The Worst of Your Tradition: Own It!

The Worst of Your Tradition: Own It! May 10, 2014

I remember having a back-and-forth with a Christian about the violence historically committed by Christians: the early persecution of heretics, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the European “Wars of Religion,” slavery in the Americas, up to the bombings of abortion clinics and the killing of doctors who perform abortions.  His response, which has stuck with me to this day, was “don’t compare the best of your tradition with the worst of mine.”  This comment really made me think.  He was not exempting “Christianity” from its cruel past.  He did not say, “well, they were not actual Christians,” or “that was not Christianity, it was culture and politics.”

What his statement reveals (regardless of how you view the word “tradition”) is a willingness to look at one’s social group and not try to sanitize it with excuses.  It’s a courageous acceptance of the evils that can, and do, exist in every social group.  And for all of our personal investments in making the groups we are a part of look moral and healthy, this ownership and admission was surprisingly disarming.

No True Scotsman

Usually, when someone brings up an evil enacted by a member of group x, self-identifying members of group x will say “he was not really a member of our group, which is obvious, because no member of our group could do such a thing.”  This escapism, justified under the fear of caricature, is a way of avoiding the fact that maybe, just maybe, someone can be motivated by your views to do evil.  There certainly is a place to say “that is not what I think my group is about”–but to assume some lofty and essential view of your tradition that always escapes indictment, is to miss the fact that our groups and ideas are, as Nietzsche might say, “human, all too human.”

“In the Name of”

Many self-identified members of one of my social groups, atheists, like to bring up the fact that Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, may have been atheists, but they did not enact their evils “in the name of” atheism.  This is supposed to be juxtaposed with religious persons who do these evils “in the name of” their religion.  Although I think there is something to this–insofar as I think it would be easier to justify sacrificing your child by pointing to Genesis 22 than by pointing to Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian”–I cannot help but recoil at the notion that there are clearly delineated, almost perspicuous, groups, to commit something “in the name of.”  There are hodge-podges and clusters of similar and related groups, connected closely enough to be discernible, but not monolithic by any means.  Just as there are multiple competing atheisms, there are also multiple competing Christianities, Islams, and Judaisms.  Similarly, one member of a group does not represent what the group does.  Sam Harris does not represent all atheists, Pope Benedict XVI did not represent all Catholics, and the Dalai Lama does not represent all Buddhists.

Generalizing and the Problem of Induction 

Since there are many varieties and forms which ideologies can take, we know the importance of not generalizing and committing the inductive fallacy.  Hume rightly pointed out the unease by which people go from particulars to generals.  For instance, not all Irishmen are drunkards, not all Hindus are violent, not all Christians are irrational, and not all atheists are pretentious.  Even though some Irishmen are drunkards, some Hindus are violent, some Christians are irrational, and some atheists are pretentious, it does not follow that “most” or “all” of them are.  This is why it is always important to qualify and particularize your criticisms.  Such as, this person, at this time, identifying as this, committed x.  How we want to extrapolate or interpret this particular involves a lot of nuance and sophistication.  This does not, however, exempt every person or ideology from critique.

So while it is important to be watchful and diligent in our critiques, it does not follow that our groups are always exempt from criticism.  Let’s not let our investments in our groups create an idol of our group.  We can admit that some people do horrible things with our beliefs and that there is such a thing as “the worst of our tradition.”  

"Church is boring. It should lose its tax breaks."

The Embodiment of God (Fast of ..."
"This was an awesome post! It really gave me a new perspective on relationships and ..."

Loss and Redemption in Relationships

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • First off, let me say that if we are honest, we are ALL agnostics. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY not even Richard Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson would state that they know FOR SURE that there is no god or gods.
    The problem is not belief or disbelief per se. The real problem is religions competing with each other to promote their personal interpretation of their way being the right way, and their attempts to impose the theirs on the all.
    Arguing over which religion or non religion is the right or true religion is a distraction. It’s fine to have these discussions among competing religions on one level, but they are a distraction from the REAL problem.
    Now, referring to this article, yes, there are bad guys and gals and good guys and gals in all systems of beliefs.
    The really REALLY important issue is political. Yes, POLITICAL.
    This is precisely why we must have a separation between church and state.

    • John Thomas

      Ever heard of Pascal’s Wager? He argued that no one’s REALLY agnostic, that all choose either atheism or belief…

  • One more thing. There is a legitimate place for debates between religionists and between religionists and non religionists. However, these debates should not enter into the political discourse about whether or not religionists should control our government. The separation between church and state is the best solution for all of us.

    • John Thomas

      yes, but what does that mean? Let’s say there’s a social justice rally, 90% of the protesters welcome a pastor saying a prayer, 10% don’t want it… who wins? Granted, this is more of a public sphere issue than governmental issue, but the same can apply to free speech plazas at universities (can you limit free speech at a public university?)