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.

[Quix]

They are quite widely spread and even more integrated into more locales than many would suppose.

Critical mass in terms of numbers might moderate their behavior in some areas to a large degree.

But even in areas where they are a decided minority, radicalism can foster incredibly fierce behaviors--and a surprising number of moderates or idle Moslems can suddenly become radical in moments of identification with other radicals for almost whatever reason.

I think Christians are called to charity and compassion--AND WISDOM SUCH AS A SANKE IN THE NT SCRIPTURE AND THE HARMLESSNESS THAT GOES WITH IT. This is not a time for mindlessness nor weak-knee-d-ness.

It particularly IS a time for prayer.

[nina0113]

I'm looking for instant gratification ;-)

I've been praying for a Guadaloupe-style miracle myself. It would solve everything nicely.

[Quix]

I can understand your confusion or skepticism.

But I wonder if you've ever traveled to the Middle East?

Or have you talked extensively with Americans who've worked in Saudi Arabia? . . . especially, for example, single men.

1) In much of the Middle East--especially Arab cultures, it is fairly common for two friends to stand virtually nose to nose--VERY CLOSE FACE TO FACE--yelling at each other so vigorously that Americans passing by might think they were ready to come to blows any second. And they, from their standpoint, are not even very emotional--just having a calm chit chat. THEY ARE AN EMOTIONAL PEOPLE--sometimes at their calmest.

Blood feuds can go on and on for generations mostly out of petty pride.

Your norms and standards for emotionalism; radicalism; fierce feelings etc. may not apply as you assume they might for those cultures.

Also, sociologically and psychologically--it is fairly easy for folk on the quiet end of things to flip suddenly to the radical end of things--this is true in almost any group or ism or belief context--but all the more true in emotionally intense cultures.

A wide number of things can trigger such a flip. It can be a personal experience that fosters stronger identification with just one element or aspect; one picture, image, incident, saying, action of a radical leader or incident. It can be a trauma personal, group or national or international. It can be a function of personal isolation, loneliness, a sense of helplessness, depression, despair. Suddenly there's hope by investing in THE CAUSE.

I don't know that Queen Noor is a great example. She leads a rather special life though she seems well informed and in touch with her people.

But take some professor or other professional person in a university town in central U.S. Bible belt. Assume that the professor--male or female--had become moderately good friends with various Christians or whatever in their university town.

Suddenly on the professor's doorstep appears an agent. He notes that in the old country, a relative has been murdered by an Israeli agent or purportedly by a U.S. agent. Or maybe nothing even so personal or dramatic. . . maybe there's just a request for shelter, protection, hiding. . . and the mention of some connection with a trusted relative--perhaps one who's loaned money for education and getting set up in the U.S.

What will the professor do--say no out of hand? I doubt it. Will the professor be vulnerable to being more radicalized in that situation? Probably. Will the professor be likely to become a real RADICAL? It depends on a LOT of factors--only ONE of which is the manner in which the U.S. Government handles itself in the current war on terrorism. But it's likely to be easier than one might think.

You are probably somewhat influenced by the difficulty with which Christians are changed into radical Christians in the U.S. or the ease that atheists and agnostics are changed into radical Christians. That's not a good comparison for many reasons. The Islamic subculture is very different on many counts. Their psychology individual and group is very different on many counts.

[Quix]

You make an excellent point.

Even a casual Moslem will share many more points of strong identification with a radical Moslem than will a nominal Christian with a radical Christian.

I think we minimize the visceral, emotional impact of praying 5 times a day--or even of feeling guilty for not praying 5 times a day, forehead on the ground etc.

We minimize the impact of THEIR "word of Allah" soberly instructing them to kill infidels; enjoy a martyr's instant trip to Heaven etc. . . .

It's not that casual Moslem's read the book and say--what rubbish. Their entire training, mindset, gestalt etc is that THOSE WORDS ARE THE WORDS OF ALLAH even though they may not be living close to toeing the line. The words are still there and held as valid. And if push came to shove, I'd expect them to go the way of those words in their 'bible.'

Their belief system is a much more thorough and much more intense enculturation gestalt than Christianity has been in the U.S. for the last at least 75 years.

[Quix]

I think there's some understandable aspects of your contentions.

However, Ben Laden doesn't seem to have a clue about what God's REAL attitude toward him is. And he has even less of a clue about how God will deal with him regardless of what the rest of the world does.

Almighty God really does hate violence--particularly against innocents. And he's infinitely excellent at insuring that the universal law of reaping and sowing falls heavily on Ben Laden's back.

God will clean up the whole Islamic mess when it suits Him and when He's through using it in its present forms for His purposes. Satan thinks he has options. Even satan's only option is to be used by God for God's purposes. Ben Laden is less of an issue by quite a margin than his master satan is.

[atafak]

Sorry, but there's no place to run and no place to hide. Islam is now infected with a virulent strain of "rule the world", and carriers of that strain are deeply imbedded in America. Either prepare yourself to trade in the Constitution for the law of sharia, or prepare to fight. There are no other choices.

[Aquinasfan]

I've been praying for a Guadaloupe-style miracle myself. It would solve everything nicely.

Now there's an idea!

[Austin Willard Wright]

Fight? Again, if Islam is the enemy the only solution is either to disengage from the Islamic world or wipe this "enemy" out completely. The latter goal is not very realistic.

[Quix]

I don't know that it's exceedingly realistic either.

But I am convinced that misguided appeasement is not only foolish but dreadfully dangerous in the extreme. I don't know that there's great reasonable hope in removing so many millions of rabidly rigid, rabitly fierce, rabidly murderous religionists. But the devastation probably needs to be deep and broad enough that those who remain are convinced that we are quite serious about clipping their wings and other appendages if they as much as breathe wrong.

[Quix]

I suspect that God MAY be planning to wait until we have more or less exhausted ourselves and given up before stepping in to dramatically alter the Muslim landscape. But I have every expectation that He will do so, in His time.

[Precisian]

Dear RobbyS: You know that the James Madison you regard was educated by the Rev.John Witherspoon, an ordained Presbyterian minister. Are you willing to draw the conclusion that Madisonianism is a form of "secularized" Presbyterianism?

You would be honest, and correct to do so, but this would lead you to admit that Presbyterianism is a good Protestant form of Christianity, wouldn't it?

[Precisian]

I think you underestimate American resolve. Never before has the United States been so horribly attacked on its home soil. This is far more devastating than Pearl Harbor, and we still have USA troops stationed in Germany and Japan.

There will be a permanent garrison of USA troops in places that you would not dare to mention on this forum in less than 12 months.

Americans are not stupid; just slow to anger.

[atafak]

Please elaborate on your "realistic" plan for disengaging with the Islamic world.

[Quix]

I think too often in recent decades, we HAVE been too stupid.

Thankfully not 100% of us.

But even across the Pacific, I've bumped into enough teens to twenty somethings who seem to have extremely poor language skills in positions of amazing responsibility. 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?

The population seems to have been dreadfully dumbed down in critical thinking skills and general awake, alertness.

Thoughtful analysis seems too extreme a stretch for too many.

Nevertheless, it DOES, mercifully, seem that enough have woken up enough with SOME mental acuity left that maybe they have enough horse sense to at least pray earnestly. Thankfully, that doesn't require a huge IQ, just a sensitive heart and spirit.

I'd still rather err on the side of "slow to anger." . . . but not to the point of suicidal global behavior.

[Precisian]

Of course, I agree with you that Public Education has "dumbed down" the kids. It started (as I assume you are aware) with "whole word" reading, and then de-constructed into "whole math" too. This was a deliberate onslaught against "left brain" critical skills.

I am all for the abolition of Public Education. What high school did Abraham Lincoln attend? What high school did Jesus Christ (our Savior and Lord) attend? What high school did George Washington attend?

Alas, our fixation with Public Education is a major part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is our fixation with images. The kids are completely hooked on images (television, movies)...and they play video-games and don't read. This is encouraged by our consumer culture: BUY BUY BUY......music television has de-constructed popular music (on purpose).

But, deeper than that, I think America is very strong. There is a deep thirst in our country for answers.

[theoutsideman]

I beg your pardon but this war is over religion, no matter what the politicians vomit up to cover the truth. Islam is evil, it foments terrorism, and it must be stamped out.

[aruanan]

I beg your pardon but this war is over religion,

Is the above a rhetorical device or do you really think I don't know that the jihad against the United States and the West is a religious war?

[aruanan]

If it wasn't called a religion and didn't have some religious language, it would be recognized immediately as an intrinsically hostile political force and would be dealt with accordingly.

Well, I think you're too narrowly defining religion and politics in a way that's influenced by the political tradition I described above. I'm purposefully not describing religion as "a belief in G-d" or "spirituality" or "goodness and light" but as "one's core beliefs about what reality is all about and why things happen the way they do". There is something related to this in virtually every conscious person that is connected fundamentally with his own ideas about himself and how he fits into the big picture. At that level, threatening that worldview is perceived by the individual as threatening his own life. That worldview may include a belief in a personal G-d or it may not. It may be seen by some as "not real religion", "real" being defined by them as "a belief in G-d"; nevertheless, it is the fundamental belief structure of the individual by which he makes sense of the world. Objectively, you could look at the wide variety of these systems throughout the world and across time and say that if the world does have a fundamental nature independent of our individual existence and perception of it, then all of these systems cannot simultaneously be describing the true nature of reality (even if you resort to Sufi stories about blind men touching different parts of an elephant). You could go on to conclude that none is correct, that one is correct, that some are correct, or that some are only partially correct. Any of those conclusions remains to be demonstrated. You could also characterize those which do not comport with reality as "false systems", "false beliefs", or "false religions". However, regardless of their ultimate degree of correspondence with reality (which may be beyond anyone's ability to determine), all of them are functionally equivalent in the way the individual uses his particular variation to tell himself why he is here, why he should get out of bed in the morning, what his goals in life should be, how he should act toward other people, how they should act toward him, etc., etc.. Some people have standardized such beliefs into systems that exist independently of any one person, systems to which people give variable levels of assent and for which they are willing to do things that range from what's called "lip service" to laying down their lives.

As I indicated at the beginning of the thread, people nowadays tend to describe the portion of those systems having something to do with "G-d" or the supernatural as being "religion" and everything else as being "politics" or "philosophy" or "tribal identity" or "culture" or, ha ha ha, just "the truth". This distinction is itself a product of one of these systems and has been taken by too many people as simply a description of reality. It causes them to miss the point and waste huge amounts of time and energy trying to distinguish between "real" religion, which is said to have only good things as a result, and "false" religion, which is said to have only bad things as a result. Notice that no one is talking about true versus false politics. The simplest way to describe the entire situation is to say that religion is what you believe about the fundamental nature of reality and your place in it. Politics is the means by which you carry out those beliefs. Religion is the belief. Politics is the praxis. Interesting that it should get down to something so basic as faith and works.

Looking at it this way, it's a complete waste of time to say that Osama bin Ladin can't be doing what he's doing for religious reasons because true religion wouldn't do that. Who cares why he says he's doing it? The only important thing is that he is doing it and it's having unpleasant and deadly consequences for lots of other people. Those other people whose various belief systems at least line up on the page that says such a praxis is unacceptable are united in trying to stop it. Some think that meditating and "giving peace a chance" is a good way. Others think that that does about as much good as pushing on a string and counsel more direct action, saying that a praxis that seeks their destruction is a praxis that merits at least a commensurate response.