Saturday 1 November 2014

Intolerance + Why Religion Is Not (Completely) To Blame

Well, there goes my good mood. According to a bit of news circulating metal sites at the minute, a Christian zealot in Oklahoma has murdered a fellow student at his university under the belief that he was practising witchcraft...and the victim was noted for being a metal fan.

Oh, for the love of...you know, this kind of thing makes me question my already limited faith in humanity, because it showcases idiocy on a level so ridiculous that it's just staggering to believe that people can make leaps of logic like that and not even think to check their facts. I'm only not angry at the minute because I'm too incredulous to want to yell about this in the slightest!

First of all, let me spell this out VERY clearly, for the benefit of anyone reading this who is under the belief that metal music is Satanic, occult or anything like that: metal music is NOT connected to witchcraft in the slightest and, while there are musicians who play metal music who are Satanic or practise witchcraft, most metal musicians who have those themes in their music do not actually believe them and are merely using them in the same way that most horror films use Satanic imagery. In fact, there is this thing called Christian metal which you will want to go look up, because it is not only a very real thing, but (dare I say it?) it is actually a very enjoyable thing to listen to! If you're wanting to say that Black Sabbath were Satanic, then I'm going to have to inform you that they chose their name from the title of a horror movie and opted to include the Satanic themes because they wanted to produce music in the vein of horror movies in that they were INTENDED to be scary, but the members didn't actually believe in that kind of thing at all! Metal music, to most people, is just that: music. Most people don't listen to it because they're looking for occult themes and most people who DO find occult themes in the music just shrug it off because it's not a big deal for them. Oh, it's OK for Christians when it's THEIR deity being praised in music, but put another deity in music, even when it's not being done out of actual belief, and suddenly you have to draw a line to protect the minds of young and innocent children? Doesn't that seem more than a tad hypocritical, when put like that?

...Sorry, I think the anger's setting in now.

But let us step aside from the religious debate for a few minutes and boil this down to the basics: a man has murdered another man who had done nothing to him or represented any threat to society simply because he disagreed with the other man's choice of lifestyle. In fact, the man apparently attempted to decapitate his victim...and he clearly showed no remorse for his actions, as he called the police on himself to tell them what he'd done and, when they arrived, admitted what he'd done. No matter what your views on the victim's choice of lifestyle, that is truly sickening behaviour that cannot be justified, and, on moral reasons alone, I would be condemning this man's behaviour as indefensible. All other factors just make this situation worse, for it brings together two groups of people who rarely get along: metal fans, who will be sickened at a disgusting attack on one of their own by those who have constantly tried to repress their style of music without actually understanding it, and Christians, who have the misfortune of having to be associated with the man who committed this murder in the eyes of those who look on this event with any interest.

But I am not going to condemn the Christian zealots just for being connected to this murder through the actions of the killer, as much as I would personally love to tear them a new one for various reasons unconnected to this event. What I am going to do is try to look at why it would be completely unfair to pin the blame for this murder purely on the killer's fanatical faith in Christianity and, instead, try to come up with a mature take on this event that is fair to both sides.

I am no fan of Christianity as a religion. In fact, if I'm totally honest, I find the power the religion holds over so many places in the Western world to be concerning, as it effectively means that it is difficult at best to press through legislation that would arguably be better for allowing people to live their lives how they want to without having to face a bunch of fanatics who are convinced that anything which is against the Bible is an attempt to repress their religion. For me, the world should not bow to the whims of one religion, but should instead be open to allowing everyone to live their lives how they want to...within reason, of course, as I do not think that this means that laws which prevent immoral actions like rape and murder should be abolished merely for the sake of allowing people to choose their way of living.

But, as shocking as this might sound in light of my previous paragraph, I do have to feel sorry for the sensible Christians out there, as you have to be lumped with a bunch of intolerant jerks who are using your religion as an excuse to get their way. I am not religious myself, but I do recognise that there is a benefit to religion on an individual level that most people who are not religious rarely tend to consider: it can be a comfort to feel that there is someone out there who is listening to you when you need help and can help you when times are tough. While I do not believe there is actually someone out there (I've been through enough crap in my time to be convinced that, if there is a God out there, he's not been listening to me at all!), I do recognise that the feeling of having someone who is always there is a great comfort in tough times, and a person who is always out there and listening to you can be really reassuring, as, if you're feeling at your worst and are on your own, having that can help you pull through when not having that might make you give up. This seems to be why people who go through tough times seem to find religion.

What this man did are actions that I would argue are not the actions of a sane man, regardless of his religious beliefs. No sane man would take a sword, kill a man and then call the police on himself just to admit that he did it. So I feel that pinning the blame purely on Christianity is missing the true problem behind this man's actions: this man is a man who would have been a danger to society even if religion had had no part in his life. His religious fanaticism might have been a factor towards committing the acts he did, but they are ultimately only a factor that pushed him towards committed the acts he did. He was also, allegedly, a heavy user of drugs (which, ironically, I suspect is something that Christianity itself would frown upon, but I would welcome anyone who is knowledgable of the Bible who can confirm or deny that), which could have messed him up far more than religion would have done. And his brother confirmed that he was watching videos which conformed to his own religious beliefs, which indicates that he was not likely to be a man who was willing to accept people with a religion different from his own.

In other words, this is a man who, had he not been religious, would have probably still gone on to be dangerous to society, as he would have been willing to kill someone merely for having an opinion which was not his own. Even if I am wrong (which, I accept, I could be), I think that saying that the root of the problem is Christianity is neglecting to spot two dangerous factors which could have had just as much importance to making him commit the acts he did. I do not deny that religion would have had a part in making this man commit the acts he did, but they would not have been the only factor, and the problem is that both factors showcase intolerance from the killer towards the victim: intolerance of the victim's difference in religion from the killer's own, intolerance to anyone who did not share his opinion and, arguably, intolerance of the fact that heavy drug use can be VERY damaging towards your mind.

I do not intend this article to claim that religion is not dangerous: I am mistrustful of organised religion because the hold it can have over people can be very dangerous when used for ill. However, I refuse to accept that religion can become dangerous through one person on their own UNLESS they have an ulterior motive, ranging from simply being an unpleasant person in general through to using it to hide the real reasons behind their actions. It's VERY easy to blame religion due to it being the most noticeable thing for most people, but it is rare that the ONLY reason someone does something horrific is purely down to religion itself: there are other reasons that can be completely missed due to how easy it is to spot religion over the other factors.

Let us not condemn Christianity just because the killer was Christian. Let us, instead, look at every reason the killer could have had for committed the acts he did and condemn those actions, not just the one that immediately stands out. Because, by doing that, are we not showing ourselves just as intolerant as the killer himself for leaping onto the obvious reason and treating that as the only possible reason he committed the acts he did?

No comments:

Post a Comment