-----
Let's do a simple thought experiment: If I was thinking about threats to my health, which one of these should I worry about and take steps to mitigate: 1) Smallpox or 2) Cancer? Or are they both an equal threat?
If you said that they are both an equal threat, then you are unquestionably a moron because Smallpox has been eradicated from the Earth for over 20 years, while Cancer is a real contemporary threat. It is true that in the past Smallpox killed millions, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a threat now.
Happily very few people would say that Smallpox and Cancer are an equal threat. Yet some people have trouble employing the same simple logic when it comes to extremist religions and the threat they pose.
-----
If I am a person who doesn't want to be the victim of religiously-inspired violence or terrorism - today, here in the contemporary real world - are all religious ideologies equal threats?
Obviously not. There is one religious ideology that absolutely dominates the religiously inspired violence in the world today, and that religion is Islam. Whether it's riots about cartoons, murders over movies, suicide terrorism, or just plain regular terrorism if religiously motivated, it is almost exclusively coming out of Islam.
When we are evaluating the world today, including the situation we are in and what should or should not be done about it, it doesn't matter what happened 800 years ago with the Crusades, or even 200 years ago. It just doesn't. It matters what is happening now.
And now, in the world today, neither Christians nor Jews nor Hindus, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians are rioting and killing people over cartoons, issuing Fatwas against authors and film makers, or strapping on suicide vests. Nowhere are those ideologies motivating people to throw acid on girls for going to school, or to stone people for having sex, or to keep women out of sporting events. And with very few exceptions are adherents of these groups planting religiously-inspired bombs anywhere.
------
A leading champion for the failure to grasp the obvious and insistence on obfuscating is columnist Glenn Greenwald. On yesterday's "Real Time with Bill Maher" TV program, Greenwald again employed the 'Oh, but what about the Crusades' canard when Maher pointed out that Islam is the more dangerous religious ideology today when it comes to real threats to life, safety, and secularism.
This is essentially the same debate that Greenwald has been having with Sam Harris. Greenwald's largely intentional divorce from reality has been taken down by Harris so thoroughly that it does not need to be repeated here.
I will just point out that Greenwald has still not responded to Harris' central 'put your money where your mouth is' challenge, in which Greenwald would publish a cartoon mocking Islam and Harris would publish a cartoon mocking any other religion of Greenwald's choice, and they would see what happens. Obviously, only Greenwald's cartoon would lead to widespread violence, riots, and death threats. The fact that Greenwald cannot respond at all to this challenge leads me to think that he really doesn't even believe his own rhetoric.
-----
The reluctance of people to accept the simple fact that today, in the world, the overwhelming source of religiously motivated threats and violence is Islam and not any other religion, is simply insane. I attribute it to two causes, which are closely related. The first is cultural relativism, in which some people (mostly liberals) are very uncomfortable with anything that finds fault with something that is perceived as another culture. The other is purely ideological - admitting that there is a real, actual problem in the world with Islamist violence means agreeing with Repuiblicans about something, which some liberals simply cannot bring themselves to do. This gets back to the idea that if Republicans said that the Earth is round, some liberals would have to insist that is flat. But in the end, of course, the inability of people to get past their narrow ideological blinders and simply acknowledge the obvious is a perennial problem on a variety of issues.
If you are one of those who are spinning in circles trying to deny the obvious, I encourage you to simply stop it and acknowledge that the Earth is round, even if Republicans think so too. Acknowledge that today, in the contemporary real world, it is not Christianity, Mormonism, Judiasm, or Hinduism that is motivating people to engage in widespread religiously motivated killings, terrorism, threats, honor murders, and riots. Those ideologies are not motivating people to throw acid on girls for going to school, or to stone people for having sex, or to keep women out of sporting events. Anyone can make a cartoon or write a book critical of any of these religions - and in fact people do all the time, and they do not have to live in fear. However, in today's world, Islam is simply in a class by itself. Among religions, it is by far more of a threat when it comes to violence, terrorism.
The only disagreement I have with you is your use of the term 'liberal.' Liberals are not cultural relativists. They hold specific values and specific moral beliefs and our governing philosophy is rooted in those beliefs. I think the more appropriate term would be 'self-identified leftists' or 'subset of self-identified progressives.' That said, even those ideologies are inconsistent with actual leftist and progressive beliefs.
ReplyDeletePeople like Greenwald, who vilifies President Obama, and for whom it seems the only factor in making their decisions is that the United States and Israel are evil and they must do the opposite, are not really leftists or progressives. That is because they are busy acting as apologists for those that discriminate against religious minorities, treat women badly (if one wants to see a modern-day apartheid state Saudi Arabia would be an excellent example in both aforementioned instances) and kill those that disagree. In other words, they are apologists for those that hold believes antithetical to leftist and progressive values.
Aside from that one quibble, an excellent piece that I heartily endorse.
I agree and disagree.
DeleteIs an ideology defined more by what it is understood to historically stand for, or what its current practitioners stand for? It is an interesting and unresolved question. For example, does Conservatism favor separation of church and state or church interference in the state? Original "old school" Conservatives such as Barry Goldwater would have said the former, but clearly in contemporary America most Conservatives favor the later? Who is right? Which one is the "true" Conservatism?
Likewise with Liberalism. Who gets to define it? Is the Liberal position the one you or I think is most consistent with Liberal values, or the one that a majority of Liberals take?
this post certainly exemplifies the thinking of this forum.
ReplyDeleteThanks! (I think)
Delete@ fizziks... I am pretty sure that is NOT meant as a compliment.
DeleteI am going to push back here a bit and play a bit of "Devils Advocate".
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can "blame" Islam itself. All religions have their elements of extreme violence towards "others". Islam, like any religion is what it's adherents make of it. Now, I think the fact that Islam has not undergone a serious reformation to change with the times is certainly a factor, but again, remember that reformations are man made.
AND before anyone quote certain passages, remember what our bible says about non-believers.
I think the thing about Islam is that first of all it is pre-dominant in societies that are poorer (though not all certainly there are the Gulf States after all) or are central towards states that have vast power inequality (though again that is many other states as well). Islam, like any other religion is a convenient tool for extremists who "saddle up that horse and ride it all the way home", in their own quests for power and or riches (sometimes both).
As for your points on liberal vs. conservative... For me, if a conservative says that the sky is blue.... I am outside checking it out for myself. ;-)
Generally though, what I see from conservatives these days is a real lack of willingness to engage topics from a factual P.O.V. and rather they simply revert to ideology, often times holding others to double standards that they themselves were never interested in.
Now, that is not to say liberals don't do similar things, but, I would say that liberals do approach things from a more fact oriented place and that to me, makes their arguments more compelling.
This is definitely true:
Delete"Generally though, what I see from conservatives these days is a real lack of willingness to engage topics from a factual P.O.V. and rather they simply revert to ideology, often times holding others to double standards that they themselves were never interested in. "
Witness Mark Sanford, David Vitter, etc. It is like there is almost no attempt to have a coherent set of principles within that movement. And indeed, the way I see it, modern American conservatism has mostly ceased to be an ideology and has become almost solely a power-seeking movement.
Ironically though, it seems to me that contemporary liberalism - as manifest in the opinions of individual liberals - is increasingly defining itself as simply the opposite of whatever conservatism is. Certainly, a lot of this is the product of the cable news and blog cycle.
To get to the question of whether Islam itself is at fault, or whether there is something uniquely threatening in Islam, I think this really misses the point. We could compare the relative amounts of violence in the Koran with the Bible or the Rigveda, but that's not what matters here. What matters is, today, what are people who are inspired to act by different religions doing. And today, it is almost solely adherents of Islam that are motivated by religion to kill, terrorize, deny educations, genitally mutilate, and so on.
I will definitely agree with this statement:
ReplyDeleteIronically though, it seems to me that contemporary liberalism - as manifest in the opinions of individual liberals - is increasingly defining itself as simply the opposite of whatever conservatism is. Certainly, a lot of this is the product of the cable news and blog cycle.
I see this all too much. Generally it is why I have almost stopped reading most opinion sites and only look at them for topics. Then I go to the news or docs. to form an opinion. So for instance on Benghazi, it is easy to see that the Right is obviously engaged in power plays and trying to create an atmosphere where nothing of the Presidents agenda get passed because of the level of incoherent screeching. That said, State did blow it on this one and should be (and has been) following the recommendations of The Independent Commission.
What makes this particularly galling is that Republicans could give a shit that during their time in the White House there were 54 attacks on consular / diplomatic outposts and yet... this... this is the "biggest scandal in history." (which is completely ridiculous).
On the point about Islam itself.
Well fiz, as I said, if I find fault with your article I think that you don't make a distinction between the religion and some of it's adherents. Remember, there are 1.6 Billion Muslims on the planet and maybe less than 10,000 of them are actively engaged in terrorist operations and most of those are in war zones.
So it's this sentence that I am pushing back on:
What matters is, today, what are people who are inspired to act by different religions doing. And today, it is almost solely adherents of Islam that are motivated by religion to kill, terrorize, deny educations, genitally mutilate, and so on.
I don't think most Terrorists are motivated purely by Islam. First of all, there are killers of all religions (Baruch Goldstein anyone, Timothy McVeigh). It's true that the large majority of terror activities comes from Islamic movements. Where we differ is that there are many other factors that come into play regarding terror than just religion.
I think the movie "Syriana" did a fantastic job exploring this. Rather than look at Islam as a main factor, I would say that economics and societal factors are MORE of a factor and that Islam is the "whipping boy" used by fanatics to drive home the point.
Doing something for money, or out of a desire for vengence, family honor, or just because one simply likes killing is a thing, so no one likes to admit those reasons and instead looks to religion to make themselves feel more in touch with something larger than themselves.
As for other cultural aspects (deny education, genital mutilation), while there are arguments for that, again I think it is lack of literacy combined with a religion that has not undergone reformation, combined with societies that are decidedly trapped in modes of thought that have not progressed beyond the Middle Ages. Is that because of Islam, or is that because of evolution of political thought and power in the countries that were part of the Ummah. I think that is the real question and what role does an "un-reformed" religion play in the excise of political power.
These are great comments.
DeleteI definitely agree completely about opinion sites. I do the same thing - I go there to see what the stories are, then I go read the stories for myself. And I agree completely about Benghazi - the fact that hypocritical Republicans are out for blood is making it so that we can't do anything about a real legitimate governmental failure that occurred.
I don't think we have as much disagreement on the Islam question as it might seem. I think we can agree that most terrorism and backwardness are coming out of those societies, and it is because those societies are f'd up. People who do things motivated by greed, hate, stupidity, and just plain bloodlust usually turn to religion for a justification for that, so no argument here.
What I am saying is that in these long running debates e.g. between Sam Harris and Greenwald, it simply makes no sense to perceive or claim that all religions are equally dangerous, in the world today.