When Radio 5 Live presenter John Inverdale said his –now famous—lines about Wimbeldon winner Marion Bartoli, it was not just another case of Sexism as the media dubbed it so. It in fact reflects the new norms of fundamentalism in transition from the old ones. You really have to read the contents of social media in order to make it that it was not just a slip of tongue by the presenter. These are the new hardcore norms of our weird times.
There is probably no God and we are urged to stop worrying about it; we are even solicited to enjoy our life. However, in their effort to tackle religious fundamentalism, a certain section of atheists are laying down new rules of fundamentalism or they are in guise imitations of old fundamentalism. Let us start with a very basic thing: apparel. Very often Abrahamic religions especially Islam is criticized for its stand on feminine dressing in the public. It is now commonly acknowledged that Islam is ruthless and men force women to wear veil. But is it not the same stand which Islam or for the sake of universality any other religion took against the permissiveness of clothing? The idea being: to judge a person on his/her dress needs a very strange phenomenon to occur in our head; to rip apart a human being from his/her social context and place him in your own culture. That is to say—a situation of pure abstraction of human subtlety; the individual now is not an inextricable part of his/her social context but an object detachable, whenever needed. It is this same phenomenon that most religions used, that is, detach an individual from his roots and place in your own soil to judge him, project your bias on him. And is it not the same reasoning used by atheist today? The same fundamentalist ripping of Muslim women from their social context and placing them in their own environment! Such powerful is the tearing apart that even a defence by her seems to be a ventriloquist reply by a man behind. It is this development that makes it easy for both sides to predict who is free and who is not, who is forced and who is not. Can we not conclude the same for Marion Bartoli ? John Inverlade along with many on social media platforms used the same phenomenon to rip her from some other social dimensions, space and place her in their own “Cartesian system” as if she was an object detachable—a standard battery that would fit in any device. David Graeber in ‘Debt’ use the same phenomenon to describe what actually slavery warrants. Slavery is nothing but tearing apart of an individual from all that makes what he is and then expecting him to behave according to your norms. This was sometimes civilization for the primitive.
Tracing the same fundamental lines, one can almost see that certain contemporary atheists are no different from their theological adversaries. Just like a theist would apply ridiculous simplification and find every solution in religion, it seems that these atheists find every problem as a result of religion, its institutions and mandate. I think it is a clear hint of fanatic simplification. One such example is the inference that religion is a direct cause of economic conditions of different nations. They even have prepared elaborate maps marking nations, their advancement and linking them with religious beliefs. It’s not that there are just few fanatic individuals; even influential intellectuals advocate this. The debate of religion and atheism acquire center stage while history, debts, conquests are treated as if they are trivial or as if those who ruled for centuries all over the world have no advantage in governing over those who were their slaves. What is important is trivial; what is trivial is important. Politics for them as such is non-existent. It was all a simple game of religion from the start which we must end to set all things that have gone awry. And it is under this pretext demand of separating religion from state is raised, vindicating State and blaming Religion; the same male chauvinist idea that the defaulter in this marriage of religion and state is religion, as if, if state used religious violence as a tool then it is not the state which is at fault . Most of the time it is state or the aspiring state that instigate and manipulate religious violence. The problem is—as these atheists point out—with the religion that makes theist so much infuriated. However, the perpetrator should be absolved of all wrongs. There is neither a single word against state nor towards its abolition but religion must be annihilated. On the same pattern, Chetan Bhagat, though he never professes of being an atheist, suggest on the matter of Gujarat riots that we should introspect: introspection about what is in us that makes us such killers of each other. I agree that we should not be so short tempered but that does not mean that the other partner should stand vindicated as if the whole problem can be summarized in terms of fundamentalism. And this is what Richard Dawkins is propagating, vindicating the role of his nation, or precisely any state. State and religion should not mix; religion should vanish; state is absolved. We actually have a word for what state did when we were a colony—“divide and rule”. This is not for pointing specifics but when you blame one, you cannot absolve other. This is not observed by our “evolving nerd rebellious atheist”. Dawkins and Hitchens have done a lot for their supporters to get rid of “sky daddy” but at the same time both fail, in fact make them accept more jubilantly their “earthly daddy”. It is claimed by these naïve atheists that religion caused a great harm; it poisons everything. But I claim that markets, money and debts have done even greater destruction, of colossal magnitude even. Do we see the same hue and cry when they blame religion for poverty of a nation while at the same time enjoying the fruits of markets, debts and slave trade across the Atlantic? Do we see the poisoning of human morals when a father has to sell his own daughter to pay his debt? Do we see that “Money is not great” or “The Market delusion” when we passively accept the suicide of a farmer just because he could not obey the laws of debt and markets? I think such harms have become norms and fundamentals of “new fundamentalism”. They reject the concepts of afterlife and eternity. But do we not find the same concepts of eternity buried deeply when an atheist say—“I want to do something for humanity. I want my name to be remembered for generations.” Is it not the same concept of eternity when he prospectively imagine the retrospective admiration of posterity as if he will be present somewhere to even notice the gratitude?
They are the front runners of science and even speculate a “gay gene” to cater to the needs of their followers. However, they fail to guess a “faith gene” that might have afflicted so many people. I would be glad to know what evolutionary purpose has been reserved by Mr. Dawkins for a homosexual couple. But before you call me homophobic, you definitely need to answer scientifically your own prejudices. Is it not that sometimes one scientific field place us directly stand against another? Is it not that when we are mad to comfort our body through scientific inventions, we are actually getting weak—decreasing our evolutionary strength? Though we know what both sciences mean, we are guilty of new fundamentalism by simply propagating the persona of nerdy atheist. You already know that you have unintentionally reached the peak of fundamentalism when you start believing everything with the subtext—“a new study by scientists shows”.
No comments:
Post a Comment