Where DO we go from here?

IPS News Today:

Hundreds of worshippers watched in horror as the workers, mostly Muslims, brought down the roof, pushed down the walls and smashed the deities that immigrant Indian workers had brought with them from South India to provide solace in a strange new land.

Having witnessed the government-backed stupid and disgusting acts of the demolishing of Babri Mosque by Hindus in secular India and of the Bamiyaan statues by Muslims in Talibanized Afghanistan it comes as no surprise that progressive Malaysia is heading the same way with its recent temple-breaking. Nothing, it seems, will stem the tide of fanaticism.

Although we are often told that 'education' will put an end to all this (with more than a subtle hint at Western-style education being the only valid kind), most of the neo-Cons and the American Right-Wingers prove that even education received at the most prestigious of Universities can't keep bad men down. And it's not just bad men. Even fairly reasonable people, like blogger Svend White, commenting on this dastardly act, writes:

Let's be fair to the zealots. Their actions bear a certain surface similarity to the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) when he smashed the idols in the Kaaba upon his victorious return to Mecca. Of course, the context of the Prophet's actions were utterly, categorically different. For one thing, he was the divinely inspired Messenger of Allah. Then there's the fact that he was cleaning out the greatest of all shrines to God, a sanctuary built according to Islamic tradition by Abraham himself.

I am afraid I don't quite follow that line of reasoning. What is it about religious beliefs that incites such acts of madness? I believe it is the indoctrination of an unholy trinity of concepts that teach [a] we are right; [b] they are wrong; [c] as true believers it is our duty to save them from hell-fire (or consign them to it, if they disagree).

In some cases success in this venture offers an additional bonus in the afterlife. No logical or scientific approach can win over such ideas merely by putting out parallel tracts. The concepts, themselves, in their very basic assumptions, need to be challenged head-on! 'Moderate Enlightenment' certainly won't do it (Sorry, Mr President!) because it's a flawed concept.

Gautama Buddha said the only wars in which disputes are really settled is when both sides win. Now, think: If a non-believer on one side and a strong believer on the other are asked to become moderate, wouldn't that mean that the non-believer merely has to express personal tolerance for the other view (with qualifiers like 'agreeing to diasagree' and 'live and let live')? While the believer needs to shift from a stance that is not merely personal but Divinely Ordained. He not only finds no justification for doing so, after his accepting the three points made above, but also risks a terrible afterlife. And, in any case, how long will the 'tolerance' of either party last when the other's interpretation of this truce develops scope-creep?

Sam Harris's The End of Faith provides an interesting point of view; and Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) makes a fascinating comment via his fast-paced The Religion War, for readers of lighter books — a category that could exclude English Lit Majors ;-)