Wednesday, 21 September 2011
-
Moderation and Religious Violence (Part One)
At some point, we must recognize that the real battlefield in this world is not between Muslims and non-Muslims but between extremists of any stripe and the anti-extremists of all faiths.
- Feisal Abdul Rauf, A Call to Religious Moderates, Published in the Wall Street Journal 09/09/11Perhaps in terms of ideas, the one that Christians and religious people all over the world have accepted from secularist without questioning the most is the above statement. I don’t think it’s true though. The problem is it largely ignores religion in practice. Like many theories it sums up a verily messy reality in a succinct way that is not entirely devoid of truth but also simple minded.
The idea seems to be that there is a direct correlation between how secularized one is and how willing one is to be tolerant, non-violent and live in a pluralistic society. This squares very poorly with reality. Granted it’s hard to imagine the prospect of angry Unitarian mob rising up in political violence. At the same time though many of those involved with Al Qaeda weren’t especially devout. In fact research actually indicates that those who have been part of stable religious environments for long times are more likely to reject violent ideologies than recent converts or the moderately religious.
In the U.S,. probably the most extreme large Christian group, the Mennonites and Amish, heirs of the Quaker tradition, are not only not violent but also thoroughly anti-violent. In fact in most ways their communities are probably far more in line with extreme liberal views of how people should live and think than conservative views. Consider the contrast between the stereotype of the gun-totting, SUV driving, obese Texan evangelical who is more secularized and the Amish Indianan who is non-car driving, pacifist, without electricity and who likely makes most of their own food or buys it from their neighbors. Now, ask yourself why at least some liberals think that religious moderation is a definite way to shape our society?
To be clear the point isn’t that we should all live like Amish. The point is it’s hard to say what exactly the results of religious extremism can be; it certainly isn't always violence as some both on the right and left would like people to think. In Christendom it’s not those wacko ‘Fundamentalists’ who have been responsible for most of the religious violence in the world but their more collegiate Catholic, Calvinist and Lutheran counterparts.
Do you think that religious extremism naturally results in violence? If yes, then how do you explain extreme yet pacifist groups like the Amish? If no, then why do we lump religious extremism and violence into the same category?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: SamEwing@xanga
- Name: Samuel
- Location: Michigan, United States
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 11 Views: 0 6882 Comments: 0 140 View all posts by SamEwing@xanga
Comments (11)
Well they wouldn't be considered extremists, in my opinion. I consider the Amish to be fundamentalists, going back to the basics of everything. Imam Rauf has always made the distinction that fundamentalism is not a bad thing but extremism, taking one particular element of a said religion (i.e. reading a lie out of the Qu'ran out of context and living your life off of it) is very destructive.
ineteresting.. it would depend on what people mean when they say "extremism" in reliogion, i guess...
I've always believed that extremists in Christianity (i.e. taking the scriptures for what they really teach) are non-violent servants who will lay down their life for others. I believe extremists in Islam are committed to jihad. Unfortunately, few Christians are extremists. Fortunately, few Muslims are extremists.
Obviously, you do have a few violent Christians, and you have many peaceful Muslims opposed to Jihad. However, I believe that both of these positions would be hard to justify with their respective scriptures if they were taken seriously. For those who disagree, I think it's important to note how these religions were founded. Christianity started with someone laying down his life, and many of the first followers doing the same. Muhammad actually spent part of his life as a military leader.
@maniacsicko@xanga - I guess the reason I wrote this piece was I wanted to confront the idea that non-rationalist or fundamentalist religion is necessarily a path to violence. It may have other unsavory results, I have family who are Amish and I can tell you first hand their communities are not idyllic. However, the idea that mysticism or fundamentalism leads to violence and secularization leads to enlightenment I think is a false idea that Rauf likely agrees with.
At least of the most outspoken western advocates of the Arab Spring such has Hitchens (who suggested Huckabee who was unfit candidate because he questioned evolution even though there was no clear link between his questioning and policy), believe that any non-scientific belief is a gateway to violence and totalitarianism. You also see the idea in pop-culture such as in Cape Fear where there was the suggestion that Pentecostalism could lead to mental psychosis or Donald Ray Pollock stories about Indiana in one of which a man sacrifices his son. When Mr. Pollock was asked where he got such an idea he merely said he thought it was interesting never mind the practice actually directly contradicts Jewish scripture.
I guess the bottom line is that while I think religious extremism or backwardness could lead to violence. I don't think it necessarily always or even mostly will and I think if we're going to live in a more diverse interdependent world we need to realize this. I think this holds true in both Christianity and Islam. While, they are somewhat outside of the mainstream it's hard for me to think of Sufis has being moderates in the sense that they're secularized or live pluralistic life styles even if their believes make that more possible.
Mormon fundamentalist: Jeffrey Lundgren
Fundamentalist christians: Jim Jones, Scott Roeder, Anders Breivik
Fundamentalist christian leader Ander Schlafly: Violence against women act protects women too much
Study: Fundamentalist christians more inclined toward domestic violence
Fundy moron Sarah Palin literally targeted Gabrielle Giffords then pretended to be surprised when her 'don't retreat, reload' rhetoric compelled someone to act upon it, severely wounding Giffords and several others, killing 6
Acts of fundy-religiously motivated terrorism
Those are but a few examples of individuals and groups. If I were to list all of the ones I am personally aware of I'd be here all day.
To say that fundamentalism doesn't beget violence is at the very least, inaccurate and the the worst, denial. Look at the number of fundy parents in the last decade who have either killed their own children while in the grip of religious mania, or allowed their children to die while 'praying the illness away' rather than get the medical care that would have saved their lives.
Moderate, NORMAL christians do not do these things. Fundies on the other hand, do. They kill, abuse and destroy in the name of their god with great regularity, and anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken. Look at the data. Read the news.
@Theophilus166@xanga - Moses, Joshua, and David were also military leaders granted there are several other figures in Judaism that offset them however for whatever reason Judaism has been able to grapple with scriptures that at least on their face indicate a tendency towards violence in their religion. I think within Islam there is the same capacity even if the road is harder.
@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga - Actually as I understand the man who shot Giffords was an atheist and had made public statements against Palin. I don't deny there can be a tendency towards violence in fundamentalist religion but there can also be a tendency towards violence in secular political movements which were responsible for far more deaths than fundamentalist religious movements in the 20th century. That doesn't mean that secular or political movements are inherently violent. I'm not denying that there can be tendencies towards violence in religious movements just that secular societies have a tendency to distort the causes and nature of violence.
To go back to the point about the Amish I seriously doubt Amish parents are more likely to abuse their children than non-Amish and you couldn't find a more fundamentalist large scale movement in the U.S.
The fact that you take without question Sarah Palin was responsible in some way for Giffords death despite the underlining facts is evidence that secular societies can in fact and do distort the nature of violence.
Also, the paper you sited doesn't say what I suspect you want it to say. It says there is a correlation. The paper doesn't factor in controlling factors such as income, ethnicity and education level meaning that the researchers didn't say there was a causation. Also, while it is a horrible shame that some parents withhold medical treatment for their children it's hard to say that's a normal outcome of religion and the two largest groups that advocate limiting of medical intervention Scientologists and Jehovah's Witness while perhaps extremist are not fundamentalist but new religious movements.
@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga - I think that many Christians would argue that what you described is not extremism, but a distortion - taking what scripture teaches and replacing its ideals with their own fervor, zealotry, and violent ideas. People may describe them as extreme, but in actuality, they've created their own religion that isn't in the scriptures. I'd argue that extreme Christianity is taking what Jesus taught seriously - being willing to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us, and laying our life down for others.
As a Muslim one of the things that breaks my heart while reciting Qur'aan is the mention of al-yateem and al-miskeen, the orphans and the poor. It is mentioned in such a way with such intonation that if you actually know what you're saying the average Muslim living in luxury would have their heart broken every night because it directly challenges the life they're living, the struggles they go through every day.
If extremism would be basically running off with just one aspect of the religion, of going overboard with sincerity to the point you lose sight of things, etc. then for me I would see that extremism being found in giving charity because when we are accused of being greedy and not treating the orphans and the poor well... the reality is the majority of us don't even know who the orphans and the poor of our locale are.
There are so many aspects of a religion one could just take and run with, but the shorter and more commonly used and recited parts of the Qur'aan are those in the very back of the book.... which are short, powerful reminders about the afterlife and human psychology/sociology, including several mentions of al yateem and al miskeen. There are many challenges to the self in it. So if one focused on that there's no way they could be violent, in fact they might go to an extreme of peace instead because they wouldn't be able to take in mind all other material on an issue.
From what I know of just the last 30th part of the Qur'aan alone, the sort of stuff used to help establish belief in the heart of a believer, one would be too occupied with some ilk of correcting and improving their self, they would be too afraid, hurt, conscious, ashamed, caring, cautious, whatever, to cause harm to other people, and too busy for that matter for such a thing to even come up..... violence doesn't even enter the picture.
@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga - I think that's part of his point though, that we do not take as premise the data, whether there is any, on how much good has been done via religion yet somehow secular movements in society (whether academic, political, etc.) is what ought to be credited for such activity or "advances".