The politics of God

"... the tectonic cultural impacts of economic and informational globalization would create within the Islamic world the same sense of homelessness that permeates the West..."
I sure hope so...
that "informational globalization" is a potential world-shaker for the impact it could have on greatly reducing the grip of the major world Myths that are at times such great plagues on so many people...
"information" could be the force that erodes from within...

"As Lilla points out, the hunger for redemption and deliverance is deep within all of us..."
yes...
but there is an alternative to finding redemption and deliverance in the major world Myths...
these can be found in direct hope and faith in God...
without the need for destructive religious Myths...
this is the kind of information that potentially could erode Mythic cultures from within...

faith hope love joy peace to all...

You can't have a theocracy unless you have a code of civil law that presents itself as divinely revealed. Without such a code, you have to admit a sphere of independent secular authority that has the role of governing temporal affairs; such an authority may have to respect various religious tenets, but it cannot decide what should be done on the basis of them, if they do not contain such a civil code. There is such a code for Israel in the Old Testament, and I believe sharia law is one for Muslims. There isn't one for Christians, since the Mosaic law is abrogated for them. That is why the Catholic Middle Ages adopted Roman law, which was largely pagan in origin, to govern its affairs - a process approved of by theologians: St. Thomas cites Roman jurists. (See the important French philosopher of law, Michel Villey, on this subject.) In fact in the Middle Ages the conflict between state and church was over the state trying to control the church through controlling ecclesiastical appointments; not vice versa. A fortiori you can't have a theocracy in America, where most Christians are Protestants, and accept as a central tenet the idea that the individual alone should decide what to believe and what not to believe. Talk about 'theocracy' in America just refers to religious beliefs having any influence at all on public life - in fact to any departure from thoroughgoing secularism. It has nothing to do with pluralism - it is in fact all about destroying it.

Also from Toynbee: "Society is, after all, only the common ground between the fields of action of a number of personalities, and human personality, at any rate as we know it in this world, has an innate capacity for evil as well as for good. If these two statements are true, as I believe them to be, then in any society on Earth, unless and until human nature itself undergoes a moral mutation which would make an essential change in its character, the possibility of evil, as well as of good, will be born into the world afresh with every child and will never be wholly ruled out as long as that child remains alive. This is as much as to say that the replacement of a multiplicity of civilizations by a universal church would not have purged human nature of original sin; and this leads to another consideration: so long as original sin remains an element in human nature, Caesar will always have work to do, and there will still be Caesar's things to be rendered to Caesar, as well as God's to God, in this world. Human society on Earth will not be able wholly to dispense with institutions of which the sanction is not purely the individual's active will to make them work, but is partly habit and partly even force. These imperfect institutions will have to be administered by a secular power which might be subordinated to religious authority but would not thereby be eliminated. And even if Caesar were not merely subordinated but were wholly eliminated by the Church, something of him would still survive in the constitution of his supplanter; for the institutional element has historically, up to date, been dominant in the life of the Church herself "

It would be interesting to read the whole article by M.L., but conscience says that reading too much internet articles in working time = stealing of salary :(

I read over the entire article. Just a couple of things: Islamic societies that are trying to spread Islam to other societies because of their messianic beliefs have "self-selected" themselves out of the category of "none of our business," particularly those who are using violent means.

The progressives and liberal reformers of Islam need our support, and it is our business to do so, IMO. Also, I think a more modest approach, not about "what God wants" because we only guess we know that, but "we all might be wrong about God, so we have to give each other the right to be wrong." I thought of much more while I was reading the article but it will have to wait until the end of the day.

Rod, I would love your take on another NYT essay Lilla wrote, "Getting Religion," which appeared on Sept. 18, 2005. Lilla grew up Catholic, but in a suburban subdivision where there was no strong bond between the church and the community, and he never felt a deep connection to the faith. But he later became a born-again evangelical, eventually leaving that to enter upon a deep intellectual exploration of, among other things, the roots of the religious impulse -- the sort of exploration that may lead one away from faith, or bind one more closely to it. The point is, Lilla, contrary to what your friends say, is not hostile to Christianity. He just asks good, tough questions. He is also a subtle writer and I think it may be good for people to read "The Politics of God" twice, or at least very carefully, before passing judgment.

A brief, subjective history of religion in Yugoslavia (ex-, former, pick your prefix or none):

Ottomans create border between occupied Orthodox and Catholics protected by the European empire du jour. The few Muslims and Jews on the Catholic side do not appear on the radar. The Muslims on the Turk side take on so much of a secular aura that occupied cultures assimilate their trappings.

The defeated Ottomans retreat across the Bosporus. Native sects (re)emerge, and in some cases violently expell all non-believers regardless of general affiliation. In the meantime, communism arrives and like other nations Yugoslavia falls to it; the new dictator, Tito, immediately breaks with Moscow and refuses to implement the more atheistic policies. An uneasy truce begins between the Catholics and Orthodox; some local abuses continue, but many inter-marriages also ensue, implying a new level of tolerance amongst the various religions.

Tito dies. The old hatreds and evils reawaken; mixed marriages in Bosnia become a long list of tragedies. The Orthodox Serbs have a much stronger power base (and outside material support), and the Catholic Croats fail to keep up with Serb wholesale violence though they make a valiant retail effort. A rare circumstance develops: Muslim violence can be traced, in nearly every case, to unprovoked violence against them from their Christian neighbors.

I leave the rest to the reader and recent memory.

Speaking of Bosnia...

Had the opportunity to work with a Bosnian this year. Great guy; very professional with an incredibly witty sense of humor.

After a couple of weeks of working together I asked him about the war in his country.

He proceeded to give me, over the course of about 10 minutes, a comprehensive and cogent account of his country's history. It began like this...

"In prehsitoric times, nomadic tribes settled in what became my country..."

It was like a James Michner book on tape.

In America, a 300 year old building is ancient. In Europe I guess they call that new construction.

"Muslims believe that no limits or restraints can be placed on God and God's authority. At the same time, they maintain that the Muhammed was God's final prophet, and the Koran God's final revelation to humanity.

This seems to me to be a clear contradiction, since God has every right to change his mind, and decide that there will be a new revelation."

You can imagine (a little study helps enormously) whatever contradictions you want, but Muslims take Koran as a final revelation, emphasis on final.

" it seems to me, Muslims have already added a good deal to their religion in the form of the Hadiths, and later writings by various Muslim scholars.

Which makes the idea of the Koran as "final revelation" seem like Muhammed's brainstorm for cutting off debate. It didn't work"

Whatever interpretations were added, together with lifestory of child molester, they must be compatible 100% with Koran.

So it worked rather well for 1400 years. All major schools of Islamic thought agree on Koran, Jihad, treatment of infidels and women, no separation of religion and state, etc.

"So, in theory, what is to stop liberal and progressive Muslims from re-interpreting both the Koran and the Hadiths in light of the present?"

Reinterpreting Koran is as coming with proof that 2+2=5.
Koran is the FINAL word of Allah. Cannot be reinterpreted.

One or two attempts over 1400 years to treat Koran as re-interpreatable have not collected many supporters.

"How can Muslims say there can be no new revelation without denying God the power to change "His" mind?"

It will require another prophet to receive new revealation. Some academic or pundit will not cut it.

But one can imagine some dude gets a few nukes, use it once or twice and pronounce himself Mohammed II. I doubt new revelations will be liberal or progressive.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818655

This story broadcast this morning on NPR; it won't have a full transcription until tomorrow, likely, so you'll have to listen to it if you want to get more than the summary/intro.

by Philip Reeves

Morning Edition, August 21, 2007 · Although thousands have died in recent years in India in violence involving Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, an amazing open-mindedness exists about other people's religions. And there is a willingness to draw on other faiths. Buddhists and Christians worship at Hindu shrines and vice versa.

The part that caught my ear, so to speak, was how Reeves' Buddhist guide (also a journalist) demonstrated directly the "open-mindedness" by worshipping at a Catholic church, at a Hindu shrine, and with the aid of others is helping to rebuild a damaged mosque.

Listen to the full story.

"when I'm reading Robert Spencer, who certainly has an axe to grind against Islam but makes some good points, nonetheless, I can get pretty angry and discouraged."

What is your evidence that Spencer has an axe to grind? He is a researcher who studied Islam and came to his conclusions. You may disagree with his method or his research or his conclusions, but you may not accuse him of bad faith without evidence.

Your not liking his conclusions is not here nor there. Totally irrelevant as argument.

" just don't think your way of looking at the problem leads anywhere but a cul-de-sac."

Than you have to provide evidence that my "way of looking" or Spencer's is wrong. You don't even have to propose "the right way of thinking", just a disproval of Spencer's arguments will do.

Personally I have an emotional problem with 2+2=4, I much rather have 2+2=7. But I realize that mathematically I will never achieve my dream of 2+2=7.

You may entertain any dreams about Islam, you must put them against facts that Koran and Hadith supply.

So you like some former Muslims and Berman (have no idea who he is). How does it change the facts about Islam?

Rod, I've been out of town for a couple days and read the Lilla article while away. I just now reread your summary of his article. I admire the charity with which you summarized it; yours was a very gracious approach.

My reaction, by contrast, is that the article deserves a vigorous fisking. There are so many things he gets wrong, and his historical account is very selective, even as he gets some things right. Before I take the time to attempt the fisking (I really need to focus on work today), I'll read his "Getting Religion" essay that Francis Morrone refers to above. I clearly have more to learn about Lilla, because a lot of his errors seemed to be those of a secularist trying in good faith to think like a religious person but repeatedly failing to get to the other side, to use his metaphor. That speculation is obviously hard to reconcile with what appears to be his personal religious history.

Francis, thanks for the tip about "Getting Religion," which is very interesting. Lilla identifies himeslf a "a secular Manhattan writer" and views himself as an evangelist for skepticism (see the last 2 grafs). He wishes he could have saved himself from 7 years of considering himself an evangelical Christian. I agree that he does not seem hostile toward Christianity in the angry manner that we so often see from secularist professors at elite universities. It would also be a mistake to think he is neutral toward Christianity. His identity and convictions are those of a skeptic.

He makes a revealing comment that dovetails with his more recent essay:

"It is not true, as the ancient Epicurean philosophers taught, that human beings only invent gods out of ignorance and fear. Sometimes, perhaps often, they seek the divine out of joy and gratitude for what seem like miracles."

So, in his Hobbes vs. Rousseau distinction, Lilla is in the Rousseau camp. This goes some way toward explaining why he ignored Rousseau's toxic effects in western history (e.g., the architects of the Terror thought they were following him) and the extent to which 20th-century totalitarianism is an outgrowth of Rousseau's Fall-denying, utopian fantasy of man in a state of nature. (In parallel with that last point, it's worth reading Spengler's article on Tariq Ramadan that Spengler linked in his review of the new Lilla essay, particularly his riff on the pagan character of Islam, and the point from Nicholas Wade about ancient warfare.) Off point, you may say, but Lilla tries to lay the responsibility for Nazism with a couple of obscure Weimar-era Protestants that few people have ever heard of. That's such an amazing stretch that you wonder what's really going on.

One can, if one wishes, ignore the Christian experience of the last 15 centuries or so; it make no difference to me in conceding and accepting modern Christianity's mostly benign profile. It does, however, make me angry.

I am particularly angry with the notion that "the Koran says this, we have numerous examples of Islamic cultures/nations acting on it, therefore it can never change." The abstract perspective of decades and centuries into the future should not be so difficult for modern humans to embrace; I want to say the same for the denizens of Christendom from 300 to 1400 years ago, but hindsight should be kind as well as harshly objective, in due measure and balance.

So, we are left with the simplest (IMnever humbleO) of situations: us vs. them. We have an admittedly severe definition of them on the Islamic side; but I must ask for an objective view of the definition on the Christian side (with whom I lump any other category who sees it the same way), and ask for a different comparison point:

If the view of Christianity, in its heyday of conquest and conversion, had been one of unrelenting aggression against all outsiders -- and in many places it was exactly that -- would the powers of the world have been justified in uniting against Christianity and wiping it out?

I'm not saying that we (general) are even implying that Islam should be wiped out. I am saying that that is the natural and logical consequence of all us vs. them dichotomies, because the inherent reasoning is that defeat means no more us, everyone belonging to them, and the death of "us" both definitionally and experientially.

>"I'm not saying that we (general) are even implying that Islam should be wiped out. I am saying that that is the natural and logical consequence of all us vs. them dichotomies, because the inherent reasoning is that defeat means no more us, everyone belonging to them, and the death of "us" both definitionally and experientially."

I disagree. My first choice is peaceful coexistence. If They don't want that deal, my second choice is to defend Us with unapologetic vigor. Their victory condition is to wipe us out. Our victory condition should be to get them to stay where they are and stop messing with us -- but no more than that. In other words, enforced coexistence. Needless to say, there's a big difference between that and wiping Them out.

My first choice is peaceful coexistence.

I'm with you, mostly; I just feel the need to point out that peaceful coexistence as a choice must be made cooperatively. You don't get it with a group that explicitly states otherwise, even if it is dormant at the moment.

I note that you later replaced the qualifier with "enforced". If you were to keep to that, my agreement would be complete.