surgical strike: modern mendacity
It is encouraging to think that there is a burgeoning democratic reform movement afoot in Islam. That is the hopeful message of Thomas Friedman’s latest piece entitled Brave, Young and Muslim.
It is amazing to me that so many Americans do not seem to have even the slightest understanding of Islam and its history. More amazing still that so many Americans do not have any better understanding of their own history. I think if one looks thoughtfully at the progress of Western Civilization, you can see much of where we have been in what Islam is today.
It is easy to forget that our not so distant past harbored a lot of stuff that we do not comfortably claim as our own history. It was in the West after all that Galileo was jailed for nothing more than telling what he saw in his telescope. It was in the West that Albert Einstein had to flee his home for no other reason than being born of those descendants of Abraham that the Nazis chose as the objects of their hatred. And within the life times of much of the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon community we have seen even here in The Land of the Free a time when there were still separate drinking fountains for those born with unacceptable skin pigmentation.
The point is that the West had to have its Renaissance, Enlightenment and religious reformations along its hard climb to modernity. And the birth of Liberty came only at the ends of gun barrels and many centuries of slowly wresting power from the Monarchs. That we collectively undertook and survived those transforming movements is certainly to our credit.
But the attitude that is often heard that Islam is unsuitable for various institutions of modernity is certainly not to our credit. These attitudes are borne of a cultural arrogance that equals that of radical Muslim fundamentals. It is my firm belief that given time Islam will reform as has the other great religions of the World and that perhaps along the way an element or two of modern thought will be found rightfully worthy of their rejection.
I do not necessarily share Friedman’s belief that the time is now, but I certainly share his hope. After all, if the time is not now then we may have a few long centuries in front of us.
27 Comments:
I guess my only disagreements would be "dim bulb" and the "merging of church and state" it is faith based, and he does not have any bias on which faith is which as long as they are helping those less fortunate. And I will take freedom-lite any day over your pluralistic and tolerance.
Randy,
I’m not sure I understand your point. Why don’t we explore it and see if we have some common ground (I suspect we do).
First I would note that pluralism is what we have. You or I may or may not like pluralism, but this is just reality. The relevant definition from the Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary defines pluralism thus:
a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization.
I don’t see the logic objecting to pluralism unless you are suggesting people outside of certain cultural boundaries not be admitted to our shores and those who are here be asked to leave.
Tolerance is a more complex topic. I adamantly advocate the tolerance that was preached by Jesus Christ. I am equally adamant in my rejection of the modern secularist view that claims that toleration requires us as individuals to except other cultures and beliefs as equally valid.
Jesus taught that we should love everybody. He did not qualify that in any way. His behavior and words regarding Samaritans show us that we are to respect other people and embrace them as individuals. Jesus equally asked us to be steadfast in rejecting the sin itself. A lot of people, including myself, give a lot of lip service to this distinction but come up woefully short in practicing this teaching.
If part of your rankle is that some are self-righteous in their claim that you and I must accept all belief systems as valid, then I would stand with you to that extent. I find it somewhere between amusing and galling that the secularist crowd, in its rush to claim the moral high ground by planting the flag of tolerance, can be so intolerant of my point of view. When it slips over the edge and demands that we send our children to public schools that teach this modern secularist view it crosses the line in to oppression. Of course I do not claim that we Christians are oppressed in a broad societal sense, but the seeds of it can certainly be seen.
But truthfully, must of what is happening I consider a back-lash against the vitriolic rhetoric of the radical Christian right. You see, those outside of this Circle of Trust are just as offended by the self-righteousness of those preaching that this is a Christian Nation as are Christians with the self-righteousness of the secularists.
Here again Christians should turn to the example of Christ an abandon the ways of the Pharisees in favor of the meekness of our Lord.
CG,
I thought you were going to finally get a clear statement of human rights out with out degenerating into collectivist babble, but then you said:
Murder, tax evasion, etc. are not human rights because we have collectively made it illegal by law. You continue to be muddled in your thinking in my view. Either human rights are intrinsic or not. I think the logically following and correct statement is recognize that our human rights are only limited by the rights of others possessing equal rights arising out of their humanness. Law then is man’s attempt to build a social contract that prevents one man from arbitrarily seizing the right of another. The act of Murder is not a right because it profoundly interferes with the rights of another and the Law codifies that system of inter-related bundles of rights bumping into each other in the course of life.
You said also,
Individual rights are fundamental, but not sufficient IMO.
Well, that sounds kind of good, but it doesn’t make sense. The entire legal system is built upon human rights. What do you propose to add to human right to make the legal system sufficient? In my view, human rights are a foundation and we build a system of laws upon that. If you want to have a decent society, social safety nets in some for are considered essential to the vast majority of Americans. Hence we voluntarily yield our rights to the government for creating a just and decent society. In other words, even if I accept your end point, I would not view it as a insufficiency of law built on human rights, but rather a social failure to see a need for caring for our fellow man.
CG,
Yeah, if figured you would get stirred up on my public schools statements. We’ve been through all of that here before and I don’t know that it is worth repeating unless a newer reader wants to carry the ball.
The short version is that it absolutely is different than almost anything else in our society. We are speaking of the right to raise my child as I wish it to be raised. Sending a child to a secular school that teaches that all world views are equal is unacceptable to a Christian worldview. If you take my money through taxes and tell me that unless I have yet more money to send my kid to a private school then this is my only choice then you are absolutely interfering with my free exercise of religion.
CG,
Talk about rehashing old arguments. I feel compelled to respond lest some inference be made from my silence.
Suggesting that education can be had divorced from a worldview is absurd outside the realm of teaching the trivial. You can certainly find your examples such as the fundamental three Rs. But the second you touch on anything significant such as the social sciences, literature and art, you are off in a world that compels digging into one’s world view. Teaching a child rhetoric without speaking of philosophy is like teaching a child physics without speaking of gravity.
In other words, you might keep a kid in school for twelve years, but at the other end they will not have a real education. This is what we do today and it is the most immoral result I can imagine. The waste should shame us all.
Saurav,
OK, perhaps you can not “neatly” separate the history of East and West, but I do not think that makes the distinction illegitimate. There were certainly racial overtones in creating much of our history-and I do mean “create” literally because within limits I support the approach of historiography.
But, if you look at the last 2,000 years, for the most part East and West have been divided culturally. No, there isn’t some clear demarcation and East owes much to West and West to East. I think the biggest problem with the East-West distinction is that both constructs obscure the differences within. The West is arguably more homogenous than the East, but speaking broadly of the West is inevitably fraught with peril as well.
And I certainly understand that speaking of Islam as a monolithic whole is at least as unfair as speaking of Christianity as a whole. Still, I do not think generalization is automatically illegitimate and I think one is hard pressed to have a political conversation and always parse such things with the rigor you are suggesting. And sometimes when such parsing is possible, I fear one can lose a general audience in the attempt to get everything perfectly correct. It would be my hope to generalize in as fair a way as possible and I actually do try very hard at that.
As this is applied to the discussion before us, I think that I am lucky if I can get across the point that Islam has a great deal to say about non-Islamic people ruling Muslims and their land, then I am doing well. If I can get that point across, then perhaps the nuance will become relevant to a larger audience.
Don’t get me wrong, I am happy to have you make these distinctions here, I just want to be candid about where I am coming from when I write.
CG,
You said, “The subject is freedom... and one faction pushing to define that freedom for everyone else is freedom-lite...”. Yes, I agree. So why are you doing that to me? This is the shocking thing about your worldview: that you can’t see the contradiction. I have begun to believe that it is just a false position maintained for the sole purpose of avoiding inconvenient facts.
But you tip your hand and express exactly what is at the heart of the secularist movement when you say,
First, note this is the parent's worldview. Kids don't have worldviews... they can be presented with broad brush strokes and allowed to develop their own path, or they can be force-fed a parent's/factions curriculum.
This is the crux of it. I do not want my child to develop his own worldview. Certainly when he gets older he will make these decisions for himself but I want to make sure he is old enough to appreciate the finer points before he starts making his own choices. I make no apology for this and consider it my honor and duty as a parent to lead my Son in the direction of Truth and not let him simply flail in the gobbledy-gook of destructive ideas which frame our modern world.
Secularists find my desires wholly unacceptable. They do not wish that I have this freedom. They are convinced that I am some bigoted freak and that my child’s mind must be pried away lest he be corrupted. If this is the way the world chooses to view me, I can not control that. But for the time being, I can control what goes into my Son’s head and I stand firmly opposed to modernity’s abject destructive pseudo-philosophies. I refuse to participate in the intellectual watering down which permeates our nation. This is why my Son’s first biography, which we will start reading tonight, is a biography of Frederick Douglas. This is why my Son will be taught that Truth is Absolute. And most importantly, I wish to teach my Son to not begrudge the secularists their freedom just because they begrudge us our own.
Ironically, what all of this means is that though I support public funding for education, I can not support public schools. Public schools lead to the silly and wasteful discussions of the questions such as, ”If we put praying back into public schools, how do we manage that?” We should not “manage” that at all. We should allow parents to chose schools that fit reasonably well to how they want their kids to be educated.
OK, y'all type too much, let me just say this. I did say "your pluralism and tolerance". You will have to wiat till I get home to expound, then y'all can pounce all you want. Long Live the BLOG
Andrew,
I for one do not believe that a Reformed Islamic Country will look exactly like a modern Western country. Frankly, I don’t have a clue about what is a logical way they may change and evolve. I would guess it will look more like a European country than it does today, but still be very different.
I have had friend in law school who was a former CIA Middle East analyst. He was quick to disabuse me of the notion that these folks are just champing at the bit to blow themselves up. Still, the point is well taken: they are clearly more likely to sacrifice themselves than your typical American.
But let me be clear and say that I don’t think that modernization in Islam will unfold quickly by the standards with which us moderns measure. The modernization of Japan, as rapid as that was, was still over a one-hundred year proposition. At a minimum you have to hope for a couple of generations to pass before the hatred quiets down so a hundred years may be optimistic given the seeds of unrest we are presently sowing.
CG,
I totally understand that you claim that you view that your own position “has NOTHING to do with curtailing others rights and everything to do with not letting the Religious right curtail the rights of others.“ This is my key point. Those are just words. The substance of the policy clearly and objectively curtails my rights. As I said before, your state of unreality on this point is simply amazing.
You said, “We haven't invented the ala carte tax system you say you require for your rights to not be violated... seems like an unreasonable position until we develop that tax system.” To which I would counter, if you want to have a public school system and respect my right to free exercise of religion, there is no choice but to develop one.
Besides, I have often proposed an equitable solution: school vouchers. It exists, it just doesn’t meet your millions of tests. I suppose it seem unreasonable to you, but that is an easy position to take when it isn’t your rights being violated.
I don't know why I waste my breath any way...nobody really gives a damn about education any way.
Saurav,
I don’t disagree with your last post at all. But the problem always is where you draw the line. Buddhism had its impact felt as far as modern Afghanistan. Descendants of Genghis Khan ruled India for a very long time. Islam has heavily impacted regions from Spain to Bosnia and India to Indonesia. Islam benefited from education the intellectual legacy of both Greece, Rome and China and then conferred their learning back to both. The impact of Greece, Rome and Christianity historically reached as far east as India.
While I may disagree as to what are appropriate or inappropriate generalizations, your points are well taken. I find it tragic how few people appreciate the interplay of Islam and the West over the years. And more shocking still how many people think the current conflict over Palestine is a modern phenomena. Hopefully we can all do a small part in helping to increase this awareness.
Off topic, but I rather enjoyed this Frank Rich piece.
Yoshi,
You said, “For all practical purposes I'm a monotheistic agnostic. Most of us who actually even think about these things are. And the ones who are really still "quote-unquote" Christians are the really naive ones who just don't do a lot of honest reasoning with themselves.”
You must have known I would take exception to that.
Just because the majority of people who call themselves Christians do not have a depth of belief is not in any way reflective of the underlying value of the belief system. I think Christendom is a victim of its own economic success. When getting food for the next meal is no longer a concern, it is far easier to give yourself the credit than to turn to God. That is what Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19:23-26:
Jesus told his disciples, "Do you have any idea how difficult it is for the rich to enter God's kingdom? Let me tell you, it's easier to gallop a camel through a needle's eye than for the rich to enter God's kingdom." The disciples were staggered. "Then who has any chance at all?" Jesus looked hard at them and said, "No chance at all if you think you can pull it off yourself. Every chance in the world if you trust God to do it."
You see Yoshi, hypocrisy has been with us a very long time. I wonder how committed the majority of Muslims will be once they are economically prosperous? Check out how Shintoism is doing in Japan these days.
I think you might be surprised that there are more than a few thinking individuals around that call themselves Christians. We have the great examples of C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer and scores of modern Christian intellectuals. I personally try to walk humbly in shadows of these giants. Maybe numerically most Christians are intellectually naive, but then so are most of Democrats, Republicans and atheists that I have known.
I do not have anything against pluralism and tolerance, but our country was founded on more than just these principles. Our country was also founded on Christian beliefs and morals. In order to figure this out we have to look at who our founding fathers were, yes the were rich pompous land owners, but do you read anything in any of the declaration, or constitution that shows they were out to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor. We should also evaluate what our founding father believed and where they think they were headed as they wrote the earnest words of the constitution. The fabric and morals of this country were woven of Christian values with Christian ideals, that is to say the ideals of Christ. Not to beat or force Christianity on other cultures that assimilate into our society, but to embrace, love and tolerate them so they would not feel like outcasts, but have equal stake in the future of this country. The problem with this, is the same problem that Christians have had through out history, and this is the difference between Christians and Muslims, we show love kindness and tolerance to other cultures and as they assimilate into a Christian culture. The culture then begins to lose their morals and values and start on the road to secularism. Muslims will not allow this to happen, that is why their form of government will always be theocratic.
Tony
Have faith, any nation that will allow freedom will eventually find itself as secular as England, Israel, and yes the god ole US of A. This is the natural course of history, and with the advent of the internet, I can say with some degree of certainty; Iraq will either revert to theocracy, or go the way of secular states such as ours sooner than 200 yrs. As far as pluralism, I do not disagree with that, if your definition is correct. That is not exactly what we have today in this society. We have several well placed left facing judges that are deciding what the majority in this country will have, and I am not talking about separation of church and state, I am talking about a core value of principles, such as life. Anyone that can think it is the woman’s right to decide on the termination of a child, just because it is her womb is out in left field, but again I get of track. Sorry
Also
I see you find it easy to bash Bush on his policies, and you believe that his endeavor is to try and make Iraq a mini American democracy. He may have hopes and dreams that this may happen, but he has never said so. Yes he continues to call it democracy, but he has always allowed for it to be a democracy that they fashion, not that we dictate. Please do not get me wrong, I remember clearly the day that this country invaded Iraq. I worked with a rather outspoken democrat, and I happen to generally be republican (yes on the right side-not to say correct, just right) anyway, the first words out of his mouth, as you can imagine were, “Did you see what your President has done now”. You can imagine my surprise to be attacked like this, and this has irked me since the 2000 election was won by Bush, whether you voted for him or not he is our President, but I digress. My response my shock some, although I support what the President did, because he is our president, and congress voted to give the authority, I did not believe that the invasion was the correct thing to do at the time. I do believe that even though the Iraqi people will be better off now, if they can maintain fair and free elections, the fact that we did not find WMD’s proves we moved too soon and recklessly.
Yoshi,
I have heard remarks not dissimilar from your many times over the years. Forgive me if you have already read it, but I would like to commend C.S. Lewis’s book Mere Christianity to you. It isn’t an evangelism type of book at all, rather just a good read on the basics of what Christianity is. I think, sadly, the contents of the book would shock most contemporary Christians if they read it. Not to mention this book is worth reading just to learn more about what effective writing looks like-it is a masterpiece. I suggest this because I think it will appeal to the exact sorts of areas of thought you seem to be interested in. No doubt there is much profit in this book no matter what one’s philosophical outlook.
Randy,
I have written on the topic of our founding by Christians often in the past. I think it is easy to forget what real men of genius they really were. What I point out in there is that while yes our founders were unquestionably men of a Christian world view, that only makes more significant that the Constitution contains no references to God, Creator or even Providence. What our founders understood is that institutional religion, when possessing enforcement powers, historically has always worked for evil no matter what the overt intentions might have been.
You said, “I do not have anything against pluralism...”. I think you perhaps unconsciously might in fact have a problem with pluralism. I would say that I accept pluralism in the same way I accept that the Pacific Ocean is large-simply an objective physical description of what I see. Why is this something that you seem to think is yours to accept or reject?
On bashing the President’s policies, let me say that I do find that disturbingly easy. I hope you do not feel that any of my bashing is directed at you personally-it certainly is not. Having grown up among the group that has morphed into the Radical Right, I would not assume you are among them and if you were, I would not question you motivations. Now, I do often question the rationality of those that blindly support the man and give him the benefit of the doubt no matter how dubious the situation might be.
I share your horror at the remark, “look what YOUR President has done”. Of course he is my President just like Clinton was before him. That is a statement of legal position and the respect I show is for the office. Now if the man is contemptible, then there are ways of expressing that, but stating “he isn’t my President” is to evidence contempt for the entire system.
CG,
I agree that a monument of the 10 commamdments is not something we should have in front of our courts, or in front of any Govt. institution. Memorials on the other hand I would say should be what they are. If a man of great stature were a Christian, and his memorial depicts such is, I believe of a different nature. And I say this with the certainty of the litmus test, would I want someone to have a memorial that was of a differing faith to have that faith represented there. Yes. Although our constitution has no mention of God, or established religion and providence, our laws are based on a degree of morality that was based in biblical morality, in the evolution of those laws we have gotten far from that morality, whether you think this is good or bad is not relevant
“Yeah, and my tennis game was founded on a wooden tennis racquet. I think Jefferson was the one who said "our democracy is for the living... not some dead founders who are now worm dirt".”
I do not think, and this is my opinion, that the founding fathers thought we would take such drastic variations of their words as we have to conform not only the constitution, but our legal system to be so twisted.
“We are nation where the majority are Christians, and not a Christian nation. It's hard to believe how many of our own population doesn't understand the difference.”
What I am trying to say is we are a majority of Christians, and for a moral consideration, our laws, as long as they do not violate the “Bill of Rights” should reflect that. Our laws should not reflect a decidedly single handed view of some to swing the special interest groups for their vote.
CG,
My, my. Such a small point to get you all roiled up over. I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it that you aren’t disrespecting the institution when you say that.
He may be a Dim Chimp, but last I checked he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Alas, I think he’s ours whether we like it or not.
What exactly is he so "dim" about anyway.
CG
I am not saying that we have to pull every law from the book of Leviticus, not at all. We do need to look at the morals of society, when a certain few are given the right to kill and others are not. Or even when certain groups are given more protection under the law than others. The Bible gives a good basis for morality, and I think we are getting way off course. Again, not speaking of forcing Christianity on everyone, but look at the morals of society, the divorce rate, and the family as a whole, it is all heading down hill.
And on the whole
"btw... Curm suggested a very practical idea off-line... No new religious items on public property going forward, leave the pre-existing ones alone. Democracy is compromise, and I would sign up for that one to put a stupid subject to bed. Now if we can just get Dim 43 off of this "putting a stake in the heart of New Deal Safety-nets" US tour... and get him back on protecting the harbors and borders... "
This is a great idea, I am also OK with just removing them. I think that we have to come together and decide what we want as a majority for the country. If we are going to be completly secular, let's do it and get off the fence. Gay marrage and the whole lot. And yeah let's get rid of the other two commandments, it is biblical after all.
Tony,
Your piece on "real men of genius", very well writen. All y'all on this blog are very well spoken, sorry I have to ruin that with my uneducated babble. Well not really uneducated, but certainly not as well read as everyone else, I am trying to catch up though. I like the piece though, and although I would love to see more morality legislated, that is up to the majority, and elected officials that we place in such positions so that our words and thought are heard and acted apon. My problem with most of this secular vs. religious battle is that any society can have a few lunk-heads that ruin it all for everyone. I don't look to this country to go to Leviticus and get it's foundation for law, or to re-write the bill of rights to incorporate the bible or biblical views. We do however have a good foundation, that was laid out for us, and I would only pray that society in general would see that life would be sweater and the grass greener for all if there were a little more accountability for those that want to push their agenda on society as a whole. These special interest groups, should have a say, but for a party (no names here) to pick up every little special interest and push them down our throats to get votes, well that don't sit well with me. That is why I support what "the chimp" is doing. At least he have a view and opinion and is not wishy-washy about what ever his voting base is screaming about.
Randy,
Thanks for the kind words. I think if you will hang around that you will find that we can definitely disagree agreeably.
One point I would like to make, and pardon me for oft repeating myself, is that the majority does not rule in all matters here in the United States. I know, this is a shock for most people, but if you think about it, it is true. Constitutional Scholars call it the “counter-majoritarian principal”. The idea, which is infused throughout our founding documents, is that in the realm of human rights, the majority does not get to call the shots. You should be thankful for this because we all benefit from it.
Part of the genius of our Founders was their recognition that majority rule stinks. That is why the Constitution holds many checks on majority rule.
Your kidding right, "counter-majoritarian priciple" yeah right. I agree that the founding fathers had great ideas, hopes and aspirations for this country. Problem is we squander them at every turn to appease special interests so that votes can be counted. And as laws change and equal protection under those laws becomes skewed, you want me to buy into an ideal that it is all for the best. Not me. Things are going way over board in this country. Everything is getting jumbled up by the unthinking left. Why five people can take away every right that a person can have is beyond me. And I am not talking about majority rule to reduce rights, in a country as diverse as this one there can not be a perfect system that gives every right that every special interest group wants. There has to be a balance, an equality that just is not there now. The leftist special interests have perverted the system beyond fair and reasonable. Where in anything did the founding fathers state that there would not be equal protection under the law.
CG
What is wrong with overturning Roe v. Wade. It is amazing to me that you can not see the life in the child aborted. Where is the responsibility for people to realize that "this may get me pregnant" A woman has the right to chose to abstain, not kill. It is murder, plain and simple. And like it or not he is your President, and a fine one at that. He will do what is right, without cowing in to the special leftist socialist groups. Socialism does not work, human nature will not allow it, as well as being nice, all the Dem's what to do is take take take. Frankly I am a little tired of giving right about now. When some rights start getting returned, then I will be happy to start a nice long compromise with leftists.
Yoshi,
The Screwtape Letters is excellent as well, but for very different reasons. But pretty much anything by Lewis is commendable. It occurs to me that you might also enjoy a book that I have long recommended: Francis A. Schaeffer’s How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. If you aren’t familiar with Schaeffer, you should be. This book was one of his last and it is a fast paced survey (and critique) of Western Civilization from a Christian perspective. What makes Schaeffer so compelling is his unshrinking grappling with modern philosophy-he doesn’t shy away from the “hard topics” but rather embraces them. Other of his books are more substantive, but that one is a great introduction. I reread it a year or so ago and I will say that the end of the chapter looks a bit dated where he is discussing how communism fits into the flow of history.
Randy,
The label “counter-majoritarian principal” should be nothing objectionable to individuals on the left or right necessarily. It is a fancy label for an ordinary set of ideas. If anything, it would be obnoxious to the left that believes in utilitarianism and that maximization of the common good is the moral goal. Ironically, the modern Radical Christian Right is unthoughtfully accepting some of the premises of the left in trying to implement their agenda.
But have no fear. Here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon we aim to bring order to the intellectual chaos which reigns in America. Hang in there: this may take a while.
CG,
You ask, “what other than the maximized common good could be moral?”
Well, lots of things that are moral aren’t necessarily best for the common good and visa versa. For instance, the death penalty is clearly in the best interests of the majority, yet a bunch of people (not including me) find it immoral. Slavery arguably maximized common welfare.
You can take this further quite easily and I won’t bore you or me with that exercise. Utilitarian analysis as a governing analytical tool always breaks down because it leads to really bad things.
This of course is not to say that utilitarian analysis has no place. Indeed, it has an important role in determining what public policies are desirable. The primary arguments of both the left and right are rooted in the notion that each provides the greatest good for the greatest number.
But to ask or answer what else could be moral is to move into a subjective realm of philosophy, religion and the nature of truth. And I think my record on the source of Truth is very clear.
Andrew,
Why is the cost of adoption so high? You may not do 'em, but I thought you might know.
Ciao,
Prof. Ricardo
Post a Comment
<< Home