Clash of Civilizations
From Ralph Phelan
I think there's a lot of wisdom and insight in what you wrote. To
put that in perspective, I'm a lifelong atheist.
It takes a peculiar sort of blindness to think all religions and
ideologies are the same. Did Nazism and Communism have no effect on
the societies of Germany and Russia? Ideologies are not content-free.
Human nature is the same all over - it's differences in ideology
that make some places much nicer to live than others. So criticising
an ideology is not "dehumanizing" the people who hold it. On the
contrary - it's paying them the respect of assuming that they have
the same capabilities as anyone else and that any problems they're
having spring solely from some poisonous ideas they need to get rid
of.
I don't much care about where Christianity was four hundred years
ago or where Islam might be four hundred years from now. I'm
concerned about the world I live in now, the world that children I
care about will live in in the foreseeable future, and how currently
active belief systems affect that world.
As an atheist, my primary concern with religion is whether it
results in people who make good neighbors and who are capable of
building good civilizations. My definition of "good" happens to
include freedom, democracy, civility, stable and loving personal
relationships, reward for talent and effort, and mercy towards the
helpless innocent.
My reading of history is that for a monotheistic religion,
Christianity is remarkably compatible with the above. I think your
correspondent who called it a "Semitic religion" underestimates the
influence of Saint Patrick and the extent to which the mediaeval
diaspora of Irish monks made Christianity a truly Western European
product.
Many polytheistic religions also seem to work out well. Greek and
Roman paganism was, of course, compatible with the invention of
democracy and the first practical republic. Hinduism seems to be
adapting to democracy and modernism just fine - India has done a
remarkable job of going from a basket case to a technological power
with a flawed but functional democracy in the past half-century.
Aside from the bum rap it got in the 1930s, when it was temporarily
hijacked by political extremists, Shinto has proven itself compatible
with the same sort of transformation in the time since Commodore
Perry's arrival in Edo.
Difficult-to-classify Buddhism and the
even-more-difficult-to-classify Confucianism have proven compatible
with the rapid construction of good and ever-improving societies in
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Modern Judaism seems to be doing well, but it's a poor test case:
We just can't know what Israeli society would be like if they weren't
surrounded by people who are always trying to kill them.
Fascism didn't make good neighbors, and it died real quickly.
Marxism sucks, and it's dying too.
Then there's Islam with its "bloody borders." It's the only major
ideology in the world today that combines incompatibility with a
"good" society and historical "legs." The Islamic world has scores of
autocracies and only one modern almost-democratic state (Turkey). The
only branch of Islam that consistently makes decent neighbors are the
Sufis, who are the ones who pay the least attention to the Koran. For
the rest, Muslims fight with Christians, they fight with Jews, they
fight with Hindus, they fight with Buddhists, they fight with
Communists in western China....
My one difference of opinion with you is that I don't think the
struggle we're in is "Islam vs. Christendom." Islam's intolerance is
universal enough that it's going to turn into "Islam vs.
everybody."
- Ralph Phelan
P.S. I think you're a bit too pessimistic about the moral state of
Anglo-American society. Compared to fifty or a hundred years ago, we
seem crass, to be sure. But our movies aren't nearly as violent as
some of our society's older entertainments, such as going to
executions, bear baiting, etc. And I read in a social history of
England that in the 1600s something like a fifth of the population
was too poor to marry. Do you think they were all celibate? As
morality goes, while we may not be in our best shape ever, neither
are we in our worst.
P.P.S. You might be interested (and feel a bit less lonely) if you
go and check out fellow Eastern Canadian Damien
Penny's website.
- Hi Ralph,
Thank you for the interesting and thoughtful response. I know God
loves honest atheists (viz: Revelation 3:14-15 ;-) )
Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said, "I love all religions, but I
am in love with my own." While I am convinced that Christianity is
the unique and exclusive revelation of God in the person of Jesus
Christ, who I believe is God, most major religions, if their
precepts are followed reasonably closely, make for ordered and
livable societies. However, the estate of some members (e.g.,
women under Islamic law) may not be enviable.
I don't disagree with you on the Islam vs. everybody point, but
the tremendous growth of Christianity outside the developed West,
often on what Islam regards as its turf, makes the
Islam-Christianity dialectic the most volatile one in a global
sense.
Philip Jenkins, author of the recently released "The Next
Christendom," points out that "in 1900, Africa had just 10 million
Christian out of a continental population of 107 million - about
9 percent. Today the Christian total stands at 360 million out of
784 million, or 46 percent." Africa had 16 million Catholics in
the early 1950s; it has 120 million today, and is estimated to
grow to 228 million by 2025.
Writing in the October 2002 Atlantic Monthly, Jenkins says
that in the next 25 years global Christian population will grow to
2.6 billion, larger than any other religious faith by a
substantial margin. Pentecostals alone number 400 million and will
reach perhaps one billion by 2040, at which point that single
Christian denomination will outnumber Buddhists and match the
world's Hindu population in size.
I'm not lonely, but I will check out Mr. Penny's Website.
Charles
Dueling civilizations
From Grant Streng
Mr. Moore,
I just finished reading your latest article on Islam and skimming
about half of the attached letters.
Great article, and some pretty well thought out letters. I thought
I might share some of my views on Muslims with you.
I've noticed an interesting pattern amongst almost all the
proponents of Islam in the news media of late; a justification of the
self declared evils of the Muslim faith by comparing it to the
hypocrisy within Christian history and present. A comparison of two
unrelated things: theological doctrine and social aberrance. There is
a difference between a church and it's doctrine. I cannot think of a
single theological group thoughout history that hasn't acted in the
name of their faith whilst the very act was contrary to the doctrine
that the group subscribes themselves to.
Hold people accountable for what they do and not the religion
which they profess. Unless, like with the Muslims, their doctrine
condones what they do. It's important to recognize that religion is
not a a guise for evil. Call it what it is. Don't fear being
"politically incorrect".
The United States of America, aside from being created from
Christianity's moral ethics, is based on agency (the ability to
choose for one's self) which, in and of itself, is a key principle of
Christianity. As you know, Mr. Moore, Muslims in the most fundamental
terms of their faith would rob you and I of our agency because we
choose not to subscribe to their doctrine. We are infidels. They
would have us acted upon and not free to act for ourselves.
- "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all
things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are
free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great
mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according
to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all
men might be miserable like unto himself." - Lehi
Lehi is not saying, "ye who are righteous give the wicked
their consequence of death and captivity" No. What he is saying is
that when one follows the teachings of Jesus one becomes free through
his atonement. When we choose wickedness we give up our agency unto
condemnation and spiritual death. God is the judge, and we are free
to choose.
Grant Streng
- Hi Grant,
Yes, free will is the cornerstone of the whole Judeo-Christian
concept. Without it, we would be robots, or at best just clever
animals operating on natural instinct. With it, we become
accountable for our actions, and of course capable of sin as well
as capable of love and virtue. As you say, we are free to
choose.
Charles
September 17 used to be Constitution Day
From Timothy Virkkala
...but in 1952 it was changed to "Citizenship Day."
More in line with the original memorial, tomorrow, on the 17th, a
delegation of historians will present to Congress a petition signed
by over 1,250 of their professional colleagues reminding members of
Congress of their sworn duty to debate and vote on the Bush
Administration's proposed war with Iraq.
"We, the undersigned American historians," the petition (authored
by UCLA historians Joyce Appleby and Ellen Carol DuBois) begins,
"urge our members of Congress to assume their Constitutional
responsibility to debate and vote on whether or not to declare war on
Iraq. We do so because Americans deserve to hear their
representatives deliberate about a possible war, lest such a
momentous course of action be undertaken by the president alone after
a public airing filled with rumors, leaks, and speculations.
"We ask our senators and representatives to do this because
Congress has not asserted its authority to declare war for over half
a century, leaving the president solely in control of war powers to
the detriment of our democracy and in clear violation of the
Constitution. We believe it is particularly urgent that Congress
reassert its authority at this time since an attack on Iraq, if made,
would be an American initiative. Since there was no discussion of
Iraq during the 2000 presidential campaign, the election of George
Bush cannot be claimed as a mandate for an attack. Only a debate by
Americans' elected representatives can engage the public in a serious
consideration of the costs, risks, and wisdom of such a war."
As David Theroux of the Independent Institute (from whom I adapted
the above) reminds us, "Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
specifies that it is Congress, not the president, which has the power
to declare war."
Of course, Congress long ago abdicated this responsibility. To our
detriment.
Now that we are lurching toward what may very well become an
endless war with nation after nation of Muslims - a war wherein
every one of our successes would almost certainly breed more
terrorism against us - Congress's Constitutional duty surely should
be exercised again.
The historians do not add a proviso that if I were a Congressman I
would surely tack on to any debate on war: If the current president
pushes us into an undeclared war, he should immediately be impeached
and tried for the high crime of acting in disregard for his oath of
office, for committing American lives and risking American security
by extra-Constitutional warfare.
Good citizens might consider reading the Constitution tomorrow,
especially as it relates to war powers.
And they would do well to go out of their way to write their
representatives, demanding a return to the original idea of checks
and balances. And why not add a stick to that demand? Say that if
your representative does not move for a formal and critical debate on
the issue, then you will support any major contender in the next
election that would oppose your representative. Perhaps with that
threat your representative might take you seriously. And if hundreds,
or better yet, thousands making similar demands, a responsible,
Constitutional debate might actually take place.
The terrible business of a war should never be left up to the
executive branch alone.
timothy v.
- Hi Timothy,
I support the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein as a last resort,
but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Charles
Re: Dueling Civilizations: Islam and the
West
From Dmitri Popov
Hi Charles,
I must admit that your arguments sound very convincing. I really
admire your almost renaissance knowledge - from PowerBooks to Islam
- and I'm an avid reader of your columns at Low End Mac and
MacOpinion. Thank you for your great articles!
Regards,
Dmitri
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
