A Second Hand Conjecture

The recent firestorm over the Foley controversy convinced me to postpone my previous idea for Friday’s post (the doctrinal differences affecting relations between different Christian sects and Islam) and instead post something of more immediate concern. The issue I would like to raise is religious hypocrisy. Before everyone rolls their eyes and thinks that this will be nothing more than a (insert name of favorite religion)-bashing post, I assure you that is not my intent. Instead, I would like to examine exactly what constitutes religious hypocrisy, who some of the more prominent guilty parties are, and how we are dealing with it.

Let’s start with a basic definition of religious hypocrisy. I think we can probably all agree on the definition of religion. If not, here’s what I’ve come up with from the American Heritage dictionary, “A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. ” I think that is a relatively good definition, perhaps a bit vague, but adequate for our purposes. Now, the definition of hypocrisy, “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness,” same source. In the particular discussion of religious hypocrisy, I do not intend to address gray areas that are not clearly defined by a particular religious movement, but instead very clear admonitions that are considered generally accepted principles [boy does that sound like accounting 101] of said religion.

My first example here will be the vaurien du moment, former Representative Mark Adam Foley. Representative Foley has very clearly defined himself as a practicing Roman Catholic. In the past, Foley has supported some bills which seemed in line with what one would expect of a practicing Catholic (or pretty much anyone with a conscience): the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, the (failed) Child Modeling Exploitation and Prevention Act of 2002 (admittedly too broad, but a step in the right direction), and a law allowing volunteer youth groups to use FBI fingerprint background checks to prevent child-molesters having access to children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley He also sat on the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. All of these, so far, fairly kosher, no pun intended, for a run-of-the-mill Catholic politician. Foley begins to raise eyebrows, however, with his stance on social issues. He has been a long-standing supporter of abortion, a supporter of the death penalty, and has been a lifelong (or at least since 13-15 years old) practicing homosexual. All three of these issues are definitely at variance with what one would expect from an orthodox Roman Catholic. Let’s break them down one by one. Abortion, as is fairly widely known, is absolutely impermissible to Roman Catholics. In recent years, several Catholic politicians have gone against the Church by openly supporting abortion and still claiming to be practicing Catholics. This is very clear hypocrisy as abortion is not at all a gray area for the Catholic Church. In fact, the issue of Catholic politicians supporting abortion has been very clearly dealt with by Cardinal Francis Arize in Redemtionis Sacramentum. The Cardinal said, point blank, “”unambiguously pro-abortion” Catholic politicians are “not fit” to receive the sacred elements - the bread and wine that Catholics consider the body and blood of Christ.” http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kengor200408250847.asp Also, consulting Evangelium Vitae and Gaudium et Spes, we find that there is an absolute injunction against abortion. I find legal arguments and wrapping of separation of church and state issues into a pretzel to be unconvincing. If a person wishes to be called a practicing Catholic, then they cannot support abortion. That is an absolute. Any other position is religious hypocrisy. Point two is Foley’s support of the death penalty. The Catechism of the Catholic Church points very clearly to the idea that, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”. This follows up on the Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. Again, support for the death penalty and continuing to call yourself an orthodox, practicing Catholic strikes me as hypocrisy. Lastly, we have Foley’s ongoing homosexual practices and his recent page scandal. This is, perhaps, the greatest example of his hypocrisy. While working tirelessly to pass laws preventing the sexual abuse of minors, Foley is practicing (or attempting to practice) this very thing with Congressional pages. Catholic doctrine does not condemn homosexuality, in and of itself; it merely condemns the active practice of homosexual intercourse. Given all of this evidence, I think a reasonable conclusion can be reached that Foley is nothing more than a hypocrite posing as a Catholic.

Example number two is Ralph Reed. Yes, that Ralph Reed. Reed has been one of the most identifiable Evangelicals in America for the past decade or more. He became a born-again Christian after a religious epiphany in 1983 (Nina J. Easton, Gang of Five, pages 201-202). Reed would go on to become one of the key leaders of the Evangelical-Republican alliance and would rise to become the first executive director of the Christian Coalition. Reed’s first few misdeeds include violations of campaign finance law (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/96-1781.pdf) and financial irregularities related to what appears to have been racketeering and fraud in the Hart scandal (which, though denied, prompted Reed’s resignation from the Coalition). Since then, Reed has been involved in the campaign of a man later convicted of a felony and successfully sued for libel (Mitch Skandalakis) and, of course the icing on the cake, the Jack Abramoff scandal. If you aren’t familiar with said scandal, please see http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0707nj2.htm and http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060417/moser. Let’s take a closer look at Reed’s public persona and his behind-the-scenes sins. Have a look at the Christian Coalition (now under new management) website. This is their definition of who they are and what they stand for http://www.cc.org/about.cfm. Does any of that sound like Ralph Reed? Reed’s born-again Christianity falls under the scope of Evangelical Christian doctrine within which I cannot, try though I may, find anything but condemnation for fraud, hypocrisy, and falsehood (lies). Ralph Reed paraded himself as an ideal Evangelical, prince of his faith (head of the Christian Coalition). He has now been exposed as nothing but a political huckster and religious hypocrite. Let us now judge him by those standards that he judged others by (hoist by his own petard is I believe, the appropriate expression).

Example three: the man himself, Osama bin Laden. Why OBL you ask? Well, I believe that he is a prime example of the ultimate in religious hypocrisy. Let’s start off with his “credentials.” Osama bin Muhammad bin ‘Awad bin Laden was born in 1957, son of a wealthy Saudi family. He attended top schools and was considered a very promising student (as many left handers are). According to wikipedia, OBL earned two college degrees, one in civil engineering and another in economics and public administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden). After college, OBL became involved in the mujahideen resistance in Afghanistan. He subsequently began distancing himself from the Saudi royal family and was eventually exiled due to his increasingly strident anti-government language. OBL eventually founded Al Qaeda and has been involved in massacres in Luxor, Aden, several US embassies, the USS Cole, and the World Trade Center. He’s also found time to marry four times, divorce once, and father at least 24 children (busy man). Around 1996, OBL decided that he was a competent religious authority and that the worldwide struggle against the US and the West should take on a much more religious theme. He issued the first of his fatwas, declaring, “It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. … The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about “Human Rights” were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Later, he issued another “[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.’” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html OBL claims to be a “true” Muslim, a religious leader, and a shining example to the Ummah. Anyone with a reasonable grounding in Islam knows that this is out and out garbage. OBL is a political animal, motivated primarily by fascism and fanatical pan-Arab nationalism. He dreams the great Islamist dream of uniting the Ummah under an Arab Caliphate (since non-Arab Muslims are looked down upon by the great man and many of his Salafist brethren) and putting its economic and military power to “good use.” OBL, remember, has a strong background in economics and public administration. He knows how to use political and economic rhetoric and the media to his advantage. He stresses the need for sacrifice and, if need be, homicide bombings (sometimes called suicide bombings). All of his actions so far, despite the lovely façade of religion that he cloaks them in, are nothing but realpolitik. Pure and simple. Bin Laden is an educated man, if nothing else. He knows very well that only a qualified religious scholar can issue fatwas. There is no record of him ever attending, to say nothing of graduating, from Al-Azhar, Dar al-Hadith, Al Imam Al Ouzai or any other properly credentialed school. He also knows that fatwas are not binding on the Ummah as a whole. Although he claims to be some kind of worldwide spokesman for Islam, he is anything but. Although wealthy, he clearly does nothing to care for his 24 children and one of his wives divorced him because, she “could not continue to live in an austere way and in hardship.” The Real bin Laden, an Oral History, pg. 2 of 9, VanityFair.com. This sort of treatment towards your family is absolutely against Islam. A man cannot take more than one wife if he cannot support them and his children and if he is unable to be fair and just in his treatment of all. Bin Laden’s religious language supporting homicide bombings and “jihad” are also easily deconstructed by these two publications (among others), http://www.mereislam.info/articles/Defending-the-Transgressed_Shaykh-M-A-Al-Akiti.pdf and http://www.ihsanic-intelligence.com/dox/The_Hijacked_Caravan.pdf. In short, OBL displays absolute religious hypocrisy by cloaking himself in the mantle of champion of Islam, yet failing to abide by some of its most basic principles. He is a disgrace and should be properly condemned by all true Muslims.

I cannot claim to have the catchall solution for this seemingly growing problem of religious hypocrisy. Of course, I encourage all devout members of any religion to openly condemn members of their own faith who display this sort of behavior. Is verbal condemnation enough, though? I am not entirely sure, especially given the fact that this problem shows no signs of waning. My suggestion, and I am only thinking out loud here, so please spare me the flames in the comments section, is to establish a threefold plan. Item 1: renew and clearly reiterate the key beliefs and doctrines of our faiths. That is not exactly an easily accomplished suggestion, but before we can call people out for hypocrisy, we need to define exactly who and what we are. Item 2: whenever someone engages in hypocritical behavior, attempt to correct them privately (within the church/temple/masjik/etc.), then, if the offender has not changed his habits, publicly condemn him/her and make it known that they do not represent the true beliefs of their stated religion. Item 3: refuse to admit hypocrites into religious services. This is the most drastic measure, but if a person simply cannot accept the tenets of his/her professed faith, then he/she has no place in its services. The world has more than enough religions. Everyone can find a system of beliefs and practices that conform to their own personal idea of “religion.” If not, then agnosticism or atheism are always options. There is simply no excuse in this the information age to stubbornly cling to a religion that you do not believe in. It is hypocritical and insulting to truly devout members of the faith. I realize that counterarguments to this, seemingly absolutist position exist. I find that most of them revolve around the idea of changing the faith to fit the person. This, in my oh so humble opinion, is getting the idea of religion exactly backwards. The man does not change the faith; the faith must change the man. Yes, religions do evolve over time, but let’s not look at them as experimental projects within which we try to advance our own particular political or social ideologies. That is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Religion is about humanity’s relationship with the divine (be it Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, Hashem, Vishnu, Shiva, the kami, the goddess, etc.), not crass politics and economics. If you cannot accept the tenets of your faith, then please for your own good and that of your faith, find another. Don’t become a hypocrite. The world is already overflowing with them.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS