On the Left, Bigotry, and Islam
In the few left leaning blogs I manage to read a continual theme comes up, that the right is “fear mongering” or as Mr Greenwald writes:
Thus, white evangelical Ministers are free to advocate American wars based on Biblical mandates, rant hatefully against Islam, and argue that natural disasters occur because God hates gay people. They are still fit for good company, an important and cherished part of our mainstream American political system. [emphasis mine]
My remarks on the bold text above … below the fold.
Actually in the company Mr Greenwald keeps, Christians who don’t keep their faith hidden (under a basket?) aren’t considered good company. Mr Greenwald probably would regard myself and most of the (Christian) contributors to my RSS reader “not good company.” I recall some time ago reading a book, the title of which I forget, which was a diatribe against Christian evangelicals, fundamentalists, and so on. The author recounted, without irony, that he was surprised once at a dinner party discover that he was conversing with a fundamentalists and that person wasn’t reprehensible and actually on reflection was nice, pleasant, and a good conversationalist.
Zizek writes about acceptable bigotry in Europe in which while anti-Semitism and racial bigotry is socially unacceptable it’s acceptable to make any sort of derogatory remark about Serbs. Likewise in America, the acceptable bigotry is a localized phenomena. It is generically not allowed to make racially tinged remarks, i.e., anti-Black. However, in the North-East you can ascribe any sort of evil to fundamentalists on the Christian right, in other places any sort of anti-Catholic remarks are allowed. In Black communities you, likely, can make anti-Semitic or anti-Korean remarks without anyone batting an eyelash. Just about every group it seems has a group which is “Other” enough for which any variety of unsupported generic slurs can be made which pass unremarked.
On the first highlighted remark above, Islam, there is a problem, which is Islam itself. It is true of all religions everywhere that there are those which believe more or less than the rest. That is, there are shadings in how fervent believers hold and follow the teachings of their religion. This has always been the case. The problem that arises with Islam, which makes it different from any and all other major religions, is that the consequence of fervent belief is violence. Christian martyrs died as examples of their faith. Orthodoxy remembers them every day, for example from today’s Synaxarion:
The Holy Martyrs Paul and his sister Juliania were executed under the emperor Aurelian (270-275) in the Phoenician city of Ptolemaida. One time the emperor had occasion to journey to Ptolemaida. Among those meeting him was Paul, who signed himself with the Sign of the Cross, and this was noticed. They arrested him and threw him in prison. On the following day, when they brought him to trial, he openly and boldly confessed his faith in Christ, for which he was subjected to fierce tortures. Juliania, seeing the suffering of her brother, began in front of everyone to denounce the emperor for his injustice and cruelty, for which she was likewise subjected to torture. They beat the martyrs, tore at their bodies with iron hooks, scorched them over red-hot grates, but they were not able to break the wondrous endurance of the Lord’s confessors. [….] The people crowding about and seeing the suffering of the saints began to murmur loudly, and Aurelian gave orders to behead the martyrs immediately. With gladdened face the brother and sister went to execution singing: “For Thou (Lord) hath saved us from the vexatious and hath shamed those hating us” (Ps. 43 [44]: 7). [excerpt shortened for reasons of brevity]
There are no examples of martyrs in the “lists” who died fighting their opponent. Contrast with the homicidal “martyrs” running amuck in the Middle East now. This is not a casual difference. The heroes of Christendom, i.e., Saints, are non-violent. Fervent faithful Christians are not dangerous in the way that fervent Muslims are. Similar remarks, I think, can be made of the devotees of Buddha or the Hindu faith.
Now all this isn’t to say that moderate Muslims don’t exist in great numbers. However the problem of the fervent violent Muslim is one which the left prefers to deny. Denial of that problem isn’t exactly a solution and there have been exactly zero “solutions” to this problem suggested by anyone to date right or left. However the right at least acknowledges that this is a problem and that military resistance to the germinating violence is often required. The right acknowledges that this is a problem which needs confronting. The left, it seems, has this recurrent fantasy that “being nice”, “being moderate”, and “engaging in dialog” will make the problem go away. That seems dangerously disingenuous.
Filed under: Ethics & Morality • Government • Islam • Liberal • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The problem that arises with Islam, which makes it different from any and all other major religions, is that the consequence of fervent belief is violence…
Fervent faithful Christians are not dangerous in the way that fervent Muslims are.
Well, now that would depend, wouldn’t it? For violent fervent Christians ARE dangerous in a way that violent fervent Muslims are. Right?
I think what you’re hinting at here is that one can’t be a faithful Christian and be a violence advocate – a point on which I agree, AND I think you’re going on to say that a faithful Muslim WILL be violent. A point on which I and many fervent faithful Muslims would disagree.
Was that you’re point? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.
You go on to say:
However the problem of the fervent violent Muslim is one which the left prefers to deny. Denial of that problem isn’t exactly a solution and there have been exactly zero “solutions” to this problem suggested by anyone to date right or left.
You know of some so-called liberals who deny the reality of violent Muslims? Who?
We have a problem in our world of violent religious zealots from a variety of faith traditions. It seems to be especially acute right now in a relatively small percentage of Muslim groups. And I’m familiar with many solutions that have been proposed.
Bush has tried to deal with the problem by bombing terrorists anywhere he thinks they might be. Think there are some in Iraq? Well, let’s invade there and overthrow their dictator while we’re at it. Somalia? No problem, just drop a bomb and assassinate them and hopefully we won’t kill too many innocent bystanders.
That IS an attempted solution, just not an effective one.
Many on the Left have proposed solutions as well. And they’re not of the “let’s be nice to them and maybe they’ll leave us alone” variety.
The Left recognizes that those Muslims who would engage in horrifying terroristic acts are a minority group. On 9/12, they were an ostracized, hated minority group in the Muslim world. Muslims around the globe were supportive of the US bringing to justice those criminals who would commit acts of terror.
The Left proposes treating these criminals AS criminals. By attacking whole nations or bombing villages, then the US becomes a terrorist in the minds of the families and communities of those innocents killed and the Muslim terrorists gain support.
Solutions have been proposed.
Check out these, for instance.
Dan,
I can’t respond in depth right now, but will tonight.
The Right doesn’t propose not treating criminals as criminals, but Nations which intentionally harbor criminals (that is terrorists and terrorist organizations) need to be dealt with. The size of a terrorist organization changes (to the worse) by orders of magnitude if a state allows or encourages its existence.
In response to your link, I’d recommend reading The Bottom Billion for starters. War is not always the solution. But it is sometimes. Just as aid is not always the solution, but it is sometimes.
As I said, I’ll respond to the rest in more detail tonight.
Dan,
I need to know, who are these violent fervent Christians of which you speak? It seems to me that Christianity has been really good at keeping these ugly elements far from itself, which is something I can’t say for so-called moderate Muslims.
“white evangelical Ministers are free to advocate American wars based on Biblical mandates”
What an odd accusation, yet I’ve heard it before. From what I can tell leftists are under the delusion that we’re in Iraq because those dastardly fundamentalists said that the Bible commands we go in.
The rest of what Mr Greenwald says in the part you quote is equally strange. Apparently he’s the sort who can’t argue with his opponents without completely distorting what they say.
I don’t want to get into Iraq etc with Don Traube, but I will say that before you can propose solutions you need to correctly identify the enemy. And the enemy is not terrorists.
Were it so, we could indeed go after them as criminals, and propose solutions in line with that conclusion.
Rather, our enemy is a global insurgency of Jihadist Muslims. al Qaeda is at the head of the snake, but they’re hardly alone. Without getting into too much detail, on the Sunni sidethese Jihadists consist of Wahabbists and the Muslim Brotherhood (both of the Salafist/Takfiri school), and on the Shia the Khomeinists.
Iraq makes no sense if you view our enemy as mere terrorists. But if you see it as the global insurgency as I do it fits in.
Don overstates his case about military action, but does have a point. As Walid Phares says, it’s primarily a War of Ideas. Lt Col (Dr) Kilcullen says we should adopt a strategy of “disaggregation” (see his “Fighting Global Insurgency”).
But enough for now.
I need to know, who are these violent fervent Christians of which you speak?
I agree. Christians DO a better job of insisting that violence is not part and parcel of Jesus’ teachings than it seems Muslims have. If I am a Christian, after all, not a Muslim, and I’m a Christian for a reason.
And yet, there ARE and have been Christians (or those claiming to be Christians) who speak and act violently.
That Kansas nutjobs who show up at funerals of gay folk and military folk. The Klan has always been both violent and Christian in its doctrine. I’ve seen too many Christians these last five years say things like “We need to turn Iraq into a sea of glass!” “Nuke ’em all and let God sort ’em out!” etc.
You have not heard Christians speaking thusly?
I was at a rally not long ago in support of my gay brothers and sisters. A little old lady and I got into a bit of a Bible discussion. I pointed out that the same passage she was quoting from Leviticus that she said showed God was opposed to gay marriage went on to say, “They [men who lay with men] shall be killed” – is that what you believe, I asked her.
“If that’s what the Bible says, then that’s what we ought to do,” was her response. She could have been my grandmother.
Yes, we do a much better job, I think, of shouting down the Klan, the Kansas nuts, etc, saying “That’s not what Jesus taught!” than the Muslim world seems to be doing.
And yet, there are those Christians who advocate violence in a variety of ways.
Now, I would – most likely along with you – say that those who claim to be Christians and who advocate violence are not following in Jesus’ steps.
But then, there are those Muslims – a good number of them – out there doing the same thing for their faith. That’s all I’m saying – That I am not in a position to disagree with the hundreds of millions of Muslims who insist that the Muslim terrorists have it wrong – that Islam is a religion of peace. They know their religion better than I do.
Dan,
Before getting into the Islam part, I’d remark that in Milgrom’s Leviticus commentary he remarks the the “putting to death” for various sins (including homosexuality) was intended to apply to those residing in Israel when the Tabernacle resided in the chosen land. As that “little old lady” was neither in Israel and the temple has been destroyed for just a little while … that sort of argument might cause her to pause.
Michael Spencer is blogging the Q’uran and including standard commentary. His thesis, as well as that of a number of others, is that Islam might claim to be a religion of peace, but it isn’t at least where it’s contact with other religions are concerned. Consider the treatment of Christians within Islamic countries worldwide today and historically.
My point is to add that all religions have a varied response to the call to faith, from the very fervent (those who give their life to the faith) to the more tepid. Christians who give their all to the faith, go to the desert, renounce wealth, take up celibacy and become monastics, become missionaries, or perhaps become martyrs. Muslims who give their all do what? Given the frequent calls to violent conflict in their religious texts, it would seem that violence will be with us as long as Islam is.
Before getting into the Islam part, I’d remark that in Milgrom’s Leviticus commentary he remarks the the “putting to death” for various sins (including homosexuality) was intended to apply to those residing in Israel when the Tabernacle resided in the chosen land.
And so says Milgrom. But not the Bible. That’s Milgrom’s take on what the Bible says. And that’s my point.
There are PLENTY of verses in the Bible that can be read as being supportive of “godly” genocide, killing, maiming, infanticide, rape, kidnap, slavery, torture, etc, if people are inclined to take it that way.
I don’t think you can be following in Jesus’ steps and take them that way but people can and have done so.
Similarly, I believe the majority of Muslims don’t take the Qu’ran the way that the minority does. I don’t think it’s our place to tell the majority of Qu’ran believers that they’re wrong about what it says. Do you?
Dan,
Milgrom says that based on the Bible, which is my point. You counter notions like her’s not with reason but exegesis.
You do realize that in the 1st century, when Jesus asked the lawyer what most important teachings of the Law were, his answer was canonical doctrine. You say there are plenty of verses to support “godly” genocide et al, but you’re wrong. Jewish and Christian tradition all say you’re wrong. Those that take the “violent” view are outside the mainstream. The “violent view” is the mainstream for Islam.
You believe that the majority of Mulims don’t take the Qu’ran as a book encouraging violence. Why? Because believing otherwise is inconsistent with your view of man or because you have evidence? Mr Spencer is providing evidence to the contrary, that is he’s examining mainstream commentary and recounting what is found there.
And looking here and you consider which nations are Islamic in that list … what does that tell you?
It’s a capital crime in many if not most Islamic counties to leave the Islamic faith for another. This is based on Sharia, on the Qu’ran! Does the majority think that’s a bad idea but are all conveniently silent on the matter. If they do think it’s bad, is the reason they don’t speak out … because it’s contrary to Scripture, i.e., the Qu’ran?
Dan,
WIth all due respect, comparing Phelps and the Klan with Jihadists is an apples and oranges proposition. I do not know of a single Christian who associates themselves with those locos, but it seems an awful lot of the so-called moderate Muslims are sympathetic towards the Jihadists. Most Muslims probably do not identity with the Jihadists, but they certain have poor mouth pieces. Unless I’m wrong, I cannot think of a single well-respected Christian leader who identifies or sympathizes with Phelps or the Klan.
And then there’s the whole comparison between speaking ill of someone, and chopping their head off. Not so much apples and oranges as it is apples and quartz.
Those that take the “violent” view are outside the mainstream. The “violent view” is the mainstream for Islam.
Says you.
Many Muslims disagree. Just as you and I disagree with those who’d say that Christianity is a religion of violence.
You believe that the majority of Mulims don’t take the Qu’ran as a book encouraging violence. Why?
Because of anectdotal evidence – the Muslims I’ve read and heard in the peacemaker movement and beyond, as well as the experiences of my minister friend living in Muslim Morocco – AND because of surveys/polls (ie, more objective evidence) that shows that the majority of Muslims view their faith that way.
Studies that touch on this found here and here, for starters.
Now, clearly there is more support for violence than I’d like to see among Muslims. Just as there’s more support for violence than I’d like to see among Christians, only moreso.
And just as clearly, the circumstances matter to people. Most Christians will tell you that targeting civilians is wrong EVERY TIME… well, except for in situations like Hiroshima. Or Dresden. Or… and the list continues.
Similarly, the circumstances matter for Muslims.
My point is and remains twofold:
1. That there is way too much support for terrorism amongst Muslims,
2. Nonetheless, studies show that most Muslims suggest that they think Islam teaches living peaceably in this world.
Just because Doug or Mark or whoever SAYS Islam is inherently violent does not make it so. Islam, like Christianity, is not a monolith with one person speaking for the whole. There is a range of opinions and theologies within Islam, as within Christianity.
We need to stand opposed to violence towards innocents (consistently) wherever that violence occurs and not seek to pigeon hole the religion of a billion + of people into one small line that WE decide represents Islam. That’s a fight for Muslims to fight and a call that only they can make.
I do not know of a single Christian who associates themselves with those locos…
Just because you don’t know of them does not make it the case. I don’t know a single Muslim that associates with the terrorists, either.
Dan, there’s speaking, and there’s acting. You are correct; we should not have the “nuke ’em all and let God sort it out attitude”. But it’s an attitude. It’s words. Wrong words and attitudes, but words.
Where in the Christian world was there anything at all like the reaction to the Danish cartoons? People died, Dan. Christians are mocked routinely in cartoons, TV shows and movies around the world, with what reaction? Words. What government, with a Christian history, persecutes or kills those who leave Christianity, while, as Mark noted, Sharia, based on the Quran, is practiced in a number of Muslim countries, and permits the taking of life for those who leave the faith?
There’s a comparison of degree here that you seem to be ignoring or hand-waving away. The Klan doesn’t hold a candle to these guys. Whether or not these actions are supported by the Quran is certainly a point that can be debated, but the headlines we read really speak for themselves.
Like I said, apples and quartz.
I have a post responding to Greenwald’s Haggee post here.
There’s no such thing a “true” Islam or Christianity, and hardly any of their adherents are consistent or even know what they’re supposed to believe. Gene Expression explains here.