I play soccer every Sunday. It is great. How can you argue with a game in which western Europeans and the rest of the world (the poor lot) interact, and the Americans do not make the rules? In addition, soccer helps me to control my ever-growing belly, which, as a concept, is essential for any serious academic, but should be controlled nevertheless.
Last Sunday, during this soccer game, I met a Colombian Evangelical Pastor. He was a great person –he shared his orange juice with me. He was also a smart fellow, graduated from Harvard and worked in several places in the world to help the poor. We had a very interesting conversation. I told him that I am very uncomfortable with the religious exclusion, which, I added, many ‘organized religions’ do. I exemplify my argument by telling him about the different sects of Islam in Turkey , almost all of which ideologically urge conflict with other Islamic communities. In an attempt to prove that unity can be reached through ‘truth’, my new friend told me about his brother in-law, a messianic Jew. Apparently, this person believes that the Muslim people (i.e. Palestinians) and Jewish people (i.e. Israelis) can only find peace if they both start to praise Jesus, the son of God. I do not know if my Pastor friend actually believed in his brother’s idea, I assume he does. Nevertheless, the messianic idea is completely irrational (not even mentioning the impracticability). It is irrational because the people define themselves as Muslims or Jewish or Messianic Jews, by excluding themselves from the other religions. All religions, almost by definition, dictate that they are the ‘real’ ones. In addition, in retrospect, Messianic Jews are Jews, who separated themselves from the greater Jewish body in the first place. Thus, there is no rational (or empirical) basis for why believing Jesus will bring peace to anybody.
We also talked about his church, which apparently is a growing evangelical organization in poor quarters of North Philadelphia . It was good, almost relieving, to hear about the church’s local projects for controlling and coping with violent crimes, helping poor and homeless, and, seemingly, creating a dependable community for our neglected neighbors. However, still, something was wrong in the subtext of his excitement, something about the repetition of “Jesus Christ, the son of God”, and the constant emphasis on the “differences” with other “churches” and “Islamic faith”. Most disturbing, nevertheless, was his vehemence on “Justice”, a justice for “cleansing our sins,” a justice “higher than the law of men.” My pastor friend created and recreated himself in front of my eyes, first as a man of great virtue and compassion for other humans, and then, as an irrational man who believes in sins and vengeance more than anything else. It is another situation where I encountered great practice, with an ideology that I cannot possibly relate.
I agree with him that we are weak, we are all prone to great wrongdoings, and we are only human, after all. I agree with him that there is great suffering and injustice on this earth, which has to be challenged bit by bit, day after day, without giving up hope. However, without reason, we, the weak humans, are lost in a sea of conflicting, exclusive, and manipulative ideologies. Worst of all, nowadays, these ideologies are generally embedded in a corrupt, power-hungry, and extremely politicized hierarchical global networks. Even though, my pastor friend does actually help to fight injustice in the local level (I am not sure about how successful he is, I just hope), on the ideological level, I think, he serves to create more conflicts and more injustice.
My point here is very simple. I think reason should harness all ideologies. I cannot see how a democratic civil society can function without institutions based on reason and, more importantly, individuals who have the “capability” (a la Sen 1984) to reason. Of course, in our world of Jihads, Crusades and Intelligent Design, it is hard to say that reason is very dominant. I am deeply worried.
Posts
