The "This isn't a war about religion" line.

aruanan | October 8, 2001 | aruanan

[aruanan]

The assumption that 'religion' can't be at the heart of things in the present conflict is itself an unexamined article of faith. It comes from the tradition of naturalism which had defined religion as something dealing with the unreal, the merely believed, beyond the grave, pie in the sky by and by, and had defined politics as the manner of dealing with real things in this present physical universe.

Two main attitudes flow from this worldview:

1. The harder leftist view: Since there's no reality behind any religious view (defined as a belief in the "supernatural" or a god or spirits), then anyone claiming to be doing anything for religious reasons is

a) ignorant, in which case he should be enlightened,

b) a fool and impervious to enlightenment, in which case he should either be eliminated or marginalized so as not to impede the real work in making this a fit world for humanity,

c) merely using religious imagery to promote some non-religious goal, in which case he should be stopped unless he happens to be weakening overall religious belief by what he's doing and so indirectly fulfilling the goal of a).

2. The softer, friendlier-sounding, Western political liberal view (the demythologized hard-left view--kindergarten communism) : Since we know that there is no reality behind any religious view, but since we know that such views can give comfort to those who believe in them and that misunderstanding about these views can cause conflict, then

a) people should be allowed to freely believe in (emphasis on 'believe' as opposed to 'act on the basis of') whatever they choose to believe in because diversity can enrich our society (for instance, Johnny here likes plaid shirts and Petyr likes those charming European blouses and Kishandra likes the vibrant colors of African dashikis and Wan-soo, bless his hardworking little heart, likes the button down collars of the corporate world, but they're all just shirts and none is better than the others--the only thing different is who likes what and how much he/she likes it),

b) people should not question the religious views of anyone else (because ultimately they have no actual supernatural referent ANYWAY) and that's a PRIVATE, personal thing (see b above about marginalization), and to do so is not being respectful of their beliefs,

c) squabbling about things that are ultimately meaningless is just not a polite thing to do in our enlightened society because then we're not being respectful and getting along,

d) people who persist in acting as though their religion is true should be tolerated unless they do something annoying to other people in which case they should not only be tolerated but DEEPLY UNDERSTOOD and when they are deeply understood they will finally realize that what they believe in is just as true as (or no more true than) what everyone else believes in and will settle down and be happy with Johnny and Petyr and Kashindra (or is it Kishandra? Oh well, names are diverse, too!) and little Wan-soo in our big happy classroom of humanity so we can all lie down together on the nap rugs of international peace and harmony, and,

e) if people should do something REALLY bad, like kill someone else, for what they call their religion, then we know that they are really doing it for political and not truly religious purposes because any true religion wouldn't do such a thing, in which case we should be very careful about doing anything at all because it would just provoke them and cause other ignorant people to join their cause for the wrong (ie, religious) reasons. Besides, since no one would have done anything really bad for religious reasons, then it must have been for some other reason, so we should try to understand their grievances and see what it was that WE did to make them feel this way (since there's no other reality but this present world and since we are the only other people in it and they have a disagreement with us, then we must have caused them to do this terrible thing) and try to help them so that we can join Johnny and Petyr and Kishandra and little Wan-soo on the nap rugs of international peace and harmony and do the most important thing in life--just get along.

No matter what.

[Revolting cat!]

Excellent! Bump for later review...

[aruanan]

Thank you very much!

[aruanan]

But majority of the people will be lukewarm and "moderate" so the "average" Muslim and Christian will not differ that much.

This is where you made your serious error. You're assuming that a categorical equality, "lukewarmness", "average", "moderate" is the same thing as a substantive equality in terms of behavior.

You could say that although there are extremes in price from the cheapest to the most expensive in both the Rolex and the Timex brands, the "average" of either or the "moderately" priced of either are all pretty much the same. Though it is true that both products lines have a range of price (and maybe even quality) and though it is true that both price and quality for each line can be described in terms of an "average", it is not true that the average of one is equivalent to the average of the other in any but a categorical way.

But if you want to say, "No, I'm speaking of "religion" as a whole and that the average or moderate adherent is pretty much lukewarm", then you're also assuming an essential quality that differs only in the degree to which it is present. You could just as easily say that of the animal kingdom as a whole, the average animal is very small and fairly harmless. That's true, but that category of "average" is an intellectual fiction and will do nothing to protect you against the extremes of size or danger that exist in the animal kingdom. The fact that there are some average sheep and hamsters won't protect you from the average lion or viper or wasp. The animal kingdom analogy, though, is a much closer approach to what's actually going on out there in the world in terms of culture and religion. Although one born into a culture and religion is not as ontologically locked into place as one born as a hamster or a viper, the influences are strong and it's the exception rather than the rule that one ever abandons the ethos of the culture/society/religion that one in born into. This is evident by the continued existence of separate cultures/societies/religions over time. Though there is detectable change over time, it is usually slow. Where it has been fast has been mostly as a result of technological innovation or by invasion and subjugation by another cultural/societal/religious group. And this invasion is not merely being carried out by only the extreme members of that group, the average ones back at home leading the same kinds of lukewarm lives as those of the culture/society/religion being attacked.

Here's a quote by Stephen cited in The Conservative Mind, from Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk that comes close to what you are saying,

"I believe that many men are bad, a vast majority of men indifferent, and many good, and that the great mass of indifferent people sway this way or that according to circumstances, one of the most important of which circumstances is the predominance for the time being of the bad or good."--J.F.Stephen

It still doesn't follow, though, that the states of indifference of one versus another group are in any way equivalent to each other in substantive terms. It's just saying that between the extremes in any society (and the definition of what's extreme is most often underlaid with assumptions that never reach the light of day in the mind of the person making the definitions) there exists a large number of people who don't readily go one way or the other but can be persuaded to do so. All things considered, one culture/religion may be much more predisposed to one type of extreme than another. And we've seen that in action. Look at the picture of the little boy with his suicide bomber outfit on. Look at the pictures of the little boys carrying both real and toy guns shouting "Slaughter the Jews!" Look at the culture whose Sesame Street-type kids program for pre-school features praise for suicide bombers. If this is only the extreme of this society/religion, then its average is still way different from the average of, say, that of a New Zealander or even an Israeli Jew.

[jaz.357]

Is that the radio Paul Harvey is always talkin about?

[SusanUSA]

BUMP for an EXCELLENT post and thread discussion!

And an extra bump for replies # 13 AND (maybe especially) # 47!! Thank you! Bookmarked!

Sarcasm is one of my favorite tools! Wish more people had a developed ability to use and follow it.

Marking my place, too...left off # 53,sg.

[SusanUSA]

Maybe I'm not Heavenly minded enough. . . But I thought perhaps that higher birth rate part had some inherent "instant gratification" involved in it. ...

Oh, I don't know. I'm quite sure that could be catagorized as a heavenly thought, as well. LOL

And a resounding BUMP to your more serious comments throughout this thread.
Particularly:
It sounds to me like larger and larger portions of the society needs to abandon the dysfunctional school systems. . . or else the NEA needs to be labeled a terrorist organization?

Reply #13 is the plan I follow.

[Quix]

Concur.

Bless U N Your close ones and efforts for good for The Kingdom and the US OF A

[aruanan]

Thanks, susangirl. I learned the spirit of sarcasm from my favorite uncle who was like a cross between Jonathan Winters and Don Rickles.

[Quix]

ANTHRAX found in the matrix. . . mysterious, curious wording to a growing list of findings.

TANGENTIALLY RELATED ANNOUNCEMENT. . . The BibleCodes.com site has posted some new mysterious additions to the WTC matrix. . . .Anthrax was found . . . curious wording on some of the additions. . . at:

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/54

[Siobhan]

Pyng

Worth reading if you missed it the first time...

[OxfordMovement]

Siobhan, this post by aruanan is really troubling to me, but troubling in the right way, if you know what I mean. I'd like to know your thoughts.

[supremedoctrine]

Was re-reading this old thread from soon after 9-11, and your reply to willyboyishere, who apparently is here no longer.
You were both prophetic.