Here’s a feel good story for today: a skinny Muslim student from Bangladesh intervened as a gang yelling anti-Semitic slogans was pummeling three Jews. His involvement cost him two black eyes, stitches and what I’m sure must have been considerable pain, but it gained one of the other victims enough time to call the police. Askari said of his act:
I felt I could not just stand there and watch these people being beaten up without doing anything to help.
I believe we are all members of one family, and my religion teaches me always to come to the aid of my fellow man in distress.
At first I thought it ironic that New Yorkers and the press were calling Askari a “Good Samaritan,” but after some thought, it makes a lot of sense. What many people don’t realize in the original parable is that Samaritans were throughly reviled by the religious orthodox in the Palestine of Jesus’ day. Yet it was the symbols of righteousness and religious authority–the priest and the Levite–who crossed the road and hurried past the wounded man.
In our so-called Christian nation, it was the Muslim immigrant from South Asia who stepped in to help when dozens of others deliberately ignored the commotion. This was someone who might get a lot of extra attention from airport security staff, thinking more of his duty to help those in need and of his concern for his Jewish brothers than for his own safety.
It makes for a wonderful story and a refreshing antidote to the constant barrage of headlines that encourage fear of Muslims and that highlight the hate-rhetoric exchanged between Christians, Jews and Muslims. And it’s these kinds of stories that keep this atheist from holding to the wholesale condemnations of religion typified by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. If you accept that religion motivates a lot of evil in the world, you cannot dismiss the good that it inspires as well.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Lessie // Dec 19, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Yes, I have issues with Hitchens as well. Not familiar enough with Dawkins to form an opinion, but Hitchens seems just as fundamental in his atheism as some religious people do in their respective sects.
Otherwise, yes, this is a feel good story and it gives me hope.
2 xJane // Dec 19, 2007 at 1:35 pm
And, dare I say it? The anti semetics were probably Christian…
3 Jeff // Dec 20, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Hitchens and Dawkins would both argue that the young Muslim man intervened because he was a good person, not because he was religious, the same way that they argue that bad deeds done by atheists aren’t motivated by their atheism.
I like both Hitchens and Dawkins, but I try hard not to employ the same type of rhetoric that they do; however, in this case, I tend to agree with them.
As for the above story, it made me feel good, but made me mad at the same time that other people stood there and watched even after someone intervened.
4 John // Dec 20, 2007 at 9:00 pm
My objection to Dawkins/Hitchens is that they are inconsistent in their argument–they won’t hesitate to blame religion for motivating evil actions, but use the “good person” reasoning you mentioned above to explain good actions.
As for me, I think it’s pretty complex. I believe that there is a relationship between religion and morality in the lives of people who were brought up in religious contexts. While I think that I have always been a fundamentally compassionate person (tempered with a moderate dose of self-absorption), the expression of morality has varied as I’ve moved in and out of religion.
5 Jeff // Dec 23, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I guess since Dawkins and Hitchens share my biases, I’m more tolerant of their inconsistencies.
As for the complex relationship between religion and morals, I’ll have to think about it more. I’m still not convinced that there’s a connection, but I like the qualifier that you’ve given that the relationship only exists “in the lives of people who were brought up in religion.” I’ve noticed that as I’ve left my beliefs behind that I’m way more inclined to swear, but I don’t think that much else has changed (well, I’m an open coffee drinker now instead of a closeted one
), but I’m not convinced that those are moral issues. I need to give this more thought. hmm….
6 John // Dec 23, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Jeff, I should clarify my meaning just a bit. I’m a materialist social scientist, so to me, “religion” is a complex set of social, cultural and psychological structures. Religion, in addition to secular education, other factors in family environment, personal experience, and possible biological factors (inherited propensities, hormonal imbalances, etc.) probably all contribute to help form a person’s basic values, including their attitudes towards society and towards relationships with other humans.
I’m not privileging religion in any way. I’m just saying that if someone who was raised in an environment steeped with religion and turned out a particular way (violent and antisocial or compassionate and outgoing), there’s a strong probability that religious teachings, institutions, and/or mentors had some influence. I’d say the same thing for politics for someone brought up in a secular commune.
7 Jeff // Dec 27, 2007 at 9:39 am
I agree, John. However, do you think that it’s the religious teachings or the social aspect of religion that has the greatest impact? From my point of view, the social aspect of Mormonism has had more effect on me than the doctrine, but I’m not sure that my experience is typical. What do you think?
Leave a Comment