Marlon James
MOST RECENT BLOG POST [View All Posts]
Sunday, May 4, 2008 9:41AM
Do You Believe?
Daydream Unbelievers:
Put four people in a room to talk about God (or lack thereof) and sparks are bound to fly. Throw in an audience of New Yorkers who sometimes think they’re panelists themselves and you end up with a call and response which resembles, oddly enough, church. Saturday’s Panel, “Do You Believe?” was a discussion on the values and beliefs that we hold in the privacy of our own hearts whether or not they are projected into the larger world. Man is what he believes, said Chekov. So it seemed off-putting at first that all but one of the panelists believed in any form of God (and he was the moderator). Nothing makes for a stilted conversation than everybody agreeing on the same point, but this was anything but stilted, in fact it was the liveliest panel I’ve been to so far, if for nothing else, because even an absolute belief in no God is nowhere as absolute as one might think.
All the panelists came from strong religious backgrounds. Rebecca Goldstein, spoke about how her Orthodox Jewish background, and strict observation of religion left her with never actually feeling God. Elias Khoury, raised in a Christian family began doubting God from as early as 14, “it was so absurd, belief was as valid as non belief,” he said. But even after losing God he still went searching for religion; swapping one ism (Deism) for another (Marxism) until that religion failed him as well. Antonio Munoz Molina, because of his upbringing in Franco’s Spain, grew to associate religion, in particular Catholicism with politics, nationalism and even repression. To him being a Catholic was one with being Spaniard, in fact a Spaniard was “being a catholic twice.” The church existed hand in hand with dictatorship and the church controlled school. When Molina turned 14 and started rebelling against authority, he found himself rebelling against religion itself.
It was left up to moderator, Antonio Monda to speak up for believers but he was often overwhelmed (and pleased to be I might add) that these panelists had so much to say. For all their non-belief, they still seemed stunned by the persistence of religion itself, well at Molina did, and he admitted it. He raised several crucial points, including the fact that most of the art that civil society still appreciates was created for a specific Christian purpose. And that it was still open question as to what is it in us that we’re still moved by “holy” works even though we do not believe.
Goldstein realized that she was pushing herself away not just from the religious aspects of Judaism but the social culture itself, when her growing sense of consciousness and empowerment clashed with the overwhelming sense of powerlessness that seemed to be the foundation of Jewishness, at least in her family. Becoming a stronger woman seemed to mean becoming a weaker Jew and a break from this was tantamount to a break from family itself. Khoury, who sometimes sounded as if launching into a jeremiad until he broke into a smile or twisted his words into a joke, insisted that there must be one standard, a secularist standard by which all religions should be held equal. Not only should church be separated from state but also be from civil society. To his credit, Khoury refused to distinguish between the three religions being discussed, reminding the audience “Allah” was a Syrian, and Lebanese translation of the Hebrew Elohim, meaning God. All three religions came from Abraham and all prayed to the same God. A Jewish Moslem conflict was the conflict of brothers knowing full well they had the same father.
Credit Monda for remaining unbowed. He quoted Dostoevsky’s famous line in The Brothers Karamazov: “If God does not exist, then everything’s allowed,” throwing in the long standing, still running, never ending debate about religion’s role in shaping ethics and morality—if we really need God to tell us right from wrong. Goldstein jumped in first, offering that Plato had long answered this question. If God says do not kill, either he has a reason or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t then there is no reason to obey him, but if he does, then the reason exists outside of God and as such we only need the reason, not the God who’s offering it. Khoury while acknowledging Dostoevsky as his favourite author nonetheless twisted the sentence back on itself, arguing that it is because of religion why everything is allowed.
Molina wondered if there was something deep in our natures that makes us draw for religion in the first place. And whether that thing can be seduced by anything that offers absolutism, whether Christianity, Communism or Nazism. Is there a pathological need within us that religion too conveniently satisfies?
And that was just half of the discussion. To get the rest (and you really should) including Khoury’s brilliant deconstruction of the Cain and Abel story to reveal God’s own, perverse nature, you should try to get the podcast. It wasn’t a room full of religious people, but I did leave the room a believer. In what, I’m not sure now.
|
Readers & Writers Volunteer
Click here to learn more.
These are a few of my favourite links (Includ
|
