Norway attacks suspect admits responsibility - Europe - Al Jazeera English
This is so disconcerting I had to share it. Many who know me well know that I disdain right-wing fundamentalism, but usually the conversation leads to the south, addressing my American neighbors. Sometimes the topic is nearer to home where there is a growing right-wing extremism in Canada, especially in some of the evangelical churches that are drifting into fundamentalism. A year ago I was confronted by extremism on two fronts, both of which where while I was in East Africa. As many may remember Al-Shabab (Somali Islamic extremist group) bombed a world cup party in Uganda, which was rather "close to home" as I was in neighboring Tanzania at a very similar world cup party. There was also the grenade attacks in Nairobi while I was a few blocks away. That was a double sided attack. The rally was for what I would consider extremist right wing Christians, and soon after the grenades went off fingers were being pointed at extremist Islamic groups as well. The disconcerting part for me is not the dissimilarity between the two "religions" but the similarity that both choose to become highly intolerant. The similarity that both become driven in a right-wing direction. The similarities are endless, but they stop being religions and end up becoming radicalized groups with religious rhetoric. I find myself shocked today because the one place on earth I continued to hold as the Mecca for free and open discourse appears to be crumbling. I guess I had chosen to not read the signs, to blissfully ignore the trends of a growing extremism, to live in a fairy tale that the nations that stood for social discourse and tolerance were being infiltrated from the inside by right-wing extremism. The reason I find this nearly unimaginable is that I am forced to question my belief in whether or not there can be an apolitical state that allows for tolerance and civil discourse. It is moments like this where I have an incredible affinity to people such as Christopher Hitchens, who view religion as the problem and humanism as the solution...moments like this one make me ponder whether people such as this are correct.
you didn't watch the zizek video yet did you? he talks about the falling of Europe and the western world toward authoritarianism.
ReplyDeleteNo I have not had a chance yet to watch the video, i've been a little busy. I am looking forward to it though. For everyone else this is the video of which Duncan is speaking http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/slavoj-zizek
ReplyDelete>It is moments like this where I have an incredible affinity to people such as Christopher Hitchens, who view religion as the problem and humanism as the solution...moments like this one make me ponder whether people such as this are correct.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, humanism, at its core, believes that humans and humanity are basically good; that whatever problems there are can be overcome by more education, a better political system, a better economic system, etc. etc.
A central tenet of christianity, on the other hand, is that people are flawed/fallen, and need rescuing and redemption.
Which seems to reflect current and historical reality better?
imladris,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the source of the current and historical realities? Is it the individual person, or the beliefs/religions/ideologies that that individual embraces?
Would the Crusades have occurred without Christianity/Islam?
The Muslim conquest of Spain?
Would the Spanish Inquisition have occurred without Catholicism?
Would the Salam witch trials have occurred without Protestant(Puritan) superstitions?
Would 6 million Jews have died in WW2 without the false racist ideologies of the Nazi party (before you spout out the Hitler was influenced by Darwin read Mien Kampf – its full of religious symbolism, and creationist language – besides political ideologies are just as guilty of engendering extremist thought)?
Bloody Sunday without Protestant/Catholic beliefs?
Would wives in India throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre without Hinduism?
Or the Caste system that keeps millions in squalor?
Would Israel be constantly at odds with their neighbours without Islam/Judaism?
This list is hardly exhaustive, and consistently triggered by ideology – not individual “evil”…
Your bias informs your view of current events, you see the individual(s) without the root causes and you alter the sources of historical violence because the root causes don’t confirm that bias. No one escapes this sort of bias – its really an expression of tribalism – but you can remind yourself that the bias exists and instead of using a rehearsed explanation (mankind is fallen, bad things happen because this world is flawed, the sin of man is the cause of death…) look at the event and ask “what was the motivation of the individual/group?” Not evil “just because”, but because of what they are taught to believe.
My wife constantly reminds me that my bias tends towards “science good, religion bad” and I have to agree with her (on this and the many other subjects that she keeps me humble on)-- science has its fair share of mistakes and atrocities – though not of the multigenerational hatred that tribal ideologies create, and how much the atrocity part can be laid at the feet of science as opposed to the political ideologies of the time I wouldn’t assume to speculate at.
Point being look for a cause prior to evoking your magical book explanation.
Daniel.
Well, Daniel,
ReplyDeletemy comment was primarily aimed at Silas, with whom I share a bias to one extent or another (did you notice the extensive quotations from the "magical book" that are splattered throughout this blog :) ); not at the hardcore "religion is the root of all evil" audience that you are representing.
But, since you raise it, let me respond.
Firstly, you are right, my bias informs my view of current and historical events. So does everyones, including yours. We are all biased in various ways. I think you are really raising the more legitimate point that we should work at being aware of our biases and not allowing it to *unthinkingly* inform our views. With this I certainly agree, and I think it is part of what the writers of this blog are after, as well.
So, here are some thoughts. I readily agree with you that *ideology* has a strong tendency to result in evil on a large scale and, further, that religion has an alarming tendency to drift towards ideology/dogma. Religion in general, and christianity in particular, is, or has been used, in most of the large scale death scenes you mention, and so, certainly, has much to answer for.
The question raised, though, is what is the root cause? Is it all/most religion? Or is it the inate "cussedness" of human nature? There is no ready *scientific* method available for deciding the question. We are now in the realm of psychology. While psychology uses statistics and experiments to investigate its field, it is clearly not subject to the hard and fast repeatable experiments in the "harder" sciences, which can provide definitive answers to questions.
But here are a couple of observations that I think are relevant.
Napoleon, I believe, said that any nation is three square meals away from revolution. The point of the remark being that when survival is threatened, all social contracts will go out the window.
In Russia, under communist rule, we had a nation that was very determinedly "unreligious". Religion was officially surpressed, with vigour, on a very large scale. Despite this, and communisms wonderful ideals, it did not succeed, even, in producing an enduring state; let alone a "better" society.
I have raised two children and observed lots more. Children are not born with religion. They *are* born with an extremely strong sense of *self*. *Me*, *Mine* are incredibly strong, natural, impulses. It takes enormous, patient, persistent effort to teach them to empathize with the "other" person, teach them to share, to take turns, and not resort to violence to get their way.
My point, with these three examples, is that *selfishness* or *self-centredness* is an enourmously strong, *innate*, trait in people in general. *My* survival, *my* money (or lack thereof in failed communisms case) and *my* toys all echo here. And from the selfishness of people in general, and leaders in particular, it is not that large a step to ideology, war and conquest. They are means (ideology) or method (war) for advancing the (selfish) interests of the leaders and/or nations.
On that basis I submit that it is a reasonable proposition that it is ultimately human nature that is at work; not religion or flawed systems.
What I submit is clearly not proof. Nor can I prove that I am not simply reasoning with a confirmation bias. But you are, unfortunately, caught in the same predicament. We won't be able to settle this one here. What we can do is work at thinking through the many sides of complex questions, and not descend into ideology on either side.
The answer to flawed religion (i.e. religion that leads to the atrocities listed above, namely, fundamentalism) is not no religion but rather true and right religion.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about this and had a notion that there are some small tribal cultures that operate in a much more communal and generous fashion... If true then I propose that where things go wrong is as we build "empire" I think it is a fair description of almost every example listed. Something goes wrong when we take personal beliefs or ideology and then attempt to universalize them. I also think that perhaps some of the selfish attributes listed above are potentially a socially constructed artifice of empire... However all of this only leads us to the question of why do we build empire? Why do we repeatedly attempt to dominate others through power and control? Religion is often empire's bitch and used as a mask for power quests.
ReplyDeleteGarrett, true religion seems a little difficult and subjective to define but I think I would want to have included in the definition non - imperial. However, that may rule out Biblical Christianity, which poses a personal problem for myself...
Duncan, can you explain how you see Biblical Christianity as imperial in nature?
ReplyDeleteMy thinking is something along the lines that the Bible says that God is trying to take over the world... That in the old testament that looks like Israel physically ousting Canaanites (very imperial) and in the new testament it is a bit more spiritual but involves the coming of the kingdom/reign of God and anticipate a finality when God rules and everything is good. Now of course it self defines all of these things as good and I don't necessarily disagree but their is certainly lots of imperial language kingdom, armour etc... Now certainly it would also show God as against human empire, which is simple enough if we agree that human empire is bad, as I have suggested above. God is against bad things. Fine. But now we have to navigate what God does about them without becoming them. Perhaps to a certain degree this solves some theodicy issues or maybe it makes more. I default to Robert Farrar Capon who centers on Jesus and argues that during the temptation Jesus rejects imperial use of power when he doesn't accept all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus explicitly moves the "kingdom" forward in the opposite way that an empire would in that Jesus dies rather than kills. God refuses to use coercion...(what counts?)
ReplyDeleteHowever, with all that being said, certainly the church and most of the western world is guilty of imperial thinking which is not surprising when perhaps what we find in the Bible is non imperial imperialism? although Revelation kinda screws that argument... Certainly its understandable why people might get confused and go on a crusade. Christianity or Hell! Rome or Die! Do you see what I'm getting at? There is something definitively expansionist about Biblical Christianity which has often become imperial.
I find it interesting the direction this has taken…the humanity as basically good vs. the humanity are fallen and *innate* selfishness side. I wonder if this is just dogma and we find ourselves entrenching ourselves on either side. I wonder if we are not more socially constructed than we like to believe. I have not raised two children, but sometimes I wonder if children are selfish or are taught incredibly early to be selfish. I know I am here pushing against the construction of original sin of the 4th century and moving to a Rousseau and the blank slate. I get this from the Bible though, and reading Genesis as the story of Humanity, a story where all are provided with choice. I wonder if the systems and the constructs from a very early point start shaping the decisions individuals make, which are hardly then the individual’s fault but the entire community/societies fault. I don’t know that I will adequately articulate my thought, or even more less likely be able to “prove” what I think is “true”. But I wonder if the dogma we are subjected to is more to blame than anything else. The only comfort for me on this is that Paul articulates that whatever happened in the Event of Jesus, it influenced the powers and principalities. My hope then is that this influence opens the way to do better than before. But I think that takes education, something that the humanist in me smiles at. I also lean this way because I have a hard time comprehending the evil of one person having this result. I am not sure I can fully blame him, because I am sure there are factors that shaped him and I equally blame the factors as they are in cahoots with the individual. This is where I think Duncan was getting close in the discussion of Empire and the totality of belief. I am subjective enough to know that if everyone were like me we would have a problem, just like when any belief becomes monopolizing, as that belief/ideology becomes corrupt when made universal.
ReplyDeleteAs for Imperial Christianity…we need some missions perspective. Christianity may be universal but it will be so different that it will hardly be considered universal. I witnessed this in East Africa where the “Christians” were nothing like me, and if you were to empirically compare Christianities from around the globe the only logical conclusion would be that they would are not similar enough to be said to be univeralizing. Unique context and worldview so change what it means to be Christian that “Christian” can be universal but it will never monopolize in the way we understand it.
Interesting conversation going on. I appreciate the authorial choir approach to your blog. And good post Silas. I shared your gut reaction to these events.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, about the belief in some apolitical state providing tolerant and civil discourse. I’m not sure if you’re thinking, like some, to see religious belief excised from the public square or political discourse. I don’t think that is possible because any political policy is rooted in some ultimate belief or particular worldview. Even the call to remove all religious views from the public square is itself a secular religious view (the unproven assertion that religion should not be part of the public square). So, how can civil discourse allow for full expression that is free and tolerant? The big question every western, multi-cultural society is struggling with.
Second, I think we need to listen to voices like Hitchens (of course, many of his claims are equally imperial to that of any religion). I would agree with him that religion is a huge source of untold harm in the world - you can’t deny the historical record. Religion is inherently self-justifying. You believe you have the truth/correct way of life, and need to prove the superiority of that truth/way of life, leading you to separate from those who don’t hold to that truth/way of life, to often stereotype, marginalize, demonize and eventually do violence to those different than you.
Which is why I would want to make a distinction b/w religion and the gospel. The gospel is uniquely different than religion. As I understand it, the gospel keeps you connected to and identified with every other human being (you, like all, are a sinner in need of saving grace) and deeply humbled (you are not accepted by God because of your moral performance or deeper spiritual insight but by God’s action in the cross of Christ). There’s no place for pride or separation (a brilliant exposition of tracing out these lines of the gospel is Miroslav Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace), but only for self-giving as Christ gave himself. The trouble is many who identify as Christians don't know the gospel.
And I think you’re on to something when you say “they stop being religions and end up becoming radicalized groups with religious rhetoric.” Recall Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds. We need a good theology of the weeds. The reality is not all who carry the name of any one religion either embody it or represent it anymore that a rioting fan wearing a Canucks jersey represents the Canucks or the city of Vancouver.
I would like to add a quote from my Psych 101 textbook as an addendum to the developmental aspect of this conversation...
ReplyDelete"TV-watching preschoolers who block your view of the television assume that you see what they see. When relating to a young child, remember that such behaviors reflect a cognitive limitation: The egocentric preschoolers are not intentionally "selfish" or "inconsiderate." They simply have not developed the ability to take another's view point. We never, however, fully outgrow our early childhood egocentrism. Even as adults, we often overestimate the extent to which others share our opinions and perspective, as when we assume that something will be clear to others if it is clear to us. Children, however, are even more susceptible to this 'curse of knowledge'."
Psychology advocates for a "biopsychosocial" approach when attempting to discern the root cause of human behavior. In this blog, social influences (fundamentalism) and the psychological ideologies (ones interpretation of the Gospel) that go along with them have been discussed at length and with great tact. Discussion of this kind is essential; without it empires would not rise, and more importantly fall as they do. I believe that egocentrism is a word that aptly describes the source of much of what has been discussed on this page.
I write this as a reminder of the biological dimension to what Silas writes about a blank slate. Undoubtably the influences mentioned above affect the developing child, but it seems that they nourish an already present cognitive reality in that child's brain that is restrained on a neurological level. It would also seem that if one were to trace the roots of those influences they would ultimately lead to a child's biological disposition towards selfishness and limited ability to restrain/control/shape/change it.
I fully believe egocentrism can be fought, but I am not convinced that it can be "nipped in the bud", as it were. At least in the present.
I think it would be worth bringing Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat into the conversation at this point. In Colossians Remixed they ask the very question that much of this discussion has been aimed at answering: is the Bible imperial? They argue that it is not for two reasons. The first is the centrality of suffering throughout the narrative which they say "serves to delegitimate any ideological use of the biblical story that will cause violence within exclusionary us-them polarities" (108). The God of the Christian worldview does, afterall, end up dying on a cross at the hands of those who disagree with him. "A story that has God intimately involved with suffering and that sees violence to be the root of the human predicament should engender a worldview that eschews all violence, including violence to those who radically disagree with us" (108).
ReplyDeleteThe second reason that Walsh and Keesmaat give in their argument against seeing the Bible as imperial or, in their language, a regime of truth, is the election of Israel as a light to the nations. The point of the election of Israel was, as we know, to bring restoration to the entire cosmos. It is this creationwide intent of God's redemption that keeps us from moving in an imperial direction that would demonize anyone who is different than us. The plan is total redemption. Ultimately, there is no us vs. them within this worldview.
So I would agree, Duncan, that there is imperial language used in the Scriptures. That is undeniable. The question is what is the intent of the imperial language. I would argue, along with Walsh and Keesmaat, that it is a redefined imperialism--one that is fundamentally different than the imperialism that we're so used to seeing the nations of the world employ and even (sadly) the church at times.
Garret,
ReplyDeleteI love the quote about the way the theme of suffering delegitimizes ideological uses of scripture. I think this is a fascinating idea. And you have effectively presented the perspective that I basically hold regarding Christianity, scripture and violence. However, I am currently struggling precisely this idea of the creation wide intent of redemption as non-imperial. It is precisely this impulse towards universality that gets everyone in trouble so are we really reduced to "well its God so its ok/good"? Just because it attempts/or succeeds in absorbing everyone into the "us" wither in reality or ideologically or both does not make it unique as it is precisely this intent and ability that made Greece and Rome so successful. Furthermore, I think it is hard to maintain that the biblical story does not contain an "us" vs "them" plot line given the rebellion of "the nations" right from Genesis to Revelation - a plot line that ends violently... "the nations" (OT) "the world" (Paul) "the barbarians" "the infidels"... What's the difference?
I think that if, as Silas suggests, that Christianity is not universal in a melting pot capacity but in another fashion that perhaps we are getting somewhere but then what does universal mean? I also appreciated Phil's comment that the gospel is not a religion even if Christianity has become one. I am still thinking about the implications of this. Especially, because I hate the "it's not a religion it's a relationship" line... but I think that thinking about the gospel as separate is an interesting approach and like the definition of the gospel that Phil gives.
Could it be that the crucial difference between "regular" empire and "Godly" empire is that the only way anyone becomes part of the "Godly" empire is through personal choice?
ReplyDeleteOk, I agree that personal choice is of critical importance. But I think the key to personal choice making a difference to this discussion is the potential consequences. If the choice is prosperity or death i.e. heaven or hell... This does does not seem that different than the choice offered to the world by Rome. The difference could be argued that what Rome offered was a lie but what God offers is true... Ok... but this seems only a little bit better than "it's God so its ok/good". And if history is allowed to be part of the conversation than as already highlighted the church has not made God's case for being different and true any easier. This is one reason I think that our heaven and hell theology is important... However, again I think we wind up reduced to presuppositions. If we could make a list of measurable differences what would they or should they be? And how would we demonstrate them?
ReplyDeleteHMmmm. You're highlighting the similarities between the Roman empire and God's "empire" (choice between prosperity or death) and glossing the differences (taking and managing by force and extracting wealth vs. personal choice to join).
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is time for a definition. How do you define empire? And exactly why is empire bad? You appear to be implying that any organization that seeks to enlarge itself and that offers rewards for joining is an empire; regardless of means, motive or method. Is Microsoft building an empire? FIFA? How about the SCA? The IODE? Newcomers? McDonalds? Scott Adams? Canada? Brigade? The Internet? Climate change researchers? This blog?
Excellent questions and comments. So excellent that we are working on a full post response rather than just a quick comment reply. Thanks.
ReplyDelete