Hi hartreefoch -
Fantastic article. Very insightful as far as I can see - definitely want to get a hold of this guy's book...
I particularly like what he is saying about society being held hostage by a 2,000 yr-old concept of morality vs. us actually trying to take responsibility for morality now and attempting to define its parameters in the present. Oh, but that would be too scary now wouldn't it? It would be too grown-up. The interviewer really hit the nail on the head with the question about people preferring self-deception to despair and chaos - of course people want to be told what to do. We're all sheep! (why do fascists always get as far as they do each time around?) And if one thing gets good persuasive PR for a long enough time (the guilt and fear-inducing type always seems to work best though), it suddenly becomes Unquestionable Truth. (no matter whether it's supposedly dictated to us by a God or a "Fuehrer")
For me it is summed up when he says "People have morally identified with a subset of humanity rather than with humanity as a whole". Don't individual religions get it that all they're doing is setting themselves up for a (distinctively human and unevolved) fight with other religions about whose fairy-tale is better?
To be honest, it's the pinch of salt stuff that really pisses me off though - possibly due to the fact that it represents the greatest inconsistency. I can almost relate more to someone who will absolutely take this or that religious text for absolute truth, word for word, than some (nonethess self-righteous) god-fearer who has decided to, as the interviewee neatly terms it, "cherry-pick" the bits of say, the Bible, that suit him and/or his particular church grouping's particular sensitivities best. It's incredible that such a cherry-picker can still, with no conceivable conscience or sense of irony, go on to condemn others (whether Christian or otherwise) who don't conform to his particular religious viewpoint . Particularly given that the main argument he uses is that the religious "word" he preaches has come directly from God - ie untainted by human corruption. Now, was that before or after you decided which bits of the Bible you liked and which you didn't, Mr Cherry-Picker?
The mixing of religion with politics that is also touched on in the interview is equally unnerving. John Ashcroft is a fantastic case in point, by the way - cats are the instrument of the devil? Let's put that man in charge! (thankfully this guy is no longer one of Bush's cronies. But this man was actually in a position of power - in the 21st century - how safe does that make everyone feel? Don't know about you but, give me secular "chaos" any day.)
It would of course be great if leaders of countries could just stick to serving the interests of humanity, rather than to serving the various dogma of institutions who have succeeded in putting centuries of bloodshed behind them in the name of false Gods. (and the economic gods always seem to get top billing in most cases - whether those wolves are shrouded in religious sheep's clothing or not).
Or maybe I'm being too harsh. If a political leader receives a higher calling, who am I, other than a lowly, ignorant, heathen blasphemer, of course, to call any of it into question? How can I be so arrogant as to say that those voices in his head aren't the words of God?
What was that I was saying about secular "chaos"?!
best wishes
Ingrid
