www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Tom Friedman Op-Ed in today's NYT

I highly recommend reading Friedman's provocative op-ed piece in today's New York Times. The basic idea is that the present war is not against terrorism but against the ideology of religious totalitarianism -- an interesting idea that has implications not only for Islam (the main target of his article), but for us as well.

Dear Brendan,

Yes, I've seen numerous articles, especially in Britain, that say much the same thing.

One British scholar said that religion contributes to terrorism by preaching the "nonsense" that there is more to life than what we have here and now.

One would almost think that some are deliberately trying to shift the focus onto religious ideas away from the real, very material issues that are involved, and always have been involved, in conflicts that use religion as a battle uniform.

Alex

Alex --

I agree that there is a danger lurking behind what Friedman, and, recently, Andrew Sullivan, have written about this .... but ISTM that there is also some truth there -- at least in as far as the fact that the current "terrorism" we are dealing with has a religious/ideological bent to it that makes it very hard to deal with (and which gives it substantial sympathy and support throughout the Islamic world).

What I don't like about the Friedman view is that it tends to lump all religions together -- when one can easily demonstrate that Islam, to take the case in point, has always been inherently violent (and, in fact, has a different attitude toward violence than many other faiths have). It's not PC to talk about "the problem of Islam", so the problem of Islamic fundamentalism or Islamic militantism (which, btw, Naipaul says is an oxymoronic expression) is recast in broader terms of "religious fundamentalism" -- sometimes in such a broad way as to virtually accuse any true believer of any of the monotheistic faiths of being a fundamentalist radical unless he is a relativist.

The truth behind what Friedman and others have written, ISTM, is that unless and until Islam reforms itself, we aren't going to be through with the current problem. In that sense, as Andrew Sullivan pointed out, it *is* about religion -- but not, I would submit, about religion in general, but rather about a presently troubled faith that happens to have almost a billion adherents in the world and therefore is more or less everyone's problem at this point.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Yup, yup, I see your point, but I think it would get us all into hot water . . .

I guess it's the sociologist in me that's suspicious of anyone who says that people are willing to die for religion.

I suppose there are idealists like that, but these are usually people who have nothing, materially, to lose and who have turned to religious fanaticism as a result.

The leaders of Al-Qaeda and others also use religion to their ends.

I don't believe we can begin with religion, such as Islam, and then move from there to the economic and terrorist problems, we need to go the other way around.

There are those who would blame the economic instability of some countries on Catholicism, that if they were Protestant, their sense of capitalism would be better honed etc.

There are others who say that it was precisely the Catholic Benedictines who created capitalism etc.

None of these arguments are cogent in the least.

Historical events have often used religious visionary or else even fanatical language to mask more earthly and material desires and ambitions.

Is there any doubt that what is going on now in the world is about material issues that are conveniently wrapped in religious language and belief systems?

Only well-off capitalists can really make this argument with a straight face and expect us to believe it.

My lawyer friends also believe it, but I don't believe anything they have to say. . .hee, hee.

Is Kurt a lawyer, do you think? (kidding, Kurt, kidding, unclench that fist now . . .).

Alex

1.) Does belief in the afterlife allow for
acts of terrorism? Yes. However, in many
cases, it may prevent such acts. It is
contingent on other beliefs as well. Such
as, what one believes about the Divine and
the value of human life. The State Shintoism
of WWII Japan encouraged kamikazes for the
love of the "Celestial Emperor who is viewed
from beneath the staircase. Today, many
believe in an "Allah" who demands the blood
of Americans, Christians and Jews. R.L.Stevenson
said that "we all have thoughts that would shame
hell." Yet, my faith in the Judgement would
prevent me from acting those thoughts out.

2.) Is it a problem of economics? Not precisely. Perhaps the massive support for OBL may be economically based. However, I think that it is baser than that. When one looks at the main culprits, one sees the most comfortable and financially elite of the Islamic world. OBL himself is a millionaire. Muhammed Atef was in law enforcement. His next in charge is a physician. Those who highjacked the planes were well-educated and came from priveledged backgrounds.

The problem IS religion...and one religion in particular.

National Catholic Register ran an editorial replying to Andrew Sullivan a few weeks ago:

http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/111301fund.htm

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I'm not going to take the bait on that one.

K.

Dear David,

Yes, precisely, the terrorists are from the financial, professional and academic elites of their world.

These elites are not the ones who fight and die for religion.

Economics and power are much more within their sights, as it is for the western powers.

Piety and patriotism are what moves the masses, however.

But apart from this entire debate, I find it interesting that western academics and others, who would normally dismiss religion in their own lives, as well as in the lives of others, are suddenly blaming religion for this international crisis.

They seem to be venting their hatred for religion as the root of this evil and justification for attacking it.

Make no mistake, however, no matter how much we try to distinguish between Christianity and Islam, these same westerners have no problem lumping the two together under the same religious umbrella.

Alex

Light!

The problem is not Islam, but a peculiar and anachronistic interpretation of Islam rooted in the fundamentalist creeds of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

It is true that Islamic fundamentalists are Muslims, but they are not Islam. The Crusaders were Catholics. But were they Catholicism? Certainly not.

Islam is (if not in the media's eyes, but in reality) very diverse. The following web site will prove my point.

Liberal Islam: Prospects and Challenges

www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue3/jv3n3a2.html [biu.ac.il]


Salaam!

Abdur

Abdur,

Welcome!

Good point. The problem lies with fundamentalism. Fundamentalism knows no faith but its own rigid, literalist, agenda. Behind the mask of fundamentalism are particular philosophies, agendas, and world-views the fundies wish (or demand) all others to accept either through legals means, by force, or threats of violence and death. Galileo met fundamentalism once upon a time too. Any promotion of faith by forceful tactics and not through love and free will is religious rape. Fundamentalism, like Gnosticism of old, knows no credal boundaries.

We fail to miss the often subtle fundamentalist coup going on here in this country within Christianity. The fundis have stolen the spotlight with their own rigid and literalist interpretation of scripture right under the feet of Catholics and Orthodox. They took to the media and courts to instill in all people their own variety of Christianity. In a nutshell, Catholics and Orthodox are bankrupt in responding to this fundamentalist shank of Christianity and the laity are dumbfounded by having the terms of their faith determined by them.

The Fundies wag their fingers at the Catholics for their Inquisition and government coops as well the Orthodox for their snuggling up with governments, yet fail to notice that their own gov't coop in this country as well as their agenda to mandate THEIR VERSION of religion in public schools, and promote their silliness via the radio, print and TV.

Fundamentalism is unbiblical and unChristian. It is a virus, a social disease that infects many because it make religion easy to understand. Mental effort need not apply, therefore, it is easy to brainwash and enlist people into likeminded ranks of militant-minded comrads.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Edwin --

Fine points, but I guess my own POV (like that of V.S. Naipaul) is that Islam is one faith that tends towards fundamentalism more than perhaps any other, and a violent form of fundamentalism, because the example (mythic or real, as the case may be) of the 'Prophet' Muhammad was a violent one.

I agree that Islam is diverse, but I don't see how that's relevant. Christianity is diverse too, but that doesn't mean that everything pawning itself off as Christian is Christian. The real issue is "will the real Islam stand up". We've had a litany of people in the press and on the television since 9/11 telling us that the bin Ladens of the world and their supporters are not the real Islam, and that the real Islam is a peaceful, tolerant faith. I just think that's propoganda aimed for people who have either never read the Qur'an ('smite the unbelievers where you find them') or have only the foggiest notion of early Islamic history. I think, like V.S. Naipaul, that the true Islam is a radical faith by definition, and always has been.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Again, I don't see how the historical praxis of Christianity makes Christians any less violent than the Muslims.

I know that the Message of Christianity's Founder was that of peace and truth.

But given what Christians have done in His Name throughout history, how are we really that different from the Muslims?

Alex

Brendan,

I get your point. But Alex makes an additional point about what can be said about "Christianity." "Will the real Christianity please stand up" will get a number of takers ... and many so-called real Christians have killed each other over it, pass legislation in their governments "banning" the other's church, confiscating each other's temples, replacing bishops (to the point of having a half dozen Christian 'overseers' in the same city or town), Ecumenical talks about the "status" of particular church groups, etc. Ecumenical talks and Evangelism meetings amount to nothing but photo-ops. Nada. Not impressed.

Is it really about Christ?

In the meantime, the laity are dumbing down under the weight of fundamentalism and the failure of the church to teach. Tired of seeing the squabbling between grown men wearing lace or silk, they opt for fundamentalism (Christianity Lite) because it is easier to digest in a quick-fix drive-through world.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Dear Edwin,

Excellent point, my Brother.

I don't know the answer. It fills my soul with pain and I can only pray about it.

Alex

Yes, Alex.

The Founder of our Faith condemned the
initiation of violence. (St. Matt. 26)

So, too, the founder of Buddhism adopted
the yogic principle of "ahimsa"(nonviolence).

Yes, those calling themselves "Christians",
"Buddhists", "Hindus" and "yogis" have commited
atrocities inviolation of Jesus the God-Man and
the philophers Gautama and Patanjali.

The founder of Islam made "jihad" a very
pilar of his theocratic empire.

While Jewish and Christian scriptures allude
to "spiritual warfare" (Isaiah 59, Ephesians 6,
I Thessolonians 5), attempts to gloss a
"spiritual" interpretation to the doctrine
are disingenuous.

Many Muslims are wonderful folks.

The same can be said about Mormons. (We
in the Northeast may be more well-disposed
towards the LDS folks insofar as they don't
ring our doorbells as frequently as the
B'klyn-based JW's.)

However, I must disagree with the supposed
revelations of both Muhammed and Joseph Smith.