[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on religion and the ethics of war

[Morton K. Brussel]

Dawkins is no more arrogant then Chomsky, from my readings of the two.  
It's quite amusing to hear Chomsky talk of the arrogance of Dawkins et  
al. And who are the "New Atheists", a club? Are they associated with  
the "New Humanists" ?

Chomsky is picking and choosing his examples, to no compelling effect….

--mkb

On Oct 26, 2009, at 12:18 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> 	Chomsky on religion and the ethics of war
> 	William Crawley | 13:40 UK time, Sunday, 25 October 2009
>
> "I don't join the New Atheists. So, for example, I wouldn't have the  
> arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in  
> heaven -- that's none of my business ultimately. I won't lecture her  
> on the philosophy of science."
>
> That's how Noam Chomsky responded today, during our conversation  
> about politics and religion. While Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens  
> challenge the claim that religion has made any constructive  
> contribution to the world, Chomshy lauded the sacrificial work of  
> the murdered Archbishop Oscar Romero and the social critique of  
> liberationist theology.
>
> When I asked him for contemporary examples of religion making a  
> positive contribution, he told me this: "The Catholic Bishops  
> Conference in the United States comes out with statements that are  
> so progressive that the press won't report them. The Pope's new year  
> messages are often not reported because they would be considered so  
> far 'to the left' (whatever that means in the US spectrum)."
>
> Though himself an atheist or agnostic, Chomsky opposed both the tone  
> and the focus of the new atheist movement. Here's another excerpt  
> from today's interview:
>
> Chomsky: "I'm not impressed with it, frankly. And I don't think they  
> address the concerns, feelings and commitments of seriously  
> religious people. Yes, they do address the concerns of people who  
> think the world was created ten thousand years ago, but they're not  
> going to listen to these arguments -- not in the arrogant form in  
> which they are presented. Discourse is possible. And if people want  
> to believe in, say, a future life, or a divine figure, that's their  
> right. What does bother me much more is, for example, reading  
> publications from the Hoover Institute at Stanford University which  
> describe Ronald Reagan, their divinity, as a 'colossus' striding  
> over the country whose spirit looks over us like a loving ghost.
>
> Crawley: "Good Lord."
>
> Chomsky: "Yeah, I'm almost literally quoting. When secular figures  
> are turned into divinities, they way they are in Peian Yang or  
> Stanford University -- that I don't like."
>
> We also talked about pacifism and the justification of war. Noam  
> Chomsky denied that he was a complete pacifist. He supported the  
> Allied military response to Hitler, and when pressed he accepted  
> that the British intervention in Sierra Leone was justified. But, in  
> general, he said, the case for war is a very hard sell, and  
> governments turn to military action much too easily, without fully  
> exhausting peaceful means.
>
> Noam Chomsky was speaking to me, ahead of his visit to Belfast next  
> week. He'll be giving this year's Amnesty International Lecture on  
> Friday evening. That event has been sold out for quite some time,  
> but the lecture and audience event will eventually be screened  
> online on the Amnesty website.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/10/chomsky_on_religion_and_the_et.html
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss