Poisonous History

I was reading an article on the origins of the schism between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam this morning. Now for those of you who don't know why entirely similar neighbours are continually butchering each other in the Middle East, (ably assisted by huge quantities of American and British arms), it transpires that the root of the problem lies in the legitimacy of the succession and leadership of the one hundred thousand or so practicing Muslims then living in the Arabian Peninsula.

With me so far?

Now you may have noticed that I didn’t state the date of this schism in the above paragraph so just for accuracy let me tell you that this schism took place in 632AD. I’d like you to keep that date in mind.

Schism are fairly common in religion; they are mainly doctrinal disagreements or grievances against the abuses of the ruling authority. Usually such schisms are put down before they can become established; often violently, (anyone here ever heard of the Dulcinians?) Sometimes such schisms become so established that the ruling church will try and subsume the schism into itself through peaceful means as with the Franciscan order; St Francis narrowly missed being declared a heretic on his way to canonisation. However if the underpinning philosophical or moral difference is sufficiently potent the schism will endure, as with the Protestant Reformation that fractured the Catholic Church.

I hope you’re all keeping up.

I have another date for you to remember: 31^st October 1517. This is the date on which Martin Luther nailed his  “Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg. Never heard of it? You should have because it resulted in hundreds of years of Europe wide bloodshed, and the interruption of my boyhood Christmas shopping trips in London by IRA bomb threats.

Of course one of the greatest schisms in religious history is the one that took place in The Levant sometime in the 1^st Century AD. It should come as no shock to realise that, if you are a practising Christian, you are an adherent to a heretical Judaic sect; a two thousand year old Jewish schism. We are all far too familiar with the lakes of blood and charred flesh that we've had to wade through as a result of this particular schism. Indeed both Islam and Christianity could be reasonably characterised as heretical Jewish sects by a dispassionate observer.

Let’s throw another date out there for your recollection, (and this one is highly subjective): 33 AD.

Now so far I've mentioned only the “People of the Book”, that is Christians, Jews and Muslims. But of course there are other, far older religions still practised on Earth. They have their schisms too; Buddhism is a two and a half thousand year old schism from the Hindu faith, In more recent times Sikhism has split from Hinduism.

So what’s my point? That religion creates dissent and difference and breeds appalling violence in otherwise entirely similar communities? You know this already. Just switch on the news and you can hear about Buddhists burning Muslims to death in Burma or the endless bloodshed and misery that is the Middle East. But is this perpetuation of violent hatreds intrinsic to religion or an example of a more general fault in the human condition? 

In 33AD Rome had occupied Judea for 96 years. The Roman army had brutally subjugated the region and ruled through violence and intimidation. But here’s the thing; I don’t see modern Israelis or Palestinians locked in a bitter conflict with modern Italy over these historical events. In fact to suggest that Israel or Palestine should pursue Italy over atrocities and differences that took place two thousand years ago is absurd.

In the year 632AD many things happened. For example, Charibert II, King of Aquitaine was assassinated on the orders of his elder brother, Dagobet I. Has anyone here seen any recent examples of violence between Burgundy and Belgium over this murder? No of course not, to suggest that this historical event should be cause for continued grievance would be again be absurd.

In 1517 Vasili III Ivanovich, Grand Prince of Moscow conquered Ryazan and as far as I am aware no one has died in recent times as a direct result of this event. I don’t even know where Ryazan was.

In recent history we in Britain have endured two appalling wars with Germany. Britain and Germany are now allies with no good reason to despise each other and no prospect of future conflict, (other than on a football pitch).

In the long run most grievances and disputes between and within societies that are not religiously inspired fall into history and are forgotten (except by historians). However if the dispute is religiously inspired it endures and propagates down the generations. A religiously inspired dispute poisons history and blights the lives of people yet to be born. That a political decision made fourteen hundred years ago should lead to crucifixion and beheading in 21^st Iraq is ridiculous. That these acts are committed by and against people whose belief systems are almost entirely similar is an offense against reason itself.

But then religion is an offense against reason. Religious activity establishes self-professed eternal value systems that would elsewhere be dropped or adapted within a few generations. An excellent example of this, is the recent opposition to gay marriage by otherwise quite reasonable British citizens. Any logically ethical framework will automatically ascribe equality of legal status to loving homosexual couples when compared with heterosexual couples. This is self-evident and fair. But wait! Here comes The Book of Deuteronomy; an evil and blood thirsty legal system from the late Iron Age which instructs citizens to stone homosexuals to death.

If I were to propose a change to the British law based upon or inspired by the Nuremberg Race Laws of Nazi Germany would anyone pay attention to me? No of course not. The only reason the Book of Deuteronomy or indeed any of the books of the Bible have any relevance in the modern world is because the nature and structure of religion allows them continued existence through largely unquestioned obedience.

You see my point? All religion (and I do mean all religion) by its own example, is historical poison casting its grievances and hatreds unchallenged across the millennia in a baleful and unnecessary shadow.

Why should we have to endure these ancient hatreds?