 |
Search this site |
 All Rights Reserved World Copyright supporting advertisers helps to provide an income for this website this page last updated August 7, 2008 |
This website is being renovated throughout 2008. Pages and the content of pages will continue to change until the end of the year and there may be some inconsistencies and missing links. Please do not quote from or link to specific pages (apart from the home page) without contacting the webmaster first. Fragile egos Faith and power By © Martin Foreman Word Count: 799 words Publication date: January 29, 2006 I was back in Scotland, the land of my birth, recently, and found myself watching a two-part television program hosted by Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor who is becoming the world’s foremost voice of reason. Dawkins’ thesis, which most rationalists share, was that religion leads to ignorance and hatred. He tried to cram too much into ninety-five minutes, but he made a strong case, aided to a great extent by those whom he interviewed. The star witnesses were Ted Haggard of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and Yousef Al-Khattab, who was raised a Jew in New York and new lives as a Muslim convert in Jerusalem. Haggard’s eyes blazed and his mouth was stiff with hostility as he glared at Dawkins, while making the preposterous claim that the Bible did not contradict itself. Shortly afterwards, although he had agreed to the interview, he had Dawkins and his film crew thrown off church property, apparently claiming that Dawkins had called “his children” “animals”. Al-Khattab, meanwhile, appeared to be obsessed by sex and to have a fixation with women, focusing not on their strengths as mothers, housewives and leaders of nations, but as bare-breasted sirens on television. No emotion showed on his face but hatred (his word) and anger as he was driven by the need to impose his answers on others rather than listen to their questions and opinions. Haggard and Al-Khattab are not the only faces of faith. Dawkins interviewed several other believers in the US and the UK who engaged in conversation rather than diatribe and who offered respect rather than vitriol. Unfortunately, however, it is the Haggards and Al-Khattabs who drive fundamentalist religion - men driven by a need to dominate and control all those around them (Haggard’s “my children”; Al-Khattab’s “your women”). Watch or listen to any successful televangelist. The style and the specifics of the message changes, but all they share a common denominator – a desire for power. In some cases the ambition is modest and power need stretch no further than a small congregation offering bowed heads and a full collection box – a collection box which can be converted into a comfortable house and fast car or impressive SUV. Sometimes the preacher’s ego is best satisfied with sexual gratification. Many congregations offer a regular supply of lonely women who are easily convinced that God blesses their coupling. Jesus was unfortunately reputed to be celibate, but King David offers a convenient example of a man of God who required many women. Or the lust for power may only be satisfied by a national stage from which to sermonize. Hence the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world – men whose limited intelligence lies buried safely deep below the image of authority they project. None of these men are worthy of much respect. As Dawkins pointed out, the true hero is not the man or woman who sticks to his beliefs in the teeth of all evidence, but the individual whose strong core and sense of self allows them to listen to others and to welcome arguments that may change their opinion of the world. Anger, arrogance and the lust for power, however they are displayed are usually the flipside of insecurity. People who are truly sure of their ground and at ease with themselves are seldom bothered by strong negative emotions. It is the man or woman who is least convinced of what they are saying who needs to say it loudest. This phenomenon of attack as the best method of defense is not restricted to religious preachers. Bill O’Reilly’s outburst on Fox News last year that Al Qaeda was welcome to blow up San Francisco and Ann Coulter’s logorrhea of intemperate remarks are evidence not of the strength, but the weakness of their position. Of course this is not a right-wing phenomenon. Al Sharpton and British MP George Galloway are as likely to indulge in posturing as in principles. Even Michael Moore is prone to destroying good arguments with his hyperbole. Despite all their noise and bravado, at heart the Haggards, Coulters and Sharptons of the world are children who have not grown up. They are surrounded by a world which they do not like and, in the innermost depths of their being, a world which they fear. So they build walls around their fragile egos and are constantly on the attack, only letting down their guard in that magic moment when they are on the stage or in the pulpit and all eyes are upon them in adulation. In an ideal world we would feel sorry for them. We would listen to their absurdities for a few minutes and walk away. In reality, however, we give them the power that they crave and they abuse it. We have only ourselves to blame.
Custom Search
|
If God existed, he would... admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create recognize that eternity is meaningless deny both heaven and hell disown all men and women who speak in his name denounce the harm caused by religious "morality" help the human race to thrive without him If God existed, he would be an atheist. |