Religion, Hackers, & Nonviolence
It’s rare that my three blog categories of geek, life, and spirit collide outside of my mind, but recently just such an alignment has taken place. In the event that you’re not an Internet geek, you may not be aware that in recent weeks a hacker group called Anonymous has declared war on Scientology. This has lead me to some interesting thoughts on nonviolence.
What spurred this was noticing that I had been rooting for Anonymous without even really realizing it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Scientology. Their history of abusive and violent activities is well known. But the individual human beings that compose the group are still aspects of the Sacred and deserve to be treated as such. And, though they have some very valid reasons to be upset, the actions of Anonymous are certainly "violent" in the larger sense of dividing Life against itself.
But how does one decide what is a good course of action and what is not? In a way, Scientology is no more a cult and no less a religion than any other "faith". Every tradition has its share of atrocity committed in its name, and many of them as official policy. And when you look at the specifics of what the traditions believe, Scientology isn’t really that much more absurd than most, and is less absurd than some. So I don’t think we can dismiss them out-of-hand as just a cult with no legitimacy as a religion.
But what rights should religions have? Clearly, they shouldn’t be allowed to hurt their members. But people of all manner of faiths have been volunteering for abuse in the name of salvation for millennia. Shall we be the ones to decide when people don’t know what’s best for themselves?
And what of a religion’s attacks on non-adherents? Scientology has viciously attacked their critics in any number of ways. But, again, this is par for the course for many traditions. But how should we respond? Going on the offensive as Anonymous has is ultimately self-defeating. It’s simply not possible to force a change of perspective upon another.
At the same time, when confronted with violence we feel compelled to act. To do something, to somehow make it better. This seems to be universal. The most basic level of this response is the primal dichotomy of fight or flight. But I think our basic challenge as a species right now is to raise ourselves above instinctive reaction. We must find a place of conscious choice or we will surely destroy ourselves.
But what should that intentional action be? Conflict is real, it won’t be undone by pretty words. Indeed, addressing conflict is crucial for change. If we do not directly face the causes of violence, in ourselves and others, they will only grow.
What should we do?
"There ain’t no way to make the bad man stop" - Grace Potter and the Nocturnals
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
What spurred this was noticing that I had been rooting for Anonymous without even really realizing it.
I find that really surprising! Personally, I’ve always found hacking for the purpose of destruction and vandalism repulsive. Fucking with these assholes, now, that I can get behind, like if someone from Anonymous successfully broke into <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heber_Jentzsch”Heber Jentzsch’s home just to dress him in a tutu while he slept. It’d still be a violation, but at least it’d be funny.
Every tradition has its share of atrocity committed in its name, and many of them as official policy.
Sure, and atrocities should be condemned across the board.
It’s simply not possible to force a change of perspective upon another.
That’s DEFINITELY not true, unless you’re excluding brainwashing as a form of perspective change, because it’s pretty easy to get people to change their minds when you exploit their insecurities and randomly alternate between offering love/comfort and senseless cruelty. Also, people become much more open to suggestion while on a diet of low protein foods like plain rice or when they induce hyperventilation.
Yeah…can you tell I’ve been in a cult AND an abusive relationship before?
In any case, in my opinion, while forced perspective change is fairly easy (in that you’ll be pretty successful if you do what I listed above, not easy in the sense that you’ll feel good about yourself), it requires a much greater expenditure of time and energy than letting people who actually like your ideas come to you. Also, force is usually unethical (although not always).
What should we do?
Look within and suss out our own issues, and look without and come up with something better. The only way that the world will improve is if we come up with something better.
You’re right about conflict — we need to learn how to deflect it and deal with it when necessary. Most violence can be pulled apart with the right attitude, like finding the loose thread on shirt that supports everything else. We must stay grounded and open and honest, and we must train ourselves physically and emotionally so we can handle anything that’s thrown at us. Or, y’know, most things.
That’s my opinion, anyway.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Sorry, I wasn’t very precise with my terminology about forced perspectives. More specifically, I meant that you can’t force an authentic, enduring realization about the truth of a thing. As you said, one can certainly ingrain fear-based reactions with a fairly high degree of reliability. But you can’t force “love-based” understanding, because the attempt itself would be the very opposite of what you’re trying to convey.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
This is really interesting… normally i would say that id a religious community is being attacked in a violent way, that neighbors of that community (in a religious or non religious group sense) should come to the defense of the group for the principle of living in a pluralistic society, however im not sure that one, any group would stand up, or two, that the protesting is without truth to it.
i dont agree with any violent protesting though… but it is intriguing to me to see how much is happening recently with regard to scientology…