In the recent movie "Downfall", which is based on eyewitness accounts during the final days of World War II, Joseph Goebbels and his wife are given the opportunity to have their six young children flee to safety. Magda Goebbels, however, refuses to allow them to leave. Instead, as her kids sleep, the mother inserts a cyanide capsule into each child's mouth and presses their jaws until the capsule breaks. When explaining why she wouldn’t allow her kids to escape, Mrs. Goebbels says, "I can't bear to think of them growing up in a world without national socialism."
“This is the power of ideology,” says Fareed Zakaria, “Magda Goebbels had embraced a horrific world view that made her believe that murdering her children was a noble act.” Zakaria finds in this story the key to understanding what motivates suicide bombers. Radical ideologies are not produced in poverty and disadvantage but in affluence and comfort:
Like all ideologies, radical Islam is a phenomenon of the educated class. From Muhammad Atta to Mohammed Sidique Khan, almost all suicide bombers have been men who read and write. In V. S. Naipaul's book "A Million Mutinies Now," the author interviews a young Hindu fanatic. The man explains his fascistic views, and then Naipaul asks the man's father, who happens to be sitting there, what he thinks. The old man explains that he works at a factory from morning till night and doesn't really have time for these kinds of ideas. Extremist ideology is a leisure-time pursuit.
Why are radical ideologies almost always formed in the educated classes? What is it that compels them to form such belief systems? One possible answer is provided by essayist Lee Harris who claims that ideologies fulfill fantasy roles:
My first encounter with this particular kind of fantasy occurred when I was in college in the late sixties. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest. To me the point of such protest was simple — to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, and which in fact became one.
My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.
What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.
And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.
Harris defines “fantasy ideology” as political and ideological symbols and tropes used not for political purposes, but entirely for the benefit of furthering a specific personal or collective fantasy. An examination of some of the most pernicious ideologies throughout recent history – Marxism, Chinese Communism, National Socialism, Italian fascism – shows that the bulk of its adherents have little to gain politically. But they do, as Harris notes, provide the opportunity to have a bit part in the great play of History.
In order to understand the war against terrorism we must view it not as a unique historical event but as a struggle against the latest, most dangerous, manifestation of fantasy ideology. While this will allow us to face the threat realistically it also brings with it a reason to be temporarily pessimistic. Changing the conditions of a person’s reality is a much simpler task than freeing them of their demonic fantasies. Indeed, even if we defeat Al Qaeda it will only be a matter of time before another enemy takes its place. This is merely a manifestation of the first, longest, most brutal, and most enduring war in the history of the universe: the war that began with a rebellion in heaven.
Satan’s war against God is the ultimate and archetypal example of a fantasy ideology. On a rational level, it makes no sense at all and begs the question of why such a pointless venture would have begun in the first place. After all, as every child in Sunday School can attest, the devil and his demons cannot win against their Creator. So why fight at all? The reason is because Satan, in a sentiment that would latter be echoed by Magda Goebbels, could not live in a universe that did not conform to his fantasy. “Better to reign in Hell,” Satan says in Milton’s Paradies Lost, “than serve in Heav'n.” Such is the power of ideology.
Ironically, it is in the example of the first ideological fantasist that we find our reason for hope. For Christians, the eschatological vision is clear: in the end, Satan loses and peace reigns upon the earth. The battles will surely continue, as they have throughout history. And the forces of the West will eventually defeat Al Qaeda as we did the evils of communism, fascism, and Nazism.
As we destroy these powers, though, new ideologies will spring forth like the tentacles of the hydra to take their place in the hearts of men. But no matter how long it takes, how long the historical play continues, or how many actors take the stage, the last act has already been written and we can take comfort, knowing what comes after the final curtain falls.
1
If this came out of someone from the left, it'd be borked right and left, since it essentially calls our efforts against al Qaeda crazy.
We might not be able to fully wipe out violent opposition to the status quo (given the fallen nature of man, that's unlikely at best) but we can take it down to a minimum.
The folks that have the fantasy ideology are the al Qaeda folks themselves, although they have a better shot of installing a worldwide Caliphate than we have of rubbing out militant irridentist Islam all-together prior to the Lord's return.
posted on 08.01.2005 5:44 AM2
Joe, while I agree that the enemy has an ideology like communism, nazism, etc, I believe you have mistakenly narrowed the opposition down too far. The world, not just the West and Christianity, has been in conflict with Islam since its inception. At best we are fighting against the jihadist elements of Islam. Most likely though we are at war with Islam and have been since day one. What we are witnessing today is a resurgent Islam that has found a way to start winning again. I know it's PC to say we aren't fighting Islam and most Muslims are peaceful, but the reality is that we are at war with Islam and that too many Muslims do support the goals of the terrorists while maybe disagreeing with the means.
Take for instance the fatwa issued by some US Muslim clerics against terrorism. One, it renounces terrorism and the killing of civilians in general terms. That's good right? If you look at the statements by many Muslim clerics, the terms terrorism and civilian are pretty elastic term (like no one is Israel is a civilian, etc.) It also quotes the verse about killing while leaving out the phrase that the killing is okay if it is done to people who oppose Islam or corrupt the land. In other words, unless things are tightly defined, you can't necessarily trust what is said.
Finally, Islam, as someone else said, runs under three templates.
1. Islam without power - they'll be nice and grow in power
2. Islam with power - they'll fight to gain control
3. Islam in power - at best everyone else gets to play servant
3
To align with Joe's example of the Goebbels, the Muslim father of one of the victims of the Madrid train bombings most likely helped one of the bombers flee the country.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1695582,00.html
posted on 08.01.2005 6:41 AM4
The obvious answer is that educated class consider themselves the only ones enlightened enough to "get it" - everyone else is just stupid, ignorant or both.
I was with you until the fourth paragraph from the bottom, when you jump ship. You ascribe our war on terror to being part of an ideological fantasy, when you should be applying your analysis to the terrorists themselves.
What is it that makes a terrorist think it is a good thing to hide behind women and children, kill civilians, force the mentally retarded into suicide vests, use "holy" mosques for military staging areas, kill their own people, etc.? This is the real question you attempt to answer.
What is it about your fantasy ideology which blinds you to that, as well as the obvious successes of the war on terror? It is in fact, working.
posted on 08.01.2005 7:17 AM5
Mark and Jeff,
Having finished this post around 3 AM and needing another 1000+ words to complete the intended point, I’m not surprised that it is a bit unclear. Still, I think both of your comments hint that you might have missed the point I was trying to make.
Mark -- We might not be able to fully wipe out violent opposition to the status quo (given the fallen nature of man, that's unlikely at best) but we can take it down to a minimum.
If you are talking about Al Queda, I completely agree. In fact, I think we are about halfway thru a ten-year war against extremist Islam. This is one that I have no doubt that we will win.
But the point of my post is that this will not be the end to this type of war. We shouldn’t fall for the silly leftist notion that these groups have some kind of political aspirations that can be met without the complete destruction of the West or that there is some economic “root cause” that leads people to terrorism. We also, though, shouldn’t fall for the ridiculous neo-conservative notion that once the GWOT is over that we will be back on the path leading to the “end of History.”
For over a century we have been battling ideologies – Nazism, Communism, Islamofascism. No sooner does one end than another moves in to fill the void. I just think that Christians must have an eternal perspective and realize that once this fight is over we will be drawn into another, ad infinitum (or at least until Christ returns). My point is not that we are silly to fight but that we must always be prepared to fight. That is why I not only reject pacifism but think it is a sinful and un-Christian attitude.
The folks that have the fantasy ideology are the al Qaeda folks themselves,...
Um, yeah. Who did you think I was talking about?
I was with you until the fourth paragraph from the bottom, when you jump ship. You ascribe our war on terror to being part of an ideological fantasy, when you should be applying your analysis to the terrorists themselves.
No, I ascribe our war on terror to being a war against a particular ideology.
What is it about your fantasy ideology which blinds you to that, as well as the obvious successes of the war on terror? It is in fact, working.
When did I ever say the war on terror wasn’t successful?
posted on 08.01.2005 10:05 AM6
Joe, I now think we are merely talking past one another. You said:
In order to understand the war against terrorism we must view it not as a unique historical event but as merely the latest, most dangerous, manifestation of fantasy ideology.
In this sentence, you are clearly calling the "war on terror,... the latest, most dangerous, manifestation of fantasy ideology."
But apparently this is not what you meant.
Perhaps this would be better:
In order to understand the war against terrorism we must view it not as a unique historical event but as merely [a battle against the] the latest, most dangerous, manifestation of fantasy ideology.
posted on 08.01.2005 10:26 AM7
Hey Jeff,
I see what you mean. The sentence doesn't make it clear that I view the GWOT as a defensive war. I changed the sentence to make that clearer. Thanks for pointing that out.
posted on 08.01.2005 10:37 AM8
I can not, can not agree with your ideas as put forth here. I think that the view of ideology as fantasy is facile. It springs from a materialist premise that all of man's highest aspirations and search for meaning is enclosed in that word and concept.
I can not agree.
Ideology is more than just thoughts and perhaps that is why its hold can be so strong. It is more than the outcome of economic strata, also.
In your conclusion- I can not agree there either. Where is the concept that good has power to overcome evil? Where is that, here, Joe? This disturbs me the most, I think. There is a purpose to pursue good and to hold forth those ideologies which most exemplify good in goal and in method. It is a purposeful and efficacious endeavor.
We are doing more than waiting on that last act, and ideology is more than a fantasy pastime.
=======
I don't think we should take the view that we will be drawn into ever successive wars... Perhaps the view suggested by this thought avenue is that as Christians we should turn our eyes more to the spiritual realities and dealing with struggles and ideologies on that basis instead of believing so steadfastly in our military prowess.
I think you should keep working over the thought processes on this one.
You have given me some things to chew here... that is for sure.
9
Ilona,
I think that the view of ideology as fantasy is facile. It springs from a materialist premise that all of man's highest aspirations and search for meaning is enclosed in that word and concept.
I think you may be reading too much into my post. I’m certainly not claiming that all ideologies are fantasies (though I do believe, as David Koyzis claims, they are all forms of idoloatry). I’m merely saying that one of the most dangerous aspects of ideology is when it is used not to further political goals but to fulfill fantasy roles.
Ideology is more than just thoughts and perhaps that is why its hold can be so strong.
Yes, I agree. Ideology is not reducible to any one aspect.
It is more than the outcome of economic strata, also.
Again, I agree. It is more than that. But it is also true that almost all of the worst forms of ideologies have been birthed in middle-class environments.
Where is the concept that good has power to overcome evil? Where is that, here, Joe?
I thought it was implied in this statement: “…the forces of the West will eventually defeat Al Qaeda as we did the evils of communism, fascism, and Nazism.”
I don't think we should take the view that we will be drawn into ever successive wars... Perhaps the view suggested by this thought avenue is that as Christians we should turn our eyes more to the spiritual realities and dealing with struggles and ideologies on that basis instead of believing so steadfastly in our military prowess.
Perhaps it is but that is the exact opposite of what I intended. I believe that we will be drawn into ever-successive wars; that is a historical reality rooted in human nature. And it is why I think that while we do need to turn our eyes to spiritual realities we also need to prepare militarily. Ora et labora. Pray and labor.
10
Chris,
Your attitude toward Islam is abhorrent, if not particularly surprising. Not to put too fine a point on it, but judge not lest ye be judged.
Christianity without power - They'll be nice and grow in power
A.D. 33- C. A.D. 500: Paul's Epistles; sucessful prosthletizing efforts in Greece, Egypt, Roman/Byzantine Empires; martyrdom defined as virtue; power consolidated at Council of Nicea; first heresies (Arian and Manichean) identified and declared anathema.
Christianity with power - They'll fight to gain control
C. A.D. 500 - C. A.D. 1000: Conversion of Charlemagne; establishment of first "Christian" kingdoms and imperial dynasties; destruction of Pagan religions in Europe begins in earnest; massacre and forcible conversion common.
Christianity in power - At best everyone else gets to be a servant
C. A.D. 1000 - C. A.D. 1900: Crusades, inquisitions and witch trials; massive pograms against European Jews; wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation; works by Copernicus, Galileo banned; Jews expelled from Spain; wars against heretics in Europe and Russia; forced conversion of American Natives ongoing; "Hammite" theory popularized among African colonials; hundreds of religions destroyed in Africa, Americas and Pacific Islands.
Now if I can refrain from judging all Christians based on the actions of those above, perhaps it's not too much to ask that Christians not judge Muslims as a whole based on the atrocious and craven behavior of some.
On a related note, Joe, how does one interpret "turn the other cheek" to define pacifism as a sinful and un-Christian attitude? Even Christ would not permit a sword to be raised in his defense, however noble the intention.
posted on 08.01.2005 11:37 AM11
Stavrogin,
On a related note, Joe, how does one interpret "turn the other cheek" to define pacifism as a sinful and un-Christian attitude?
You wouldn’t interpret it in order to define pacifism as sinful because that passage has nothing overtly to do with violence. To turn the other cheek is to literally allow someone who has slapped you to give you a backhanded slap on the other cheek. To receive such a blow was a great insult in Judaism; an offense against one’s dignity.
While I agree that Christians should bear insults with meekness and humility, I do not believe that the passage intends for us to stand by and allow our neighbor to be raped, murdered, or mutilated.
Even Christ would not permit a sword to be raised in his defense, however noble the intention.
I would recommend taking that action in context. Christ would not allow such a defense on his behalf because it was his intention to lay down his life willingly for us all.
12
Fair enough Joe, but even if I accepted your caveats without question (and I don't), they would still evince only doctrinal neutrality on the subject. Where is the positive justification for your argument that pacifism is sinful? This doesn't seem to jibe well with the impression I get - from both Biblical and hagiographic history - that abandoning oneself to the mercy of God in the face of oppression, torment and even martyrdom at the hands of the unrighteous is a supremely Christian value.
posted on 08.01.2005 12:11 PM13
Stavrogin,
The division here is between individual acts and government acts; with another division between acts to save yourself and acts to save others; and the division between just and unjust wars.
that abandoning oneself to the mercy of God in the face of oppression, torment and even martyrdom at the hands of the unrighteous is a supremely Christian value.
This is true. Would it be equally true if you were watching someone rape and kill your neighbor; and you abandoned them to the mercy of God? No, I think not. Could you interject yourself and become the victim while the other escaped? Of course. Could you harm, and even kill, the rapist to stop the killing? I think you could
There is ample justification in the Bible for government having the responsibility to use the sword to defend its people.
I think calling people un-Christian for being personally pacifist is incorrect. Christians have been interpreting scripture, and God's will, to require their personal pacifism for a long time. I will not question their leading from God. Would I say the Quakers were not Christian? No. How they, in that context, would find the grounds not to act as medics and care-givers for the troops is another issue. And certainly, it is almost impossible to use the bible to say the US government should be pacifist.
We would be required, of course, to refuse participation in an unjust war: say a war of genocide.
14
Christianity without power - They'll be nice and grow in power...
First you have to understand that Muhammed's life is described as perfect. Therefore, following the template of his life is how you can reasonably come to the three templates of how Islam acts. And history shows a good correspondance to those actions.
Second, the crusades started after Islam overran Christian holy sites, North Africa, and Spain. In general they started for defensive purposes.
Third, you have to show how Biblical texts can reasonably be used to support the extremist actions that have occurred at times in Christianity. There is a whole set of Koranic and Hadith interpretations that support the actions of the jihadists.
Now if I can refrain from judging all Christians based on the actions of those above, perhaps it's not too much to ask that Christians not judge Muslims as a whole based on the atrocious and craven behavior of some.
I'm not judging individual Muslims. However, if you say you believe in Islam, and Islam says that killing the infidel who does not convert or submit to the rule of Islam is justified. Then, don't I have a right to question the motives of the followers of that religion? You don't see Buddhists beheading Muslims in Thailand and if you did, you could easily point to the Buddhist texts that opposed such acts. And, I would readily accept that. I'm not denying human nature and that men can commit evil acts. However, your stand is akin to saying that because there are some good Nazis, we can't label Nazism as bad.
posted on 08.01.2005 1:05 PM15
Christianity is not immune from "idealogical fantasy." Often times zealotry has replaced simple devotion. Is dominionism idealogical fantasy?
And you cannot blame fanaticism on "intellectuals", otherwise known as "people that like to read books". It's more common cause is a blinding fixation on a few single ideas to the extent of all others. A religious fervor, whether about a religion or political cause. For such an obsessed person, everything they read and see will confirm this idea. Everything will seem to show them that God is speaking to them. And they find comfort in thinking they are fulfilling some role in a Grand Purpose, that they have a Destiny. You don't have to be an intellectual to fall into that trap. Just self-obsessed.
16
jchfleetguy I think calling people un-Christian for being personally pacifist is incorrect.
I will agree that personal pacifism may not be inherently un-Christian (though there are times when non-violent resistance can be as unjust a use of power as violence). But I think that the right to pacifism, like the right to swing one's fist, ends at your neighbor's nose.
Christianity is not immune from "idealogical fantasy."
True. In fact, I would argue that until modern times, it was one of the most predominant vehicles through which idealogical fantasies were played out.
You don't have to be an intellectual to fall into that trap.
I agree. I don't think it is the intellecutualism of the middle class lifestyle that tends to breed ideology but rather the access to leisure. It takes a lot of free time to come up with nutty ideas. (Having a limited amount of free time, I am only able to come up with semi-nutty ideas.)
posted on 08.01.2005 1:55 PM17
jchfleetguy,
We're largely in agreement. I'm certainly not suggesting that it is incumbent upon Christians never to fight for any reason. I'm simply contesting Joe's assertion that pacifism is "a sinful and un-Christian attitude".
Chris,
The difference between Nazism and Islam (once again, I can't believe you people make me start these kinds of sentences) is the difference between an expressly evil ideology and one that is merely succeptible to evil interpretation. The Koran, which I do not for a moment suspect you've actually read, is fairly clear that "fighting in the way of Allah" (al Jihad) is meant to be a defensive struggle against tyranny and oppression. Here's the key passage:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
Overall, not such a bad message: fight against those who fight you, but if they stop fighting you, you stop fighting them. One can see, however, how this could be warped to suit the bloodlust of violent extremism, or to countenance the desire to wreak vicious havoc in the course of one of Joe's "ideological fantasy" struggles. Similarly, passages from the Bible have been used time and again to countenance wars and atrocities of breathtaking cruelty and bloodshed. For example, a perverse interpretation of Revelations (always a favorite of unhinged zealots) was employed to justify the mass slaughter that accompanied the "German Crusade" of the 11th Century, which provided an excuse to forcibly convert or massacre (sound familiar?), plunder and burn Jewish communities across Germany and Eastern Europe. Many Islamic nations, meanwhile, had granted special status to their Jewish, and in some cases Christian, minorities, protecting and defending them as a religious duty.
Islam, Christianity: religion in general is neither inherently good nor inveterately evil. Faith is a hammer. You can use it to build the Sistine Chapel, or you can use it to bash in a child's skull. It does little good to exalt the one hammer and denounce the other.
posted on 08.01.2005 2:28 PM18
Lu 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
Now I realize that this quote is not a call to arms but Jesus warning the desciples that it won't be smooth and easy like the previous time He sent them out.
The same is true of the two slaps. Taken too literally, if I let you slap me twice all bets are off and I can stomp your head in. It is not a call to be a pacifist but a call for restraint well beyound what is expected.
Commandments are by and large directed to individuals and not governments. Thou shalt not murder is directed to us as individuals. You only have to go down the page a little to find a list of circumstances under which society should exercise the death penalty.
19
Joe:
... the ridiculous neo-conservative notion that once the GWOT is over that we will be back on the path ...Global War on Terror? That's so 2004. It's the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE) now; didn't you get the memo? :)
I thought it was implied in this statement: “…the forces of the West will eventually defeat Al Qaeda as we did the evils of communism, fascism, and Nazism.”Well, here you conflate "the West" with "good," not necessarily true, so I can see how Ilona would interpret it that way.
To turn the other cheek is to literally allow someone who has slapped you to give you a backhanded slap on the other cheek.This illustrates a gret problem with a literalist interpretation of scripture. It takes what Jesus likely intended as a larger message and pigeonholes it into something very specific and very narrowly applied. You take a very legalistic reading of Jesus' words here, and I think it's to your detriment.
Chris:
Nice bob and weave. Another Mohammed (Ali) would be proud of your evasive dancing. One can just as easily take Biblical scripture out of context to defend these actions (e.g., "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") as you did with Qu'ranic verses. Nearly any atrocity can be (and, indeed, has been) scripturally defended.
Stavrogin:
Well said.
posted on 08.01.2005 3:34 PM20
"[T]he crusades started after Islam overran Christian holy sites, North Africa, and Spain. In general they started for defensive purposes."
At first I thought I should just let this go, being tangential at best to the current discussion, but I just can't brook this sort of venal, self-serving ignorance.
The crusades were undertaken for a variety of reasons, none of which remotely resembled self-defense. Yes, in the 7th century the Umayyad caliphate took Jerusalem (which is, by the way, one of the most holy sites in Islam, as well as Christianity and Judaism) but for the next four hundred years or so, Christian pilgrims were allowed free access (with the exception of a brief spate of persecution by the Fatimid caliph Hakim, c. 1000 A.D.) Things got somewhat worse after Jerusalem was taken by the Seljuk Turks in 1071, but this was hardly a prime motivation for military action. Nor did self-defense even enter the picture. As the Columbia Encyclopedia puts it:
"The chief factors that contributed to this enthusiastic response [to Pope Urban II's call for a crusade] were the increase in the population and prosperity of Western Europe; the high point that religious devotion had reached; the prospect of territorial expansion and riches for the nobles, and of more freedom for the lower classes; the colonial projects of the Normans (directed against the Byzantine Empire as much as against the Muslim world); the desire, particularly of the Italian cities, to expand trade with the East; and a general awakening to the lure of travel and adventure."
The reference to Islamic preeminence in North Africa is nonsensical, and as for the invasion of Spain (A.D. 711-756), the Almohad caliphate, then in control of Iberia, had no relation to the Seljuk Turkish dynasty that controlled Jerusalem; indeed the Almohads were defeated in spite of Europe's preoccupation with invading the "Holy Land". The crusades, furthermore, had virtually no military objective, beside a seriously doubtful effort to bolster the crumbling remains of Byzantium; Jerusalem had little if any strategic value, nor, as was eventually realized, could it realistically be held by Euopean armies far from home. And, most important for the purpose of this disccussion, the sundry atrocities perpetrated in the course of "liberating" Jerusalem cannot be excused by any argument, least of all self-defense. Once more from the Columbia Encyclopedia:
"The armies crossed to Asia Minor, took Nicaea (1097), defeated the Turks at Dorylaeum, and, after a seven-month siege, took Antioch (1098) and slaughtered nearly all of its inhabitants, including its Christians. The campaign was completed in July, 1099, by the taking of Jerusalem, where they massacred the city’s Muslims and Jews."
posted on 08.01.2005 3:49 PM21
This illustrates a gret problem with a literalist interpretation of scripture. It takes what Jesus likely intended as a larger message and pigeonholes it into something very specific and very narrowly applied. You take a very legalistic reading of Jesus' words here, and I think it's to your detriment.Damned if we do, damned if we do not. I think it is actually very necessary to take the Bible as literally as possible - in order to stop the use of scripture to support all those things you talk about.
Matt 5: 38 "You have heard that it was said, `AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you"Everything here is about personal revenge (tooth for tooth) or offensives to your person by another person. What reason is there to broaden it? In fact, the whole Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) was about personal righteousness and the personal traits of a Kingdom member. Let's let Christ say what Christ wants to say. posted on 08.01.2005 3:51 PM
22
I agree that poverty is not the reason for terrorism, Nazism, communism or any of the other evils of their particular day. So why is it that affluent societies tend to be more resistant to the greater, sweeping evils such as these? There are, of course, a handful of domestic terrorists and the crazies of the sort Lee Harris identifies. But why didn't the Army of God sweep into power in the US? Why didn't the Weathermen win? That is the question that has to be answered.
My theory follows. Look at any successful revolutionary movement and you will find that the leaders of the movement come from the middle class. Lenin, Hitler, Castro, bin Laden is wealthy but many of the other leaders-- Al Zawahirii-- are middle class. Their ultimate political support, however, comes from the lower classes-- starving agriculturalists and workers in Russia, unemployed Germans crushed by the loss in WWI in Germany, Indians and peasants in Cuba, poor people across the Middle East. What is the dynamic here? Essentially the things these places share is a corrupt, ineffective and undemocratic political structure. Tsarism in Russia, the Weimar in Germany, Batista in Cuba, any number of military and hereditary nightmares across the Middle East. Thus, what happens is ambitious, intelligent, charismatic and visionary leaders among the non-political educated class-- people with the resources to be educated and hopeful but without access to power thanks to corruption and autocracy-- are forced into radicalism. They despise the political establishment and thus must operate outside of it. Unfortunately, most radical ideas tend to be pretty destructive (hence why they aren't more mainstream) and so more often than not they latch onto something akin to communism, fascism, dominionism or Islamism and begin to demand an overthrow of the established order.
Such, however, cannot be done without the support of a large number of people. The successful ones find a way to sell it to the masses. They dress up their nihlism with a utopian vision--a classless society of plenty, a peaceful Germany dominant and led by a master race, a return to the caliphate and the purer days of old. This utopianism can never be achieved, so they must use force to keep dissenters and those who recognize the truth from piping up. They use censorship and suppression of free speech to silence the truth of the matter. They use war and extremism over something like the capitalist imperialists in Vietnam or the Jewish bolsheviks in Russia or the decadent Westerners in Israel to keep their people off balance. They ban religion, or better yet enforce a corrupted state religion onto their people in order to keep God's commands and the grace of Christ out of their hearts. Finally, they abolish democratic institutions in order to remove any threat of competition.
There are times when this set up has produced good results-- the American revolution, the Indian independence movement and the end of Apartheid being prominent examples. The movements out of the mainstream were positive and empowering--democratic republican consitutionalism, nonviolent democratic nationalism and a Christian-inspired democracy. But these are the exceptions. In the end, the long-term answer to extremism is to prevent it and to take the steam out of it. In essence, to undo corruption and autocracy across the globe in order to give ambitious people healthy outlets for that ambition; and to give people a quality of life that they appreciate the systems that they live under. Virtue and Justice-- the twin commands of Christ and the basis of the law.
Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Do justice, love righteousness and walk humbly with your God. Cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, rebuke the ruthless, defend the widow and plead for the orphan. I could go on and on. But the Bible is full of commands for us to root out corruption and send it away from our lands and to help one another survive. A world order based on the Bible's most basic precepts is one that would be free of this extremism.
That world, will of course, come one of these days. Probably sooner than we realize. But in the meantime, this country and this world is on the brink of God's justice. If you think that the stories in the Old Testament of God raining down punishment on the world for its evil (Noah, Ninevah, Israel too many times to mention, the Caananites, the Philistines, the Greeks [in the Maccabees, not canonical, but historically useful] and on and on...) were long ago and not useful for our day and age, you are sorely mistaken. Our nation's materialsim (a more useful term might be idolotry), greed, lustfulness and corruption when added to our unconsciousable treatment of our own poor and the poor around the world, our fundamental inequality, will add up to a righteous judgement. It doesn't come from a lightning strike or fire and brimstone typically: it comes from God giving us what we think we want. This nation is in trouble, but as Jonah's story tells us, repentance is possible and his grace is infinite.
So in the end, this long comment finds that if we want to keep our people safe from ultimate turmoil and terror, the answer is to change our own hearts and reach out to the world to do the same.
posted on 08.01.2005 7:58 PM23
Speaking of radical ideologies, how dishonest is it to pretend that the "Bible studies" curriculum discussed below is not intended to promote particular Christian religious beliefs in public schools?
http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/BibleCurriculum.pdf
posted on 08.01.2005 8:25 PM24
I remember reading Lee Harris' essay on the fantasy ideology of Al Qaeda when he first published it three years ago.
I remember thinking to myself, "This guy really gets it."
Finally, almost a year after the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, Lee Harris gave us an analysis of the war that explains both the fanatical brutality and the apparent strategic cluelessness of the enemy. His essay remains one of the most comprehensive and accurate summaries of what we're up against.
Your post and the conversation in the comments are excellent.
The question has been raised as to whether or not Christianity has been in the past as horrible as Islam, or whether or not Islam today is just as good as Christianity. These are important questions, because our strategy against the Islamist terrorists will be determined by how successful we are in winning over the hearts and minds of the average Muslim on the street, both in the Middle East and around the world.
While the question of whether Christianity has been historically as brutal and beknighted as Islam is very interesting, it also happens to be very complicated (we're talking about centuries and centuries of history in many, many countries). While I think a good case can be made for lumping in Christianity with Islam, I don't think there are any simple answers. I'm more inclined to focus on the end result of Christianity, which has been pretty good, despite many up's and down's along the way.
As for whether or not Islam is just as good as Christianity, I think the answer could be yes, but I'm not sure.
I think the traditions of separation of church and state are much, much stronger in Christianity, since they date back well over 300 years to the aftermath of the various religious wars of the seventeenth century. Apparently, Islam today is a much more political and power-oriented religion than Christianity.
But political movements have a way of developing and changing course very rapidly. They have a way of metastasizing in a most dramatic way, either for good or for ill. So the political obsessions of the jihadis and the sharia-fascists, while superficially pretty scary from our point of view, they could also prove to be a fundamental weakness of the enemy. If a political movement for democracy and human rights gains momentum in the lands of Islam, then the Islamist terrorists' number will be up sooner rather than later.
I think President Bush's strategy of betting on democracy in the Islamic world is very sound, and seems to be already producing tangible results. I'm hopeful that we can help generate an ultimately overwhelming tsunami of democracy, reform, and freedom in the Muslim world.
Yet despite the faith Joe has in Western culture and religion, and the faith I have in freedom and democracy, the outcome of the War on Terror is far from pre-determined. We have not yet won this war, and we could lose it.
If Al Qaeda or some other jihadi group gets their hands on biological or nuclear weapons, then all bets are off. We are currently in a tremendous race against time. We need to finish off the terrorists before they can pull off a few very large-scale attacks that would disrupt the world's civilized order and sow devastation and panic around the globe.
Until the terrorists are thoroughly defeated, either by eliminating the corrupt and brutal regimes that inspire support for the terrorists, or by hunting down and killing every last one that we can find, the horrible risk of great calamities and a chaotic collapse of globalization will hang over our heads.
But as I said, I am actually just as optimistic as Joe is that this latest battle against a delusional ideology of murder and hate will end well for us. Time will tell. In the meantime, we should all devote ourselves to pursuing victory.
posted on 08.02.2005 1:47 AM25
There is a whiff of the Manichean here (or is it speck and log?): after a solid definition of fantasy ideology, the jump is made to 'of course, it's them...'
But Lee Harris' essay (no relation) points to the personal dimension; it seems far better to think of fantasy ideology as being a common human failing. Do we in America fall into this? In the early stages of the war on Iraq, there seemed to be that, e.g. the picture of the President landing on the carrier; or take the casual way that some conservatives had with a "tom clancy" tone on their blogs -- what are we doing here, but using the tropes of politics etc for some "personal psychodrama?"
Or to move away from controversy, hang around a political campaign of any sort for a while, and you will see the same dynamic: people picking up the ideology of the party as a means for fulfilling some personal (imagined) role. And in Christian circles we also are familiar with those who pick up a ministry less for the Gospel than for some unspecified personal need. What are these but the extension of "fantasy ideologies?"
I am a bit cautious about taking the concept past the individual to apply the term to a group, however. While revolutionary and messianic ideologies do involve a kind of fantasy, it doesn't seem to have the same force as those on the personal level (using politics to meet personal psychological needs). Indeed, taken to something of an extreme it would seem to endup in reductionism: 'they're doing it because of bad psychology' Really, this is the stufff of the Darwinists and Freudians....
In short, a provocative post.
posted on 08.02.2005 7:18 AM26
JCHFleetGuy:
Everything here is about personal revenge (tooth for tooth) or offensives to your person by another person.Bwuh? The "eye for eye" verses don't concern personal revenge at all, but adherence to the law. See Lev 24:17-22:
17 " 'If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' "Take the entire passage in context and you see that it's a conversation between God and Moses wherein God is proscribing His laws. Personal revenge has little to do with it; this is God's law. It is Biblical justice.
A broad reading of the passage is advisable precisely because that's what makes sense in the context. I find it difficult to imagine that Jesus was speaking strictly of avoiding personal revenge against those who have wronged you personally, and nothing else.
Matthew Goggins:
I'm more inclined to focus on the end result of Christianity, which has been pretty good, despite many up's and down's along the way.Isn't this dangerously close to pragmatic ethics, i.e., the ends justify the means? I know at least one Christian who would take serious issue with this.
As for whether or not Islam is just as good as Christianity, I think the answer could be yes, but I'm not sure.Not lately, I'd argue, but there was a time when Islam was a lot better than Christianity in terms of what it gave the world. When the West was mired in what we lovingly refer to "the dark ages," most of the real advances in science and math were coming out of the Islamic world. It was only as fundamentalists gained more influence (in many ways as a direct result of the Christian-led crusades) that this started to shift.
I think the traditions of separation of church and state are much, much stronger in Christianity, since they date back well over 300 years to the aftermath of the various religious wars of the seventeenth century. Apparently, Islam today is a much more political and power-oriented religion than Christianity.I think that depends on where you look. Separation is constantly under attack here in the US, and there have been and continue to be largely secular Islamic states (ironically, Iraq was one).
I think President Bush's strategy of betting on democracy in the Islamic world is very sound, and seems to be already producing tangible results.That's debatable. I agree that spreading democracy is a noble and worthwhile goal, but it has to be done more organically, not at the barrel of a gun. And what few "tangible" results we've seen are not so easily linked to Bush's actions in Iraq (or anywhere else).
If Al Qaeda or some other jihadi group gets their hands on biological or nuclear weapons, then all bets are off.Probably so, although perhaps not for the reason you think.
This betrays a simplistic view of what drives terrorism. There's not some finite supply of terrorists that can somehow magically be "eliminated," at least not without destroying far more innocent lives in the process. You're closer to being on the mark when you talk about "eliminating corrupt and brutal regimes," although simply ceasing our support for these regimes (e.g. House of Saud, Uzbekistan, etc.) would be a really good start. posted on 08.02.2005 1:55 PMWe need to finish off the terrorists before they can pull off a few very large-scale attacks that would disrupt the world's civilized order and sow devastation and panic around the globe.
Until the terrorists are thoroughly defeated, either by eliminating the corrupt and brutal regimes that inspire support for the terrorists, or by hunting down and killing every last one that we can find, the horrible risk of great calamities and a chaotic collapse of globalization will hang over our heads.
27
Back to JCHFleetGuy for a moment, note that the Leviticus verse isn't saying what a wronged person would be within his rights to do, which is what you'd expect if revenge were the motivation. It talks about what must be done, and it doesn't say that the wronged party should be the one to do it. Someone who wrongs another must be wronged in similar fashion. Someone who kills (presumably "murders" is better) a man must himself be put to death.
posted on 08.02.2005 1:58 PM28
Also, note that according to Deut 19:15-22, even perjury can be a capital offense.
posted on 08.02.2005 2:00 PM29
Tgrisch
The "eye for eye" verses don't concern personal revenge at all, but adherence to the law . . . A broad reading of the passage is advisable precisely because that's what makes sense in the context. I find it difficult to imagine that Jesus was speaking strictly of avoiding personal revenge against those who have wronged you personally, and nothing else.
The whole context of Jesus's "ministry" (lame word really), and the Sermon on the Mount, is that the law needs not to be written in stone but on our hearts. Christianity is not a legalistic, law-driven belief structure - it is God's attempt to change our character and how we center our lives: To love God with our whole being; and our neighbor as ourselves. That is taken one individual at a time.
He was HEAVILY amending (if not revoking) the Levitical law you quoted. He was, after all, here to revoke (fulfill, as in complete) and replace the Mosaic covenant. Again, all of Matthew 5-7 is about the internal qualities and character of members of the Kingdom; and not about how society and government should behave. If you make the argument that a society of people having this character would approach its collective life, and relationship with other societies, differently - we would be on the same page entirely. But, as CS Lewis said:
[all emphasis mine] . . . that brings us right up against the real snag in all this drawing up of blueprints for a Christian society. Most of us are not really approaching. the subject in order to find out what Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party. We are looking for an ally where we are offered either a Master or--a Judge. I am just the same. There are bits in this section that I wanted to leave out. And that is why nothing whatever is going to come of such talks unless we go a much longer way round. A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really want it: and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian. I may repeat 'Do as you would he done by' till I am black in the face, but I cannot really carry it out till I love my neighbour as myself: and I cannot learn to love my neighbour as myself till I learn to love God: and I cannot learn to love God except by learning to obey Him. And. so, as I warned you, we are driven on to something more inward--driven on from social matters to religious matters. For the longest way round is the shortest way home. -- Mere ChristianityThe emphasis of Christianity is building our individual character to match that of Christ's, and have that character act as "salt and light" in the society around us - and that was the emphasis of the Sermon on the Mount. posted on 08.02.2005 2:39 PM
30
Tgirsch,
Thanks for your comments.
President Bush actually did confront Islam Karimov, the dictator of Uzbekistan, about his regime's brutal suppression of democratic dissidents. As a result, Karimov has now formally notified us that we have six months to pack up and leave his country.
But in general, I agree with everything you have to say. My main difference with you is that when I evaluate President Bush's war and foreign policy efforts, I come up with much higher marks.
It's easy to second-guess what President Bush is doing and not doing. I feel that if I personally had been president these past four and a half years, I would consider myself very fortunate indeed to be doing as well as Bush has been doing.
A good example of a Bush project that doesn't get the attention it deserves is the Proliferation Security Initiative. It's a program that's doing enormously important ongoing work.
But the progress we make through the initiative is normally relatively low-profile, and not very many people are even aware of the initiative's existence.
posted on 08.02.2005 2:50 PM31
JCHFleetGuy:
He was HEAVILY amending (if not revoking) the Levitical law you quoted.I agree, but we seem to disagree on the scope. Jesus clearly is admonishing against violence here, even if in a limited context. I'd argue that it does Jesus' teaching a disservice to try to limit the scope of this admonition. And think about this: I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of Jesus advocating violence anywhere, in any circumstance. So there's nothing else in Jesus' teaching that tells us we should limit our interpretation of that admonition. I believe he intended it to be broad (and many, many Christians concur, I might add). Given his habit of speaking in parables and using specific examples to illustrate broader principles (neither of which I suspect you'll dispute), the broad application makes the most sense here.
Which brings us back to Stavrogin's original point: how is pacifism un-Christian?
He was, after all, here to revoke (fulfill, as in complete) and replace the Mosaic covenant.That's an interesting take on that, I'll give you that. Can you give me even one example outside of Christianity where we use the words "revoke" and "fulfill" (or even "revoke" and "complete") in anything even resembling an interchangeable fashion? I'm guessing not. You seem to be using a, um, unique definition of revoke.
And spare me the C.S. Lewis quotes. You may like the guy, but that doesn't mean his logic isn't at best simplistic and at worst absurd.
The bigger point is that until you can show me where Jesus advocates war and capital punishment, I'll continue to argue that neither of these things helps "[build] our individual character to match Christ's," and in fact both are counterproductive to this end, and as such, Stavrogin's point stands.
Matthew Goggins:
Wasn't aware of the Uzbekistan thing, thanks. Still, the fact that we ever included them in the "Coalition of the Willing" in the first place sends the worst of mixed messages.
My main difference with you is that when I evaluate President Bush's war and foreign policy efforts, I come up with much higher marks.Maybe. [*DIGRESSION/RANT ALERT*] My biggest problem is that there's too much emphasis on the former (war) and not enough on the latter (foreign policy). I actually admired Bush's initial response following the attacks of September 11th; the restraint before attacking Afghanistan, and working with the organic revolutionary movement there once we did get involved. It was only after that when things went very, very wrong. Instead of stabilizing Afghanistan, we chased the Taliban out of two or three major cities and then essentially left, keeping only a skeleton force behind. We then took a multi-year detour into Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with either al-Qaeda or September 11th, and indeed, had had very little to do with international terrorism of any kind in years, and in my estimation, it's been to the detriment of the world's security.
How you can view anything Bush has done in the GSAVE since late 2002 to be "successful" is frankly beyond me. The justifications given for our involvement in Iraq (and the falsity of most of them) leaves only two options: either the administration was disingenuous in its presentation of the case for war there, or it was incompetent in its assessment of that case; we the people have held them accountable for neither of those possibilities. And nobody within the administration has been held accountable, either. Tenet screwed up so badly that we gave him the Medal of Freedom!
International terror attacks have increased since we launched the GSAVE, and this is listed as evidence that it's working. Of course, if attacks were DOWN, then THAT would be given as evidence that it's working, too. Nice situation to be in: any possible outcome proves success.
On September 12, 2001, we had literally the world on our side, and our current president has squandered every single bit of that good will, most of it with this Iraqi debacle.
[*END DIGRESSION/RANT*]
The above in short form: the Saudis should have been our next objective after Afghanistan, not Iraq. There's a reason there were 15 Saudis on the planes and no Iraqis. (And no, I'm not suggesting that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, but we certainly should have -- and still should -- stopped playing pussyfoot with the House of Saud.)
And I think you overstate the importance of the Proliferation Security Initiative, although in all honestly I don't know enough about it to comment on its efficacy. IIRC, the Libya "win" is no longer considered much of a win, which is why conservatives no longer tout it.
posted on 08.02.2005 5:20 PM32
Tgrisch
If Lewis is simplistic, or absurd - refute him: should be easy. That particular attack on him was kinda weak.
I think capital punishment is untenable from a Christian standpoint - but not everyone agrees (even the Catholics, who generally oppose it, aren't ironclad). As to war, you yourself I believe would fall into the just/unjust category on this - unless you would have bowed out of WWII even after Pearl Harbor; or finding out about the slaughter of the Jews.
There is plenty of New Testament ground for government not having the same responsibilities as individuals. I think there are political responsibilities that flow from the character traits in the Sermon on the Mount - but I still argue for narrow interpretation of the Bible. I think we should be careful to fill in blanks with our own thoughts.
posted on 08.02.2005 8:33 PM33
And I will drop word revoke - there were good reasons for it but I do not want a semantical argument. I will stick with fulfilling the old; and starting the new
posted on 08.02.2005 10:33 PM34
JCHFLEETGUY:
There is plenty of New Testament ground for government not having the same responsibilities as individuals.
Good point. I think that can be the basis of a Scripturally consistent defence of Christian pacifism. People like to point to Romans 13 for the role of government as an agent of God's wrath bearing the sword. But we might note that Paul is instructing the Roman Christians on how to respond to government. He doesn't indicate whether or not they should participate. However, in Chapter 12, he describes Christians as agents of God's mercy in a way that dovetails nicely with Christ's instructions in the Servant on the Mount and doesn't fit very well with the responsibilities of government in Chapter 13.
So, taking chapter 12 in context with chapter 13, we might conclude that the code of conduct required of Christians is very different from the actions of government. We might also ask if it there is any support in Christ's instructions for the idea that it is possible to morally separate the things we do as private individuals from the things we do for the government. Even if we agree that government is established by God (perhaps in much the same way that he established the Babylonians and Assyrians as agents of his wrath in the Old Testament), we sould be very careful about concluding that we are permitted to do things as servants of government that we are not permitted to do as servants of Christ. To claim that Christians must always be ready to fight may be arrogating to much responsibility to ourselves. Christ calls us to be agents of love and mercy. He'll handle the wrath.