Political Potential] – a phrase used to describe him by the Chinese leadership). He became “Citizen No. 1”, renamed Cambodia “Democratic Kampuchea”, and ‘reset’ the calendar to “Year Zero”.
Aside from these things, proscriptions were widespread. Among those listed to be killed were academics (lawyers, doctors, etc.), those who wore spectacles (perceived as a sign of intelligence, which the State found threatening) and the religious, specifically religious personnel such as priests.
Even though Pol Pot had been raised in a country which was (and still is) predominantly Buddhist (90% + being Buddhists of one form or another) community and country, he followed few – if any – of the tenets of the Buddhist faith. Chief amongst these are pacifism, and the belief that to harm a person or thing is a fundamentally bad thing. He culled Christians, Muslims, Hindus and the aforementioned Buddhists alike, and with equal aplomb.
Would this man have been a trustworthy documenter of religious history? Would he not have merely stated that they were each as false as the others, without in fact bothering to research them, or to present different aspects of the different religions in a fair, unbiased way?
Yet again, the simple answer is no, even though the man was a combination of religious and antireligious sentiments. He meditated, and apparently prayed to Buddha at times, and yet felt not a hint of remorse or guilt when ordering the deaths of members of the priesthood – educated “enemies of the State”.
Such a paradoxical man would not be a reliable source, and therefore would have no more right – nor any less – than any of the irreligious, nor any of the religious, to write on religious history, simply because he did not truly care for, nor about, religion.
In conclusion, it is impossible to state that the history of religion should only be written by the irreligious. Equally as impossible to state is that the history of religion should only be written by the religious. Neither is it possible to state that the history of religion should only be written by paradoxical individuals such as Saloth Sar (Pol Pot).
None are free of bias. None are free of prejudice. None are free of opinion.
Without opinion, the presentation of cold, hard fact would be unimaginably dull. Debate – whether moral, historical or philosophical – is one of the most stimulating things to human minds, and it may be true to say that without opinion we would not necessarily be human.
Therefore, the only truly accurate way of compiling a religious history would be to combine the writings of the irreligious, the religious and the paradoxical, and to form that most important of things from the facts as they are presented from all different angles and perspectives – a personal opinion.
