 sj |
||
|
||
Extremism's theological roots
|
|
|
Subject: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST,Mark Lilla Date: 07 Oct 01 - 04:35 PM If there is any consensus among spokesmen and students of religion commenting on the events of Sept. 11, it is that those behind them do not in any way represent the Islamic faith. As the distinguished scholar of fundamentalisms, Martin E. Marty, put it in last week's New York Times Magazine, "this is not Islam." The desire to exculpate Islam is understandable, not only on grounds of toleration and good sense, but also given the very real dangers some of our Muslim citizens have faced in recent weeks. Yet a larger question looms: to what degree does any religion bear responsibility for those who speak in its name? Here the specialists are clearly of two minds. Over the past decade there has been a growing movement to hold secular and religious institutions responsible for past harms they caused, either by apologizing or by providing restitution. The results have been mixed, and in some cases questionable. But certainly one good result is that the Roman Catholic church has been forced to confront its past in relation to European Jewry. The deep issue this confrontation has raised is not whether individual church authorities abused their powers or distorted church teaching, but whether there is something in traditional church doctrine — said or unsaid — that made official anti-Semitism possible for centuries. It is all very well for Catholics today to insist that their faith, properly interpreted, does not condone anti-Semitism. But that does not get us closer to understanding how millions of Catholics over a millennium could have thought that it did. Any Catholic who is serious about his faith must pose this question to himself. The Vatican can and should be held responsible for the history of the Roman Catholic Church because it has the sole right to determine doctrines of faith. Muslims, like Jews, recognize no central doctrinal authority, rendering it more difficult, even for believers, to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy and heresy. Yet if any religion is to cope with these deviations it must recognize that they do not arise from nowhere but have roots, however twisted, in the faith itself. Christians who bomb abortion clinics appeal to the Christian Bible and persuade others to join them on Biblical grounds. That Islamic fundamentalism and its militant offshoots appeal to the Koran is therefore not an incidental matter. It means that they have found a way to breed in the religious space opened up by the revelation Islam presupposes. Muslims the world over bristled when President Bush spoke of the campaign against terrorism as a "crusade," a word they still associate with the slaughters of medieval Christian incursions. And they are not wrong to do so: there is a plausible "crusading" interpretation of Christianity that appears periodically in Christian history, and which the Christian churches need to protect themselves against. The same temptation exists in Judaism today, as one sees in the more radical branches of the Israeli settlers movement, which is fired by the eschatological belief that reclaiming the land will hasten the coming of the Messiah. All the great monotheistic faiths have had, and continue to have, trouble reconciling their understanding of revelation with the reasonable demands of political life — yet reconcile it they must. This is why those concerned with Islam's place in the world today are obliged to study seriously the theological sources of Islamic fundamentalism and the apparent absence of theological defenses against the spread of political extremism. Recent public discussions of Islam have been informed by a humane spirit of toleration, but they mark an abdication of intellectual responsibility among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Reflection on this matter must begin with the uncomfortable fact that in religion, as in nature, there is no such thing as spontaneous generation.
|
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Troll Date: 07 Oct 01 - 05:49 PM Some People Call Them Wahhabi Islamo-Fascists By Stephen Schwartz 10-6-1 - click here troll |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Oct 01 - 08:27 PM Hi, Mark - I get a little nervous about the current trend of demands for apologies for past offenses. I'm not sure it does any good - I think it tends to de-legitimize the current good efforts of an organization, because of some offense in the past. I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm quite aware of the antisemitism and other prejudice my church had in the past. In the past 50 years of more, it has done an admirable job of promoting justice for all religious and ethnic groups - why dwell on the past? And yes, there are still Catholics who use their religion as an excuse for their bigotry - but am I bound to apologize or take responsibility for them if I have taken no part in their conduct? For that matter, I disagree with the Pope's refusal to ordain women and view it as sexism hiding behind the veil of papal authority - as a Catholic, am I bound to apologize and take responsibility for a sexist policy I do not support? Same goes with Muslims, or with anyone - we can expect them to take responsibility for the things they do or support themselves or the things that they can affect - but it's unfair for us to hold others to responsible for every wrong done in the name of their belief. Let's not go overboard in expecting apologies. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Donuel Date: 07 Oct 01 - 08:45 PM Mark, in religion as in nature there are mutations. Apologizing for these mutations, as Joe alludes, does not make my Catholic brother in law disavow his bigotry and antisemitism. Regarding the link to Whahabbi Islam, the west did not create this fundamental sect but it did violate the "prime directive" in the last century and has led to the current wild fire.
|
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Amos Date: 07 Oct 01 - 11:59 PM The reason to organize a religion in any hierarchical, authority based form in the first place is to play a game of power over the minds of others. Dictating moral codes on the basis of invisible, unverifiable metaphysical structures is just bushwah codwallop disguising a grab for money, power, control, puerile gratification or sex. At least, that's my opinion. A.
|
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: DonMeixner Date: 08 Oct 01 - 12:07 AM The Austrian part of my ancestory doesn't doom me to apologize for Adolph Hitler. Any more than my white European ancestory should force me to make reparations for slaves that my ancestors never owned. I can only apologize for things I've done. I will not apologize for the acts of people unrelated to me from centuries back. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST Date: 08 Oct 01 - 12:19 AM Mark's opening post is a cogent exposition, and the responses have been on the same plane. However, I am more inclined toward Amos' most succinct summation. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Troll Date: 08 Oct 01 - 01:12 AM It's a common one for those who cannot accept things on faith but demand concrete proof. I do, however, find the vilification of those who can accept things on faith, to be anti-intellectual at best and, at worst, downright rude. Of course, Amos may not have meant it that way. Until I hear one way or the other, I'll have to take it on faith that he did not. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST,Boab Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:20 AM Amos,---agreed!! Troll---the only time I ever accepted anything on faith, I was under the spell of a stage hypnotist. Perhaps those who saw Christ walk on the waves were in the same boat [ouch!!] |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:33 AM Amos, I don't think religions are initially organized in a "hierarchical, authority-based form." The usual basis of a religion is some sort of head-in-the-clouds idealism. The hierarchy comes later, once the organization develops structure and acquires property. What people then see from the outside is the structure and the power and the property. Many times, the original idealism may remain and may even thrive, and it is usually the reason it attracts and retains members. The power and property and those who control it are so visible that they seem to be the essence of the organization, but be careful before you jump to that conclusion. People don't practice religious faith because they want to be controlled by the rich and powerful. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Oct 01 - 04:42 AM I've an open heart and mind for all who believe in something supernatural. They are often more generous and feeling persons than nonbelievers. But I'm afraid of all religious fundamentalists whichever book they (mis)read. I'm glad that over here religious fundamentalism is a thing of the past with extremely few exceptions. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Troll Date: 08 Oct 01 - 07:35 AM Guest Boab and Amos, you accept things on faith all the time. Take the philosophies by which you live your lives. Their tenets cannot be proven in a lab with reproducible results. They can only be proved by argument in which certain things are agreed upon as givens. And there, gentlemen*, you have faith. troll * I don't know if Boab is male or female |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Skeptic Date: 08 Oct 01 - 09:37 AM The argument I heard was that religions developed out of a need to understand and explain the forces at work in the world. They also seem to serve as a perfect excuse not to accept responsibility for your own actions and as a ready made excuse for a lot of pretty bad behavior. And to justify some pretty positive behavior. Sad when we need to come up with an excuse to do good. The hierarchal nature may be something that is more a matter of how we organize the world and our knowledge than something specific or necessary to religion. Do we organize knowledge, out of genetic and structural necessity, in hierarchal rankings and structures? If so then religion isn?t the villain in that regard. As troll comments. Most if not all of our rational, logical beliefs often come down to basic, untestable and unprovable belief. Are they any less ?supernatural? than religious beliefs? Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST,Russ Date: 08 Oct 01 - 10:39 AM Mark, I have problems with the question "to what degree does any religion bear responsibility for those who speak in its name." It seems to me to be both vague and naive. The presupposition to such a question seems to be that a "religion" is a monolithic entity with a clearly defined hierarchy, set of beliefs, and code of conduct. Your reference to the Roman Catholic Church in your example is telling. It is the most monolithic of the big world religions. It is quite unusual in that respect. I agree that "Muslims, like Jews, recognize no central doctrinal authority, rendering it more difficult, even for believers, to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy and heresy." However, that does not go far enough. Such a situation renders it impossible (not just difficult) to hold those religions responsible for those who speak in its name. You cannot have "corporate" responsibility without a corporation. So if there's no organization all we've got to bring to trial is scripture. However, the notion that any of the scriptures of the world's big religions have a clear unequivocal meaning and a patently obvious interpretation to those who read it with an clear eye and open heart is IMHO naive and clearly false. The scriptures of the world's big religions are complex and multi-layered and the product of real complex multi-layered human beings in a real complex multi-layered world. They normally seem to tell us a lot more about the people who composed them than the world the purport to portray. There's nothing modern or revolutionary about this view. Almost any theologian from the past few millennia would yawn and grant it. I agree that it is silly to deny the existence of or ignore scriptural passages with a history of "problematic" interpretations. It is equally silly to look at the Qur'an as having a monopoly on such passages or Islam as having a monopoly on jerks who take advantage of such passages and interpretations. Now, if all religions (with the possible exception of some forms of Buddhism) have an equally uninspiring record with respect to violence and fanaticism, it seems to me that the source isn't really scripture or problematic interpretations. Most religions acknowledge that most human beings rather consistently fall very short with respect to the ideals of those religions. They provide an interesting variety of explanations for this phenomenon: original sin, avidya (chronic ignorance), demon delusion, etc. So one problem I have with the thread title is that as soon as you start playing the "proper interpretation of scripture" game (the theology game) you become just another small voice in the theological cacophony. And if you are not an adherent of the religion/scripture in question why should anybody bother to listen to you. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:00 PM In the Calgary Herald today, there is an editorial which calls on the "God of Abraham" to "keep our land glorious and free. Sounds to me like Jihad from the other side. At the time of the mythical Abraham, the Middle East was filled with warring city states and tribes. Mankind has not advanced much beyond the primitive stage insofar as relationships among peoples are concerned. Religion is called upon to support the most horrendous crimes, but since religion is man-made, that is to be expected. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:26 PM Russ, I would contend that the Roman Catholic Church is not as monolithic as it might seem. Yes, it has a structure of doctrine and operation, but that structure is in a constant state of change and reinterpretation. Disagreement and discussion among Catholics is nothing new - many of the Catholic saints are people who disagreed with those who were in power in Rome. But let's get back to the original subject. I think there is a common thread among religious extremists. Most systems of belief are based on lofty, abstract ideals, on visions of a better existence that is just beyond us. The founders of religions may have seen their visions with crystal clarity, but visions are very difficult to put into words. Nonetheless we have a need to put our beliefs into writing, and the major reliegions have produced remarkable pieces of literature. The language in these writings in often highly symbolic, and heavily nuanced and dependent upon context. If they are to be understood, they must be read with an open mind, a mind that is capable of abstract thinking. Many, many people have neither the capacity nor the desire for abstract thinking. They want quick, easy answers - so they gloss over all the nuances and develop a very simplistic, concrete interpretation of something that was once complex and abstract. They see what they believe very clearly - but the scope of their vision is narrow. The platform that supports their beliefs is narrow and weak, so they must suppress all who doubt or challenge them. They respond to opposition with blind self-righteousness, and can even resort to violence in their response. They are very vocal in defense of their simplistic beliefs, to the point where they overshadow the mainstream members of their religions. From the outside, the extremists appear to be the spokespersons for a belief system, and outsiders often get a very cloudy view of what may well be something very good and positive. So, that's Joe's theory of religious extremists/fundamentalists. Every religion has 'em. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Amos Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:55 PM Let me make it absolutely clear that I was not trying to fling aspersions about religous thought or individual convictions of a religous nature. There is a place to take things on faith and a place where you may not surrender your sovereign freedom to use your own integrity to see your own truth. The classof organizing acts I was referring to are those which establish some humans as arbiters of doctrine and spiritual principle which judgements are then passed on to others as convictions. Especially so at the poinbt where those convictions are THEN used to advise adherents where they should place their money, energy, or actions in the world. Thinking "for" others, meaning insisting on doing their thinking for them as distinguished from offering your best thoughts to others for their consideration, is a serious ethical compromise, especially if it leads others into acts of infamy such as crusades, carbombings, or other forms of insanity. It is easy to assert that that was then, and this is now. The seeds of the Crusades are still being acted out by the same kind of oppressive nut cases who drive the fundanetalist Islamic armies. The fertile ground is those people who not only want to take some things on faith, in a spiritual sense, but want to extend that idea to giving up their own thinking and standards of right action to others' determination. A
|
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Chicken Charlie Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:01 PM Instead of talking about the theological roots of extremism, can we talk about the extremist roots of theology? |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:32 PM You wouldn't get very far, Charlie. Theology is "faith seeking understanding" - seeking a rational understanding of belief. Extremism is tied to ideology, not faith. It doesn't allow for understanding - it seeks "blind faith" and absolute obedience. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:33 PM Joe and Amos, I read something today which absolutely appalled me. It was written by John Keegan, Defense Editor of The Daily Telegraph (London). "The Crusades were an episode localized in time and place, in the religious contest between Christianity and Islam. This war belongs within the much larger spectrum OF A FAR OLDER CONFLICT BETWEEN SETTLED, CREATIVELY PRODUCTIVE WESTERNERS AND PREDATORY, DESTRUCTIVE ORIENTALS." He makes comparison between the tactics of the Vietcong- evasion and retreat- and the actions of Muslims and calls it the "Oriental tradition." He says the attitude of the peoples of the desert and the empty spaces towards the West "has always been that it is a world ripe for the picking." This type of reportage makes me incoherent- thoughts about oriental civilizations, the invention of algebra and astronomy, the many years of peace in Spain under the Moors, when Jewish scholars flourished, all juggle in my mind as responses. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Troll Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:58 PM Dicho, this is probably the kind of guy who would (privately of course) call a brilliant Chinese surgeon who speaks six languages, a "slope-headed gook." He is so blinded by his own predjudices that he cannot see the record of history. It is not an uncommon fault, ethnocentrism, and it has been around for as long as man has. There is less excuse for it in this day of mass communicaition and the rapid and cheap disemination of information than there was in 19th Century England where it was an article of faith among a certain class of "gentlemen" that "the Wogs start at Calais." troll |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Amos Date: 08 Oct 01 - 04:46 PM Since it seems his thinking is grunded in the American tradition of children's realities, the appropriate response could inly be" Ennnnhhhhhhhhh ------Wodda marooon!!! Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST,Russ Date: 08 Oct 01 - 04:48 PM Joe, Good point. The Catholic Church is probably as monolithic as it gets, which is still only "monolithic." However, I mentioned it because it seemed to be the model that Mark had in mind. Rereading my post I noticed that I neglected to state my basic point clearly. (Assuming that I had a point when I wrote it.) I tend to look at religions as symptoms rather than causes. Studying scriptures and the theologizing about them will tell you a lot about justifications for behavior but not much about its causes. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Whistle Stop Date: 09 Oct 01 - 09:16 AM I think Russ and Joe are both right on the money in this discussion (I hear more agreement than disagreement in their postings). All of the major world religions are expounded in texts that are very open to interpretation, so almost any interpretation -- even the most extreme -- can claim some sort of legitimacy. The extreme interpretations can be the predominant ones in specific cultures from time to time, often with pretty unpleasant results. It's the risk you take when you use poetic, interpretive language as a basis for governments as well as belief systems. A great argument for the separation of church and state. I don't see a lot of value in apologizing for wrongs that were committed hundreds of years ago. More often than not, it's just a superficial, public relations tactic. If we are truly accountable for the sins of our ancestors, we all have plenty of apologizing to do. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Amos Date: 09 Oct 01 - 09:23 AM Russ: That's one of the most intelligent statements about religion I have seen on this forum. Made my day! A. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST,Russ Date: 09 Oct 01 - 02:37 PM Amos, Thank you. Sometimes I get lucky. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Chicken Charlie Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:54 PM Faith seeking reason? Oxymoronic. Eight years of rubbing shoulders with "theologians" 24/7 taught me very little except to have a healthy respect for atheists. Faith seeks rationalization or justificiation, if it "seeks" anything. Usually it's too lazy to do anything but sit on its butt in a pew and be spoon-fed the sanctified pablum in whatever flavor that particular denomination approves. CC |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Oct 01 - 04:14 PM Oh good, more anti-religion stuff at Mudcat. Even if I sprinkle in the missing "IMO"s and "IMHO"s it reads as pretty rigid. Always glad to see real peacemeaking in action, especially in times like these. *G* ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Donuel Date: 09 Oct 01 - 05:21 PM It was said , ""Muslims, like Jews, recognize no central doctrinal authority, rendering it more difficult, even for believers, to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy and heresy." However, that does not go far enough. Such a situation renders it impossible (not just difficult) to hold those religions responsible for those who speak in its name. You cannot have "corporate" responsibility without a corporation. " As opposed to what? The infallible Pope? |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: katlaughing Date: 09 Oct 01 - 05:40 PM Well, Susan, we need to get some more women in here discussing it, too.:-) You know I am not religious, but spiritual, and I DO have opnions on this subject!*smile* **Feminist Alert** It is important to note that it has been men, in most cases, who have carried out the power-tripping, etc., as mentioned above, of most religions of the world. Can't really think of any instance in which a band of women started their own religion and exerted as much might and power as the examples above. I don't really see too much need for apologies for past deeds of the lond-dead leaders, BUT I do have a problem with support of regimes which perpetuate some of the same policies of obfuscation, etc. Just as a "for instance," the Vatican refusing to open any archives after 1922, as I pointed out in 1998. I would have a problem supporting an org. which obfuscates, esp. to this degree. And, I am NOT picking on you, Joe. This just happens to be one account inolving the Catholic Church.: "Recently, the Vatican was once again called upon to open its World War Two archives. In particular, a final report, which came out of a 41 nation conference on tracing gold stolen by the Nazis, noted the Vatican's lack of response to calls for opening the files. According to Catholic World News, the Vatican denies claims it received gold stolen from Gypsy concentration camp victims. It also reported the Vatican considers its archives to be about spiritual, private matters which must be protected. Countries which participated in the recent conference, held in London, agreed there was an urgent need to distribute cash to Holocaust victims, especially as many of them are elderly and, some, in great need of financial aid. While the Vatican originally had two representatives at the conference as participants, they changed their classification to observer status before it actually began. The Tripartite Gold Commission, created by the Allies after the war to decide how to distribute the stolen gold, will open its own archives in the next few weeks. It is estimated the Nazis stole anywhere from $650 million to $7 billion. In 1995, Pope John Paul II gave a lengthy speech on the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War Two. In it, he specifically noted, "the church wishes to listen in particular to the plea of all the victims." He went on to say that the "culture of peace" is built not only by rejecting intolerance and racism, but also "by keeping economic and political ambition within due limits." If the Pope really meant what he said, he should open the archives immediately. While the Vatican practices the fine art of religious obfuscation and deflection, many who have never forgotten their own personal suffering and that of their families at the hands of the Nazis, languish in forgotten byways of poverty. Many have given up hope of restitution in this cruel, forgetful world. Opening of Vatican archives has been frozen at 1922, ostensibly to respect the privacy of those people mentioned in them. One wonders how they can continue to deny allegations of being in league with the Nazis by receiving stolen gold, while refusing to shine the light of truth on such records. Protecting individuals' privacy is a small matter compared to righting a great injustice, partially perpetrated by the entire world at the time. One would give such individuals the benefit of the doubt and ask what they did or have which needs such stringent guarding. If they were right and just, they would have nothing to protect, right? During the Inquisition, the Church was omnipotent. It controlled most of society, both spiritually and secularly. Its actions could be and were blatant in the righteousness of power and avarice. People were tortured and burnt, their lands and belongings and wealth added to the Church coffers or spread amongst those in society who were equally culpable. In the New World, the Church perpetrated equally outrageous crimes against the First Americans, through not only deadly diseases, but also through near cultural annihilation, banning any use of traditional languages, medicines, religion, and way of life. Amazingly enough, the Church still seems to have some good points. Many people still belong to the Roman Catholic church, including many of those whom it originally oppressed. As former victims, perhaps they can appeal to the Vatican in behalf of the indigent Gypsies, the Jews and others who suffered so terribly at the hands of the Nazis. Perhaps they can urge the Pope to really "listen to the plea of the victims" and open up the archives. Perhaps it is time for the Church to, in the Pope's own words, "ponder our responsibilities, to forgive and to ask forgiveness." Anyone have time for a little "confession?"
Copyright 8/27/1998 K. LaFrance |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST,Frank Date: 09 Oct 01 - 05:52 PM America has a wonderful tradition, separation of church and state. Thank God we are not a theocracy. Religion institutions can be like politcal machines. But there are those who believe sincerely in their faith and should not be penalized for the ambitions of those who use the institution for power. I agree with Jung who says that the religion (institutionalized religion) defends against the religious experience. Fanatacism has at it's root the lust for power. Fanatics tend to exalt themselves by hiding behind the cloak of their religious interpretations. Humility is not there. History has been filled with these types. Grand Inquisators, wild-eyed preachers, clerical moralists, crusading armies all ignore the basic tenets of the world's great religions. They distort. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Bill D Date: 09 Oct 01 - 06:13 PM There is a book, back in print now, called "Critique of Philosophy and Religion" by Walter Kaufman (once a professor of Philosophy at Princeton)....he has been a practicing Jew, Christian, and Atheist...and wrote as coherently about the issues involved as anyone I have ever read. I need to buy the book, as my copy was loaned to a friend many years ago. He also wrote another.."Faith of a Heretic" which I DO have, and which is, unfortunately, not in print.
Some quotes from Kaufman are scattered thru
In "Critique of Philosophy and Religion" there are several imaginary dialogues...between Satan and three people...a 'regular' Christian, a Theologian, and an atheist. They are delightful, fascinating reading... whatever your viewpoint, and they 'might' just shed some light on history, theology and the relationships involved.
(Kaufman was 'famous' for his works on Nietzsche many years ago) |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: RichM Date: 09 Oct 01 - 06:23 PM Perhaps it's time for humans to evolve beyond formal religious structure. As many have declaimed in this thread, it's tricky to hold the believers directly responsible for group thinking. However, if one chooses to follow the broad dictates of religion, one should also accept the responsibility-or a portion of it- when the religion veers into political and tribal territory. And major christian, muslim, hindu, buddhist and other religions have been guilty of such forays into these territories. Bring religion back to the plane of spiritualism: an individual, private, systematic and charitable way of defining one's own relationship to the world and to others--whether this includes a supreme being or not. This means giving up the belief that "my" religion is better than "yours". When I see those of strongly held faith, accepting that it is equally alright for THEM to worship in a church AND/OR a mosque, I'll be impressed. But don't hold your breath. I won't see this in any lifetime soon.
|
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Bill D Date: 09 Oct 01 - 06:25 PM messed up my link .... here is the page of quotes this page |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Oct 01 - 06:38 PM Why won't the Vatican open its archives, Kat? Maybe they're afraid of those who would use the information for sensationalist, tabloid-style muckraking. There is a wide array of archive information that the Vatican has open to public review - but certain records, particularly recent financial records, require at least some access control - and that sort of control costs money. Organizations don't ordinarily give full, public access to their records - there are too many reasons why it's not a good idea. The opening of recent records is a matter for the courts to decide. Since the Vatican is a sovereign state governed by the Pope, the Vatican retains the authority to decide what to release, and what not to. There have been many occasions when the Vatican has cooperated with court requests for release of information. I don't know anything about the particular situations you cite, although I am aware that there are Catholic scholars lobbying the Vatican for fuller access to records that pertain to World War II. No, they're not going to open their books to everybody. Why should they? I disagree with the Pope and church leadership in Rome on many issues, but I have no reason to believe they're crooks. Kat, I'm afraid your article is light on documentation and heavy on accusation. What has release of records to do with the Inquisition, or with the settling of the New World by Europeans? Which records are supposed to be released to whom, and by whom? As an investigator for the U.S. government, I was not allowed carte blanche access to records of U.S. corporations, local and state government, and even the Federal Government - even when I had an obvious "need to know." If that's the case, why should the Vatican be required to release everything to everyone? A number of people here seem to think of churches as centers of ignorance, bigotry, and xenophobic hatred. That's just not so. The churches were the backbone of the U.S. Civil Rights movement, and they've done much to help the needy and homeless since then. In the current crisis, many of the churches have encouraged the country and the Bush Administration to seek justice and peace rather than vengeance. Certainly, there are people who use their religion as an excuse for their bigotry and hatred - but bigotry and hatred are not the essence of any major religion. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Amos Date: 09 Oct 01 - 09:49 PM Joe, you have my sympathetic and affectionate respect. Some folks get weary of being handed prefabricated ideas, backe dup by organization, and it is often a long haul to find the light behind those ideas in their original form. So I submit the real argument you will hear from the various freethinkers on this forum is not against religion as such, but against its abuses by those who have used it as a screen, for whatever reason. From small to large, amongst all the True Believers of all the sects and groups and churches and cults who have unconscientiously borrowed others' words to stand for them, these abuses are legion. Y'know that story of the man who was strolling down the road with Satan one day and they saw, way up ahead of them down the road, another man lean over and pick something up and put it in his pocket. Old Scratch started in laughing madly, and when the man with him asked him what was so funny, he explained that the distant pedestrian had just discovered Truth. "Well, dammit, Scratch," said the man. "Why should that make you happy? You do all your business on the opposite!!" "Sure," was the reply. "But I'm going to help him ORGANIZE it!!" Regards, Amos |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Max Tone Date: 10 Oct 01 - 06:19 PM Joe, Most other corporations in the western world are under legal obligation to disclose annual accounts under freedom of information laws, so why should religions be exempt? Kat's on the right track -- whether male or female, ALL religions were started by homo sapiens, not a god. As soon as a section of like-believers gather, someone will take control..................and do their utmost to keep it, in financial and behavioural terms. In pre-reformation Scotland, the total annual tax revenue to the Exchequer (i.e. the Crown) was £40,000 Scots, whilst the church's take was £400,000. Rob |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Lonesome EJ Date: 10 Oct 01 - 06:41 PM Steps to becoming a Dangerous Religious Fanatic 1) I believe in God 2) I believe in my God, you can do what you want 3) I believe in my God, and if you don't you are not going to Heaven 4) I believe in my God, and if you don't He'll punish you by sending you to hell 5) My people are blessed by God, yours are worshippers of the Devil, and you are out to get us 6) We, Blessed of God, can not coexist with you Spawn of the Devil, and therefore it is our duty to rid the Earth of you Parallels with Paranoid Psychosis are not coincidental. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: ddw Date: 11 Oct 01 - 12:53 AM Some good points here. The thing I always tried to get across to my kids (who were raised by their mother as Catholics but who have both been saved) is that faith is the tool of ignorance. Anything you believe as an article of faith is something you can never know anything about. If something is the revealed word of your god and god is all-knowing and all-wise, isn't it heresy to question it? Especially if it's something that affects the secular structure that supports the religious belief — witness Galileo's excommunication or the Scopes monkey trial. Now, I think, the great religious battleground in Western society is going to be over reproductive technology, and it's going to get a lot uglier than some wingnuts bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors. Several people have mentioned that lots of people like to be spoonfed beliefs, world views, etc. I think that's bang on, and it's the only reason I'm not totally opposed to organized religions. Most of those "consumers" of religion would never be able to figure out on their own how a society's members should act toward each other for the long-term survival of the society. Self-interest is too strong, particularly if necessities are scarce. So religion (and secular laws) are designed to keep people from doing what they would do naturally —— i.e., kill each other in one way or another. The only problem with it is that it's the slippery slope to non-thinking that allows some nutbar who has followed LEJ's progression to send them all off to kill the infidels. I still have hopes that what's going on in the world can be contained short of decades of senseless bloodshed, but if it can't, maybe we should round up our Jerry Falwell wannabes and send them off to meet the bin Laden wannabes. Bet they'd have a helluva discussion. david |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: Sorcha Date: 11 Oct 01 - 01:26 AM Strange thread......I been staying out of religous/political threads lately, but I was bored and decided to read this one.
I don't see it as an "anti religous" thread at all, it seems to be an intelligent discussion.
Faith.....such a weird thing. Don't all of us, including total atheiests, have faith that tomorrow the sky will still be blue and the sun will shine? That your car will still start? That you will still be able to breathe the air? THAT is faith.
I have little true faith in anything else, especially in the Personal Beliefs category. How the crap should I REALLY know which of the Prophets (if any) were REALLY right? I'd rather belive and have faith in the supremacy of the Planet..........She has a better track record than any of the human made religions. I absolutely refuse to believe in the infallibility of any human regarding anything. It's just not in the code. Humans are not infallible. So, I guess you could call my "religon"......Scientific Gaia-ism if that makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: CaptainLewis Date: 11 Oct 01 - 01:29 AM Well, shucks, I can't help but toss my two-cents in this one. The foundation of exremism is nothing more or less than human nature. The desire that some folks have to tell other folks that they have to live their lives precisely in the way that they, the extremists, say. Why? ah-ha! Because God told me! I know what's good for you better than you do! And this starts the whole process. "God" becomes merely a very large lever to force others to subjugate their commonsense to your directives. It runs in the same vein as lust for wealth, influence or other means to leverage power or control over others. Well I think anyway CLB |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: CaptainLewis Date: 11 Oct 01 - 01:36 AM Doggone it I forgot about htmling the text! Tha was supposed to be "well, I think anyway" folks. I'll catch up on this eventually! CLB |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: wysiwyg Date: 11 Oct 01 - 01:59 AM ddw, you said this: ... faith is the tool of ignorance. Anything you believe as an article of faith is something you can never know anything about. It just isn't like that. I see opinions stated that way, as absolutes, often, here at Mudcat. I am unwilling to debate about it, and when an opinion is stated in that fashion it sends a clear signal to me that a closed mind has taken control of an open mouth-- and closed ears usually go with that. It's very discouraging when friends make statements that close what might have been an interesting discussion had openness been possible. But these discussion are usually just a means of people cementing an already-rigidified view into place. It feels to me like a rehearsal of something people want to perfect for use IRL-- the building of a portable soapbox to take home after the thread ends. I've been drawn into such discussions many times before, by friends, and I don't mean here in threads-- I mean IRL and in venues that purportered to be open opportunities to share. Once I am sucked in, tho, it usually turns out that what was wanted was a straw man (woman) to beat up for some past wrongness. Play therapy with me as the rag doll. And that's not quite what I'm made for! I have learned not to put into first gear, quite so easily, my ability to describe what I experience. So people make statements like that, and those of us living an active, rational, effective belief system just ignore the noise and go on doing what we do... including being there for some of these same people to lean all over, because we have a strength that is very appealing. Anyway, ddw, it isn't like that. Doesn't have to be like that. Isn't like that for the people I worship with. Isn't what the people I know have in mind when they offer what they know and experience, for consideration. But how it actually is, and can be, is invisible to you when you close your mind. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST,Russ Date: 11 Oct 01 - 09:09 AM Can you honestly say that as far as your relgious beliefs are concerned you have an "open" mind? This is not a rhetorical question. Can you even imagine anything that someone else might say that would cause you to have any real doubts your religious beliefs? |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: wysiwyg Date: 11 Oct 01 - 09:26 AM Certainly. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: GUEST,swoopy Date: 11 Oct 01 - 10:03 AM Extremism. what a concept! I think that most mudcatters, as would most westerners are assuming that people who blow themselves up for their cause are extremists(does one distinguish between those who only suicide say like the Vietnamese Buddhist monk who self immolated, those who take out their own families, and those who kill a stack of unknown people?) There appear to me to be categories of suicide 1 an inability of an individual to continue to bear whatever personal pain they are experiencing 2 to enhance a cause that they have identified with(of course if you share that cause you are going to glorify that suicider) Style 2 by definition asserts the relative insignificance of the individual. It is arguable that throughout history most societies functioned on this assumption, e.g. tribal, monarchies, fuedal, communist, Islamic, military, fascist, corporate (don't some of these words provoke some emotional responses eh?) but in the west, we're much more advanced, aren't we? a society based around the primacy of the individual! But wait, who is it that talks of treating every member of society as if they are just separate units all exercising free choice. Last time I looked it was the insane economic rationalists, who also give no value to a tree until after it has been chopped down. Maybe we're not as individual as we like to think, in my opinion Sep 11 is forcing many people to confront difficult questions they have previously avoided,(I hope that didn't sound insensitive)and in my case, i know some things I don't want to see happen, but am not actually sure what I do want to see happen in pracice. I see this thing in terms of Richards Dawkins memes, collectivist and individualist concepts clashing for dominance in the physical realm. I think we could do understand better this mindboggling fiasco if we desisted from thinking of the terrorists as extremists, but rather as members of a society that has all the attributes we find in the west, but in (to us) a staggeringly different configuration. in many senses, it is the west that are extremists, some of our civil assumptions would be beyond belief in most other times and places. whats worrying many people no doubt is the actual possibilty of losing them.me too of course. i hope that all makes sense
|
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: M.Ted Date: 11 Oct 01 - 02:15 PM Most people are fairly flexible in their view of the world--and most people, in most cultures, re-interpret life on an ongoing basis, changing as the world around them changes--it is a part of the growth process--Some people, though, are so threatened by change, that they surround themselves with certainties--defining the way it should be, as opposed to the way it is--This is the extremist--always angry at the world as it is, usually enraged by some "injustice" or other, but really just unable to deal with the inevitable changes--light to dark, summer to winter, young to old,--nourished to hungry, child to adult, living to dead-- Every society has people who are like this, and, at one time or another, every person can be like this-- |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: wysiwyg Date: 11 Oct 01 - 02:49 PM -- and you said exactly what I experience too often, from people who are friend one minute and rabidly de-evangelistic the next. It's as violent as people have said proselytization AT them feels. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: ddw Date: 11 Oct 01 - 06:49 PM Susan, Not at all, my friend. I've perfectly willing to be shown something that I can believe in and I do look, but if it gets past social mores and ethics, I have some difficulty. Right off the top, I think Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston proved in their famous debate that you cannot prove the existance of god without assuming the existance of god. You also cannot prove that god doesn't exist without assuming he doesn't exist. Presumably, the same holds for the devil. Since nobody has ever been able to show me god, I have to look around for evidence. Which means I have to make up what god is so I can recognize him/her/it when I find it. For simplicity's sake, let's stick with a pretty generic definition that fits most of the major religions' beliefs. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and the creator of all. God is good. God is love. First of all, if this being is all that, isn't it the height of egocentricity and arrogance to think he is going to take notice of any single human being, much less take note of who you sleep with or how much money you put in the collection plate? Sorry, that's a little much for me to swallow with no proof. If god is good and omnipotent, where does all the evil in the world come from? One attribute has to be a lie. If god is omnipotent, then he/she/it must also be evil. Same thing with god is love. God must also be hate. By any definition of love that makes sense, if you love anything then you must hate anything that threatens it. Or, if you don't actually hate it, you must at least destroy it or alter it to the point at which it is no longer a threat and therefore no longer what it was. Sorry, WYS, but I don't think my mind is any more closed on the matter than someone who believes, but I can still ask the questions —— as opposed to holding "revealed" truth. Until someone can demonstrate something to me, I'll just have to rely on experience and after a career of documenting the atrocities human beings perpetrate on each other, that may take some doing. gotta go —— it's time to fill another newspaper with the wonderful events going on in the world around me...... cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: Extremism's theological roots From: wysiwyg Date: 11 Oct 01 - 07:06 PM David, but you see, you have already debated the matter with yourself to your own satisfaction. You've set terms for how to have something proved-- not discussed how to share something. ~Your Friend |
| Share Thread: |