This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Class [POSC 311].
Religion is playing an important role in global politics today.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
43 Comments:
Reaction to John Haught on “Theology, ecology and the idea of global order”
(From Esposito and Watson's "Religion and Global Order")
The global environment is decaying rapidly and humans are mainly to blame. Whether we will leave our great grandchildren an abundance of natural resources or a tangled mess of irreversible biological destruction depends on our actions today and our plans for a sustainable future. Few scientists or scholars in this postmodern world would deny the role of humans in ecology. Yet, while there is a growing international consensus about human responsibility for the future of the Earth, there is great disagreement about why we should care. In his essay “Theology, ecology and the idea of global order”, John Haught, Professor of Theology at Georgetown University, seeks to answer to various motivations for concern for the environment in a world where “academic disciplines lack a deep sense of our species’ rootedness in the cosmos” (217). Haught argues that only a cosmically conscious reason to value the legacy of life on Earth will motivate humans to work toward ecological responsibility and global order. Haught revives Alfred North Whitehead’s “process theology” as a solution to unify the scientific, academic, and religious persons in pursuit of the common goal of ecological responsibility.
Haught explores the framework of modern science and commonly held tenets of scientists in today’s world. Not surprisingly, he concludes that science attempts to reject “any vision of purpose in the universe,” since such consideration of a greater meaning to life is thought to inhibit scientific progress (217). Undoubtedly, there are many advantages to removing thoughts of the larger universe from more localized fields of study. For example, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould believes that such distance creates for humans “a neutral canvas on which to impose our own meanings” (221). Haught, however, finds fault with the postmodern choice to ignore a possible purpose of life; he refers to this mentality as “cosmic pessimism.” In the context of ecological implications, Haught asks, “Is a pointless universe […] worth caring for?” (220).
If the answer to that question were “no,” then most scientists and scholars would not waste their time on conservation issues. Yet, this community often includes the most dedicated environmentalists. Logically, Haught finds a few justifications for a global ecological movement from a cosmic pessimist perspective. First is the idea that the improbability of life outside human life on Earth gives our lives more significance and motivates us to ensure our own survival (223). Another explanation is a general human–centered mindset. Interestingly, however, an anthropocentric reason for the perpetuation of human life is actually also a major explanation for the destruction of the Earth, as human–centered needs justify materialism and destruction (223). From Haught’s point of view, the only valid cosmic pessimist explanations for valuing ecology are the fragility and precariousness of life. Even these ideas, however, are not sufficient enough to give “intrinsic worth to living beings” (224).
Unsatisfied with these explanations for the value of life, Haught next turns to the early twentieth century philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead for a stronger motivation for ecological concern. What Haught concludes is that “the beauty of nature” is what makes it worth protecting (225). He quickly defines this aesthetic perspective as an appreciation of the “inherent tension and balance” of life, its complexity, diversity and novelty (226). This approach to ecology is still incomplete because it is vulnerable to an anthropocentric viewpoint that humans are the creators of the Earth’s beauty. Finally, therefore, Haught arrives at the apex of “process theology,” which identifies God, not humans, as the source of this beauty as well as the source of its evolution. The purpose of humans in process theology is to help God promote the evolving beauty of the Earth. Humans are but one product of a long evolution and have a “role as stewards of creation, not simply in the sense of conserving what has been present in creation from the beginning, but also as shepherds of an ongoing cosmic process that seeks ever new ways of sustaining its urge toward deeper beauty” (229). Humans are not the only earthly contributors to the ongoing beauty of nature; life outside of the human species is also “creative and intrinsically valuable” and able to develop without our aid (231). God is characterized as a present “Persuasive Love that is never content with the status quo” of ecological or political conditions on Earth, transcendent but able to feel the joys and suffering of life on Earth (230). As Haught concludes, “At root, therefore, our ecological neglect deprives not only ourselves but also God of appropriate intense aesthetic enjoyment. What happens to our environment happens to God, our ultimate environment” (231).
Haught’s application of process theology to ecology is an interesting, though not entirely novel, approach to the problem of reconciling science and religion in the postmodern world. It is surprising how firmly he believes that Whitehead’s theology, explained in Haught’s own terms, will satisfy and motivate all types of people toward global ecological responsibility. The biggest obstacle to the acceptance of Haught’s thoughts is that he alienates two groups of people. First, he ignores those who reject the existence of God for reasons other than the fact that God complicates science and reason. Secondly, he challenges major aspects of the characterization of God as set forth by the world’s major religions. To address the first group of people, suppose a person is a cosmic pessimist because he or she experiences tragedy and finds no evidence of a transcendent concern for his or her suffering. Process theology, according to Haught, would hold that the tragedy is merely an “experiment” that helps the world evolve toward beauty (230). This mentality is first and foremost unlikely to convince this person of the existence of such a God, and secondly, would probably promote resistance to ecological responsibility since life is less valuable if its beauty is vulnerable to tragedy and suffering. As for the second group of people (those who ascribe to a religion in the postmodern world), Haught’s representation of God as fluid and “adventurous” is inconsistent with many religions that view God as an unchanging presence (230). As opposed to Haught’s conviction about the plausibility of his ideas in all sectors of the global community, process theology is not all-inclusive, even of those who already believe in a greater purpose of life.
These obstacles aside, there is an additional flaw to Haught’s environmental interpretation of process theology. Assuming universal acceptance of the intrinsic value of life on Earth due to its aesthetic beauty created by God, how can Haught definitely conclude that this cosmic consciousness will motivate a global ecological movement? After all, even people who are deeply religious commit acts of hypocrisy daily, simply due to inherent faults of human nature. Furthermore, many who claim to adhere to a religion actually act far differently than their religious values would prescribe. In light of evidence already observed about those who maintain a structured belief system, Haught’s confidence that belief in a higher purpose, either nominal or actual, will lead to proactive ecology on Earth is unrealistic.
Despite its flaws, Haught’s essay is not in vain because it addresses a fundamental question that should arise, at least subconsciously, in everyday decisions that affect the environment: why should I care? The quest for an answer to this question is a worthy one, but as Haught’s essay illustrates, finding an answer that satisfies and motivates the global community as a whole is an enormous challenge.
Works Cited:
Haught, John. “Theology, ecology and the idea of global order.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 217–232.
Reaction to Sulak Sivaraksa on his, "Buddhist reaction to global development"
Sulak Sivaraksa presents a very interesting outlook on global development, that of the Buddhist faith. He begins his essay by noting the importance of the first of the four noble truths of Buddhist teaching. The Truth of Suffering is essential to Buddhist study and Sivaraksa claims that the plague of global development has created a barrier between it and the people of the world. Sivaraksa explains that, “[g]lobal development springs from a civilization that claims to adore life, but actually starves it of any real meaning…[it] blocks their way to the source of real peace and happiness”(193). Sivaraksa continues to detail the shameful situation of the world, beginning with the familiar topic of global inequity. He then examines how this, “[i]nequality and exploitation lead to tension and conflict”(194). The inconsistencies brought about by global inequity then result in vast ethnic, social, and economic disparities that often lead to violence and repression. Sivaraksa drills his argument even deeper with the topics of weapon proliferation and the artificial control of reproduction that he claims are undermining global society.
After laying out the existing and growing problems facing the world regarding global development, Sivaraksa explains that there are many current actions progressing the support for, “peace, social justice and ecology”(196). He argues that the only feasible way to, “overcome the violence and destructiveness of the dominant world order,” is for these forces to integrate into a shared agenda and similar path toward non-violence and spirituality. Sivaraksa believes that only overcoming the challenge of “spiritual development of wisdom and compassion,” will the greed of capitalist society be redeemed. This exists as the true test of humanity in the wake of consumerism, marketing, and the, “worship of money, worldly science and technological advance, [that has come] at the expense of human development and spiritual dimension”(196).
I am primarily struck by Sivaraksa’s arguments as the response of a Buddhist, rather than the Buddhist response. I believe his outlook on the problems is grandly routine and similar to any common dissenter of global development. It is in his propositions for change that the Buddhist response is finally elucidated. Through the missions of two projects, Sivaraksa promotes action operated from a Buddhist standpoint. He states that, “[Buddhists] synchronize our heads and hearts, develop inner peace, plant seeds of peace, and use critical self-awareness to tackle social problems non-violently. Although I fully respect and appreciate the passive beliefs and movements of Buddhism, I doubt their effectiveness on the global scale. Sivaraksa’s presentation of the two projects is ideologically smart but realistically naïve.
The first he presents is the Alternatives to Consumerism project of the Santi Pracha Dhamma Institute. The venture is tolerantly optimistic, as it is a collaboration of Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians. Its mission is to, “pinpoint consumerism as a new demonic religion in global development”(198). The project’s plan is to utilize the three spiritual traditions in order to provide alternatives to the overwhelming consumer culture that has become a global norm and is consequently pushing aside traditional religions with the unveiling of the new consumerist value system. This, “inter-religious, non-violent approach is advocated” by the program and will be achieved through various modes such as story telling, books, videos, and photography in order to, “pass on the wisdom”(199).
I find several troubling factors in this project. The first is that the project is utilizing the very marketing techniques and applications that it dissents. The modes by which the Alternatives to Consumerism project plans to utilize are the very ones that they claimed to have been littered by consumerist culture. In addition, I believe it is unacceptable for religion to judge the entirety of global culture. If society has chosen to ride the tide of consumerism, they have done so knowingly and contently. I doubt many would happily give up their cars, homes, and gadgets in order to live, “a sustainable alternative to the Western consumer model”(199). Who is religion to judge the values of society? Shouldn’t society choose the place of religion since it is in fact a socially constructed institution? I believe religion should cater to the changing times. As people change, religion needs to adapt and accept the fact that the world is no longer in the same social condition as it was upon its founding.
It appears as though the three religions have been backed in to a corner, and out of fear of inadequacy and neglect, have begun to mercilessly exploit the public. This fear and religious revivalism is in response to the new consumerist value system that has begun to overshadow that of the traditional morality of religion. I believe that this newfound commercial significance is a result of the changes of society as a whole, and can not simply be changed with the mindset and preaching of a few. Although I praise the efforts and dedication of those in the project, I simply do not see their sights set on, “counteract[ing] the present threat of consumer monoculture,”(199) as having any hope of being remotely successful.
The second project Sivaraksa presents is the Spirit in Education Movement (SEM). The project’s argument is that the focus of mainstream Western education is too closely focused on business and the like. Proponents of the project believe that a balance in education needs to be instilled.
I completely agree with this assessment of Western education. I however, do not agree with the proposed solution that the SEM presents. The group, “aspire[s] to offer a spiritually based, ecologically sound, holistic alternative to mainstream education with its narrow, unconnected fields”(200). They aim to attack individual selfishness and spark compassion and move from, “lack of meaning in life to fulfillment and negativity to positiveness”(200). Although this goal seems positive and worthwhile, it would be disastrous for it to completely substitute traditional education. The project sounds more feasible and worthwhile as a summer camp or extracurricular religious enrichment course. I do not doubt that an individual would benefit from partaking in the SEM, however a student doing so without classic education would be terribly deprived of the necessary education to succeed in the world today. Although the success I propose is obviously socially constructed of the time and exactly what the movement is acting against, it is of the present none-the-less.
What I find ironic of Sivaraksa’s presentation of the SEM is its incredible resemblance and similarity to a commercial advertisement. While reading his words of promotion I could envision the commercial and persuasive voice ringing. I, of course, am a product of the consumerist culture that Sivaraksa speaks of. However, I see his mission as utterly unattainable. He states that the project is, “a long-term process for Buddhist approach to global development”(200). While I see his intentions praiseworthy and honorable, I do not see them as successful. His audience is incredibly limited and directed at the small-scale level.
When it comes down to it, I feel as though there is no turning back on the consumerist global development culture that continues to flourish today. Sivaraksa’s proposals of ultimate religious authority are not practicable in today’s world. I believe that humans have the ability to be multidimensional. Simply because someone values commercial things does not insinuate that they have no traditional moral values in their lives. People can be consumers and spiritual simultaneously. This is where Sivaraksa’s argument becomes self-defeating. His projects are aimed at completely reversing the consumer culture of today, when in reality their effect seems limited. I believe that the SEM and Alternatives to Consumerism projects would be much more successful by aiming to create awareness and assist in the multidimensional aspect of society’s morality. By promoting the two projects as awareness initiatives rather than in search of radical change would greatly benefit their cause. Society would be much more willing to accept and ponder ideas that would add to and enrich the lives they already live, as opposed to a complete lifestyle and moral transformation.
Works Cited:
Sivaraksa, Sulak. “Buddhist response to global development.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 193-202.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reaction to Dan Cohn-Sherbok’s “Judaism and global theology”:
In Esposito and Watson’s Religion and the Global Order, author Dan Cohn-Sherbok discusses his views on “Judaism and global theology.” Sherbok believes that Judaism needs to “formulate a comprehensive Jewish theology of other religions” (204) and take a larger part in “religious pluralism.” Sherbok claims that Jews are stuck in their belief that “Judaism contains the fullest divine disclosure” (205), and thus that their religious beliefs are superior to those of all other religions.
I tend to disagree with this assumption. Historically, Judaism has been known to be very accepting of other religions. This does not necessarily mean that Judaism views other religions’ beliefs on par with their own beliefs, but what religion does? All religions are based on a specific set of beliefs and hold the view that their own belief system provides the best and most comprehensive interpretation of the divine. But, at the same time, countless religions accept a pluralistic view that other religions teach many truths about the nature of God and man, and that it is possible to ascertain a significant amount of common ground across all belief systems. So, I do not understand why Sherbok seems to believe that Judaism is any more/less religiously pluralistic than any other religion.
Regardless, Sherbok goes on to suggest that in order for Judaism to increase its participation in religious pluralism, Jews should “engage in fruitful and enriching dialogue with members of other traditions” (207). He then proposes a number of ways that they should go about doing this. First, he says Jews should learn about other faiths by “becoming an active participant in [other faiths’] ways of life” (212) and “participating with members of other religions in…the sphere of prayer” (212). To me, this suggestion seems to be going a little overboard. I can understand increasing their interfaith dialogue between different religions, in order to inform and better understand different religious viewpoints, but actually “attending the worship services of other faiths or participating in joint prayer” (212) may be asking a little too much. To me, it seems that Sherbok is trying to blur the lines of religion, possibly even promoting religious relativism, or the belief that all religions are equally “true” (even though it is widely recognized that different religions make certain claims that logically contradict each other. For example, most Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and part of the Trinity, while both Muslims and Jews hold that it is impossible for any human to be God incarnate, and that no Trinity exists.) In my views, it is completely acceptable to want to learn about other religions and participate in some form of interfaith dialogue. But, Sherbok seems to take it a step too far, in suggesting that members of one religion should regularly participate in members of another religion’s spheres of prayer. Although it may seem like a means of uniting various religions, it also implies that one person is forfeiting their own religion’s sphere of prayer in order to participate in another religion’s. This starts to run a fine line with religious conversion.
I definitely agree that members of various religions should become more educated about and more conscientious of other religious belief systems, as far as participating in interfaith dialogue. Educating people about different religions helps to prevent religious intolerance and even allows people to unite under the realization that they share with others a number of common beliefs. But, at the same time, every religion should be allowed to hold their own set of beliefs (as long as they do not slander any other religion’s beliefs) and they should not have to worry about any other religion encroaching upon their beliefs.
Works Cited:
Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. “Judaism and Global Theology.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 217–232.
Reaction to Dan Cohn-Sherbock’s Judaism and global theology
In Dan Cohn-Sherbock’s Judaism and global theology there are many assumptions that are made in order to promote a more open and religiously pluralistic world. The first task undertaken is to show that Judaism does not find other religions to be false. This is because, “(I)t would be a mistake for Jews to conclude that God has not revealed himself to others or that other religions do not contain any truth.” (203) Cohn-Sherbock therefore promotes a paradigm shift from a Judeo-centric to a theo-centric model of religion. This concept involves the belief that, “(T)he world’s religions should be perceived as different human responses to one divine Reality.” (205) This assertion alone is quite controversial. As has been demonstrated in inter-faith discussion groups, it is often hard for all of the participants to believe that they in fact all worship the same “divine Reality”.
Cohn-Sherbock tries to address this with a weak argument about human quests for religion and the divine Reality. He asserts that the divine Reality is actually unknowable and infinite, like a “cloud of unknowing.” (206) As such, various human religions are simply different attempts to approach this cloud of unknowing located at the top of the summit that all religions are seeking. It is therefore not surprising that these religions often have some common religious conceptions, but also may differ from each other without any being ultimately wrong.
This is problematic because many people do not think of religion so abstractly. They often do believe that their religion is somehow superior to other religions; otherwise what is stopping them from converting to another religion, as it is unlikely that the first religion anyone learns is always the one that they will ultimately agree with the most. If people did view all religions as equal, I would not see a reason for religious conversion rates to not being much higher. It may even lead people to choosing a religion that is most convenient to them according to the traditions, values, beliefs, and practices of that religion. This would certainly dilute the purity and sacredness of religion if people viewed it through such an earthly, mortal lens.
Further, this would potentially be exacerbated by Cohn-Sherbock’s opinion that Jews should learn more about other religions and actually participate in them. He claims that a devout Jew would be bettered in his/her own religion by being fully exposed to other religions, their practices, beliefs, values, and traditions because he/she would be able to appreciate other religions while growing more deeply connected to Judaism. This view seems to be quite utopian, as most religious people would probably feel uncomfortable in these situations and avoid them if possible. If forced into such a situation it becomes awkward and the subject may also hold some animosity which may negatively affect their experience and associations with that event. For these reasons, people are unlikely to sample other religions, and if they do so openly there is no way of knowing that people will not convert to a religion that is somehow more appealing to them.
Another issue that is wholly not addressed is people of no faith. Cohn-Sherbock’s perspective does not allow for the admission that many people on earth do not believe in divine Reality. Therefore, with this omission, Cohn-Sherbock may be implying that although one religion should not see itself as superior to other religions or see other religions as false, religious people may be superior to non-religious people in that they are somehow connected with this divine Reality. It is possible that his solution to reducing tensions between religions may simply be displacing this tension to a tension between all religions and those who do not follow or believe in a religion. Although this is only an interpretation of what it largely not there, the fact that Cohn-Sherbock does not address this issue at all points to a flaw in the plan.
Works Cited:
Cohn-Sherbock, Dan. “Judaism and global theology.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 203-215.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Failure of Process Theology to Explain Global Order
With current scientific evidence in support of Darwin’s theory of evolution opposing the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theory of creationism, how do disillusioned people find value and direction in their lives when they are questioning the existence of God? In his essay “Theology, ecology and the idea of global order,” John Haught presents process theology as a solution to this modern question. Process theology is a form of thought based upon the concepts of Alfred North Whitehead in regards to process philosophy; it is not only supportive of the religious belief that humans live in a valuable, purposeful universe, but is also supportive of contemporary science. Although global order is referenced in the title of John Haught’s essay, he implies that process theology promotes conflicting views on political and social global order.
It is first important to define global order in a way that is consistent with the book from which Haught’s essay came, Religion and global order. In the introduction of Religion and global order by John Esposito and Michael Watson, the authors define order as “a concrete state of affairs which is dominant…in space (the globe) and time (contemporary) in respect of human activity and the surrounding beliefs, values and ideas…”(“Introduction” 3). Global order, which is growing in importance due to the effects of globalization, applies this definition to all social and political spheres around the world as well as to nature as a whole.
Next, it is important to identify the two concepts within process theology that present conflicting theories about political and social global order. Followers of process theology believe that God assimilates all processes into divine life; under this theology, God is an active participant within nature, influencing rather than controlling natural processes, which in turn gives more control to humans and other components of nature. In this way, God promotes self-creativity and experimentation. Process theology holds the optimistic view that the processes of nature, which are results of this experimentation, have a net positive directionality, heightening the beauty and value of the universe through “ordered novelty”(Haught 230). In other words, the world is constantly evolving into a more sophisticated, rational, and ordered place. Haught provides the fundamental example that although the universe is more complex today than before the Big Bang, the organization of material into cells and organisms, modern technology, and other advancements make the modern universe more sophisticated than the universe before the Big Bang. In the eyes of those who follow process theology, this example represents the net directionality towards increased beauty and value within the universe. Applying these theories to social and political global order, global order should increase over time through the evolution of social and political ideas and practices. In accordance with Esposito and Watson’s definition of global order, process theology claims that common social and political ideals will eventually gain global domination.
Process theology also acknowledges that the universe is constantly becoming more complex, partly through natural processes and partly through the influence of God. Followers of process theology generally view this increasing diversity within the universe as beautiful, supporting Haught’s belief that “beauty…is the ordering of novelty, or the unifying of complexity”(Haught 225). Based on the theory that diversity brings beauty to the universe, Haught states, “a global order that remains non-inclusive or which refuses to accommodate variety and diversity is, in the perspective of process thought, not a good to be desired, but an evil to be overcome”(228). In this respect, process theology should support social and political diversity and oppose the “evil” domination of one set of social and political values. Followers of process theology cannot argue that social and political global order will evolve in such a way that everyone will eventually agree on a single set of social and political values; it is human nature to seek a unique and dynamic identity, which includes political and social views.
Thus, the theories encompassed by process theology that all processes of the universe are evolving into more rational and sophisticated processes and that diversity within the universe heightens the beauty and value of life conflict in the context of political and social global order. The fall of communism has led to the dominance of Western values, which according to Esposito and Watson’s definition of global order, has increased global order in recent times. Followers of process theology may say that the fall of communism is part of the evolution of political and social global order, however, some followers may also claim that the dominance of Western values throughout the world stifles political and social diversity. It is impossible for political and social global order to completely evolve into a rational, organized system because any type of dominance by a single set of values will be resisted by those who disagree with these values. This explains why there have recently been so many efforts throughout the world to resist Western values.
Works Cited:
Haught, John. “Theology, ecology and the idea of global order.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 216–232.
Esposito, John L. and Michael Watson. “Introduction.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 1–14.
Reaction to Dan Cohn-Sherbok on “Judaism and global theology”
Dan Cohn-Sherbok’s analytical take on the relationship of the Jewish faith to that of other religions in Religion and Global Order is particularly fascinating. Sherbok seems to criticize the Jewish faith for their endorsement of monotheism and the belief that there is more truth in Judaism than in any other religion. It is these feelings of faith superiority and declarations of the falsity of other religions, according to Sherbok, that are the source of ethnocentrism and consequently, conflict. Sherbok dismisses the idea of one religion being of more merit than the other, and pushes for the concept of “religious pluralism”. From a Jewish perspective, “there is a pressing need to formulate a comprehensive Jewish theology of other religions” (204) and realize that “…other traditions embody religious truth” (204). Sherbok postulates that a “Copernican revolution is currently required in our understanding of the universe of faiths” (205). A paradigm shift is necessary in the belief that a specific religion should be placed at the center of one’s beliefs.
Sherbok continues to lay down a foundation on which this paradigm shift can manifest itself and on “…which all religions are conceived as interdependently significant” (208). Under the name of “religious pluralism”, exclusivity and specificity are erased as “…world’s religions should be perceived as different human responses to the one divine Reality” (205). Sherbok concludes that any differences in religion were not due to worshipping a different God, but more as disparity between historical, cultural, and psychological influences. He uses the analogy of multiple paths leading to a single point on the same mountain, with each path representing a religion. Once one grasps this concept, there is a “…wider forum for inter-faith encounter”. This conscious recognition of the integrity of other traditions will allow the Jewish faith to attend services of other faiths, and gather under a unifying symbol. Sherbok ends by stating that “Judaism stands on the verge of a new awakening” (214) and once “Jewry can acknowledge the inevitable subjectivity of all religious beliefs” (214), the concept of “religious pluralism” can take precedent.
I disagree whole-heartedly with everything that Sherbok concludes and deem it incredibly unrealistic. It is a shame that Sherbok presents his plan under the guise of “religious pluralism”. While Sherbok does present a hypothetical world in which all religions live in a world harmoniously, his arguments can quite possibly considered to be endorsing “relativism” as well. “Religious relativism” claims that humans understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of, for example, their historical or cultural context. In Sherbok’s essay he states that (in reference to religions) “…such differences were in essence the result of historical, cultural or psychological influences” (205), an argument that is almost completely the same as the definition of cultural relativism. Religious pluralism is fundamentally different from religious relativism as pluralism does not necessarily deem that each religion is equally and unequivocally true. In fact, it is impossible to do so simply because different religions make certain claims that logically contradict each other. For an obvious example of this, consider that Christians believe that Jesus came to Earth and died on the cross for the sins of mankind, while the Jewish and Muslim faiths contend that no human may be God incarnate.
If one were to take a look at the most basic and literal definition of “religious pluralism”, it is necessary to keep in mind that it entails multiple religions. The groundwork laid out by Sherbok necessitates the rejection of many fundamental beliefs of each religion towards the belief in “…one divine Reality” (205). The rejection of what is considered traditional beliefs in favor of a “divine Reality” is the movement towards a single, unanimous “World Religion” and what some call a “New World Order”. Sherbok uses a quote by American theologian Paul Knitter to make the argument that one is not making any kind of universal claim:
One can be totally and faithfully committed to one’s spouse, even though one well knows that there are other persons in this world equally as good, intelligent, beautiful – yes even when one makes the acquaintance of and enjoys the friendship of such persons. (208)
What both Knitter and Sherbok fail to realize is that the relationship with a spouse and a relationship with a deity are fundamentally different. Often to be considered a pious and devout follower of a specific religion, it involves the belief in that one deity, and that deity only. It involves having faith that what one’s beliefs are true and no human being can convince you otherwise.
With respect to many, if not most issues, there exist significant differences of opinion among individuals who seem to be equally knowledgeable and sincere. Individuals who apparently have access to the same information and are equally interested in the truth affirm incompatible perspectives on, for instance, significant social, political, and economic issues. Such diversity of opinion, though, is nowhere more evident than in the area of religious thought. On almost every religious issue, honest, knowledgeable people hold significantly diverse, often incompatible beliefs. However, having incompatible beliefs does not necessitate the incompatibility of the human race. Having tolerance and respect for another person’s beliefs does not mean accepting them or holding them to be as true as one’s own.
Works Cited:
Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. “Judaism and Global Theology.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 217–232.
Scott Thomas claims in his essay “Religious resurgence, postmodernism and world politics” that “the global resurgence of religion is a response to the widespread crisis in secular materialism in both the Western industrialized countries and in the Third World” (38). He implies that liberalism and materialism have corrupted our morals and have led to a social crisis characterized by “urban poverty, the decay of public infrastructure, the growing brutality of criminal violence, and the widespread feeling that problems can no longer be solved”. Thomas also points to a political crisis of deepened fragmentation of political culture, decreased confidence in government and politicians and the political process itself. Thomas advocates that the “basis for universal moral values” should be “the social ethics of the main world religions” (39). Thus, the resurgence of religion is an attempt by society to repair its tainted morality.
Though this theory is not illogical or surprising, it left me on edge. It leads one to think that every time a few perplexing problems arise in the world society can just ask itself “what would Jesus do” and go to church and find all the answers it needs. I don’t think that is the case. Additionally, it leaves the sentiment that only moral people and only people with values go to church, the mosque, the synagogue etc.
But a lot of bad guys go to church and a lot of bad guys preach at church. Reverend Gerald Robinson would have invoked Christ’s name and enthusiastically gave a sermon to anyone who would have come to his church about how “thou shalt not kill”. This is the same man who recently stabbed a nun with a letter opener and strangled her under a blanket in his office. What about our own highly religious President who eagerly started a war in Iraq with the consequence of thousands dead on both sides, and who encourages use of the death penalty. You can’t forget all the Catholic Bishops who bide their time molesting little boys or Muslim religious leaders who bless suicide bombers before they carry out their mission. Religion and religious people don’t always act morally so the suggestion that religion will cure society’s ills is preposterous.
Maybe most of those cases are a little extreme and most institutions have their blemishes, but the fact is to me that morality does not stem from religion. Rather, religious organizations merely advocate a preexisting morality that is inherent in most people (keyword most- there are the occasional Hitlers and Mansons and other random sociopaths).
Famous French philosopher J. J. Rousseau noted in his essay “Discourse on the Origins of Inequality” that animals are visibly disturbed when they see another of their own species in distress. To me this is evidence of morality in animals. The same holds true for humans. We don’t need someone ordained to tell us right from wrong. We have a conscience. I don’t practice any sort of religion and I feel that I have values and morals just as high as anyone who does, though our morals may be in conflict with one another.
It is easy to see that capitalism in today’s world is highly self-interested and always focused on profit maximization at whatever cost and also that neo-liberalism is intrinsically exploitive. To me, the fact that people in industrialized nations feel guilty enough about those kinds of things to go to church to repent their sins is proof enough that people are moral (though I doubt anyone’s primary reason for participating in religious activities is because of the failure and exploitation of neo-liberalism).
I do agree with Thomas that the morals outlined in the stories of the Bible, the Koran, and the Torah etc, would make an excellent basis for universal values. It is important to take the morals from these stories but not to take these stories too literally because that is the root of religious extremism. However, the basic rules common in most religious texts are already enforced by legislation and most people would adhere to those policies regardless of whether or not they were illegal. The major problem I feel is getting everyone to follow the rules all the time. Obviously getting executed or going to hell isn’t enough.
Furthermore, I feel the entire text of “Religion and Global Order” implicitly states that morality is derived from religion. This, I am in total disagreement with. Man created religion. Men wrote the religious texts. The fact that prophets were supposedly divinely inspired to reveal these texts is debatable at best. Morals were around long before any religious group wrote them down and preached them. I feel morals developed out of societal norms. I take the approach of John Locke’s “social contract” theory that morals are rules you have to follow if you want to be part of a society.
Moreover, I think that religious resurgence will have several unwanted effects. I believe it will galvanize an “us vs. them” sentiment because it creates another division in society. For example, before Iranians were just Iranian, because of religious resurgence it will instill a sense of awareness of other religions that now they are Iranian and Muslim. Another unwanted effect might be the out casting of people who don’t affiliate themselves with any sort of religion. These people could unjustly be labeled as immoral simply for the fact that they didn’t jump on the band wagon of religious resurgence.
Also in Third World countries where political participation is difficult I feel like religious resurgence is providing a way for people to demonstrate there political views at the local level. This is undeniably a good effect of religious resurgence as a consequence of a faulty civic government. In First World countries, I have the feeling that going to your political representative would be much more effective than going to your religious leader. It seems, therefore, that religious resurgence is happening in different places for different reasons, not all of which can be attributed to globalization.
Overall I don’t feel religious resurgence will rectify all of the problems that Thomas stated at the beginning of his essay. If anything the political crisis will worsen as people will shift their allegiance from government officials to religious leaders, which will most likely lead to the creation of a theocracy. I think, however, that the social crisis might be solved because religious institutions bring people together and that allows them to become aware of each others problems and struggles.
Lastly, people who haven’t been taught morals from their parents should go and learn them and its fine by me if a religious organization wants to teach them.
Works Cited
Thomas, Scott. “Religious Resurgence, Postmodernism, and World Politics”. Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 217–232.
References to Jean Jacque Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origins of Inequality” and John Locke’s “Two Treatise on Civil Government”.
Expansion on Paul Badham’s “Religion and the fall of Communism”
In “Religion and the fall of Communism,” Paul Badham describes the role of religion in the downfall of communism and how it acted as a major catalyst resulting in the end of Soviet influence over Eastern Europe. However, he only briefly mentions the part religion plays in creating new national identities and the religious tensions that resulted from the fall of Communism. I decided to explore these topics further.
During the Soviet ere, Soviet republics and Eastern European countries under the Soviet sphere of influence were forced to adopt an ideology based on atheistic communism. (Badham 147) Religion was strongly discouraged. For example, within the Soviet Union, party officials could lose their careers by being openly religious. Although the Russian Orthodox Church was not banned, the state kept strict control over it. The KGB placed agents within the church organization (even some clergy were agents) in order to make sure that its messages and pronouncements were always supportive of the state. (Remington 165). Therefore, although there were many ethno-religious groups and minorities in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, they conformed to a secular national identity (Badham 147).
When the USSR dissolved in 1991, there was no longer a Soviet state imposing a national identity based on atheistic communism. Former Soviet republics suddenly became independent states. Not only did they have to create new political systems and economies, but they also had to come up with completely new national identities. To do this, they drew upon older religious and cultural identities; many now tend to define themselves partially by the dominant religion within the region (Badham 147).
Now that there is no longer a secular state presiding over this religiously diverse area and people identify more and more along ethno-religious lines, there has been an increase in ethno-religious tensions. One example of this is the conflicts that took place in the region of former Yugoslavia between Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks. Although they are all Slavic peoples, the Croats are primarily Catholic, the Serbs are Orthodox, and the Bosniaks are Muslim.
The Conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh is an example of resulting ethno-religious conflict between former republics of the Soviet Union. Armenians are predominantly Christian while Azeris are mostly Shi’a Muslim. Nagorno-Karabakh is an enclave of (Christian) Armenians located within Azerbaijan. Armenia has claimed Nagorno-Karabakh and has annexed a section of Azerbaijani territory that falls between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh (Light 233).
There has also been some ethno-religious conflict within Russia itself after the disappearance of a communist secular national identity. An example is the ongoing Chechen conflict. Chechnia is a Muslim republic in the North Caucuses. With the dissolution of the USSR, the Chechen republic (a subject of the federation of Russia) declared independence. The Russian state launched military campaigns to restore central authority over the republic resulting in the two Chechen wars (1994-1996, 1999-present). Chechen rebels resort to guerilla tactics and terrorism including hostage taking and the bombing of public places while the Russian forces resort to harsh tactics and human rights abuses (Remingtion 73-75). President Putin has tried to legitimize the Russian campaign by exaggerating the involvement of international Islamo-fascists in the Chechen independence movement (Hahn 165).
In conclusion, the fall of the Soviet Union freed Eastern Europe and the former soviet republics from an imposed secular ideology based on communism. This allowed them to create their own national identity. Many began to draw on older religious identities to define their national identities. Without the formerly secular ideology of the Soviet Union, ethno-religious conflicts have resulted.
Works Cited
Badham, Paul. “Religion and the fall of Communism.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000.
Remington, Thomas F. Politics in Russia. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006.
Hahn, Gordon. “Reforming the Federation.” Developments in Russian Politics. Ed. Stephen White, Zvi Gitelman, and Richard Sakwa. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005.
Light, Margot. “Foreign Policy.” Developments in Russian Politics. Ed. Stephen White, Zvi Gitelman, and Richard Sakwa. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Religious Perspectives on Ecology and Environmental Protection
John Haught, in his essay “Theology, Ecology, and the Idea of Global Order,” in Religion and Global Order edited by John Esposito and Michael Watson, argues that environmental degradation needs to be addressed, and that religion is a good method through which to do this. He states that without ecology and care for the natural world, the concept of global order will soon be irrelevant. He suggests that religion can provide a permanent basis for valuing nature. Haught also recognizes that many of the world’s dominant religions have often tolerated environmental destruction. Thus, I researched the positions of some of the world’s largest religions on ecology.
Christianity is often seen to be relatively unconcerned with the environment. The story of Adam and Eve gives people dominion over the animals and plants, and Christian evangelicals rarely seem to focus on the environment. However, Christian teaching requires care of the natural world, and more and more Christians are responding to the call to improve the environment.
Christians believe that God cares for us and for His creation, and that the Earth is an inter-related system in which humans live fittingly. The virtues of humility, respect for all things, and a de-emphasis on materialism also contribute to the Christian ecological view. An affirmation of Christian ethics, and a strong caution for human intervention in nature (such as through biotechnology) are important as well. Christians espouse a sustainable community, and there is an emphasis on ecology related to social justice, such as resource and pollution distribution issues. Stewardship, the care of the environment, is also held by Christians as important. The belief that we should care for God’s creation is strongly rooted in the faith. There is also Biblical support for good ecological practices, such as this passage from Isaiah: “The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt;…” (Ia. 24:4-6).
On February 9, 2006, 86 evangelical Christian leaders signed a statement acknowledging global warming as a threat, and agreeing that human activity was largely responsible. They also admitted to past lax attitudes on the topic. The statement ran as an ad in the New York Times. This was a major step that received a reasonable amount of press coverage and also reminded people of the true Christian perspective on environmental protection.
Islam is another major religion that teaches environmental care, although as in Christianity this is not always widely practiced. Muslims believe that creation belongs to God, and that the component parts of nature (each leaf, flower, or tree) are in continuous praise to God. Therefore, disturbing an aspect of nature interrupts or ends its praise. Additionally, humans share the earth with other creatures and must live in harmony with them. The concept of hima, or protection of certain zones of land, can also be used ecologically. Muslims also believe that care of the earth is good preparation for the afterlife, and that environmental protection is one aspect of serving God through stewardship. The principles of unity, trusteeship, and accountability are also used to justify preservation of the natural world. Also, the Qur’an is often referenced in support of a sound environmental stance, including: “Transgress not in the balance, and weigh with justice, and skimp not in the balance. And earth - He set it down for all beings, therein fruits and palm trees with sheaths, and grain in the blade, and fragrant herbs. Of which your Lord's bounties will you and you deny?” (55: 1-12).
Buddhism differs from the previous two religions in that it has no God but rather places all responsibility on humans. It teaches that we are entirely responsible for our own actions and damn or save ourselves. Buddhists also believe in the universality of suffering among all things, including people, animals, plants, and the earth. Buddhism teaches that there is interdependence among people and the earth. In addition, Buddhists believe that nature is affected by human morality, and ethics play a large role in the Buddhist perspective. Morality, mindful awareness, and wisdom are three core tenets of Buddhism, and these are used to justify an environmentally stable position. Buddhists advocate peace and sustainability in all aspects of life. Again, the writings of the religion are also used to justify an ecological position, here: “…one is kin to all wild and domestic animals, birds, and beings born from the womb.” (Lankavatara Sutra).
Hinduism is another religion with an ecological perspective, and perhaps unlike many of the others mentioned, Hinduism is more commonly associated with an environmental approach. The gods and goddesses of the earth, sea and sky are a central focus in the religion, and the tree is a revered object. Rivers are goddesses, and there is a strong focus on sustainability. Additionally, Dharma emphasizes the need to act for the good of the world, not just oneself. Social ecology and justice issues are also closely tied to environmental beliefs.
Overall, religion is moving toward a larger role in the environmental movement. As John Haught suggests, religion has the potential to provide a value for nature above human value. Many of the world’s religions have similar ideas regarding ecology, and it will be interesting to see how prominent these ideas are in the future.
Works Cited:
Haught, John. “Theology, ecology and the idea of global order.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 217–232.
Forum on Religion and Ecology. 25 Feb. 2006. Harvard University Center for the Environment. 24 Apr. 2006. (http://environment.harvard.edu/religion/main.html)
Goodstein, Laurie. “Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative.” The New York Times. 8 Feb. 2006. 24 Apr. 2006.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html?ex=1297054800&en=c3998565b07f9657&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
A theory connecting the themes of common morality, religious pluralism, identities and global order in Esposito and Watson’s Religion and Global Order:
Assume there exists a common morality among the human race. This idea of a shared set of fundamental values is referred to in the text as a ‘thin morality’ and as a cosmopolitan morality. Its existence is upheld on page 57, “Many western conceptions of human rights are rooted in what Michael Walzer has called a ‘thin morality’ common to all cultures and civilizations.” What would result in the global order if emphasis was put on this uniting truth and policies were made with this concept in mind? The barriers made by superficially conflicting identities which stress an “us vs. them” mentality would be broken down and ultimately a more equal and stable global order would result.
However, secular thought impedes the potential focus given to such a concept as a common morality. As we have discussed in class and as the text explains, morality is based in religion and by eliminating the open discussion of religion in the public sphere our ability to credibly discuss issues regarding morality is hindered. The idea of morality without religion is a product of the European enlightenment, a purely western movement, and it has failed to produce an acceptable value set causing a global resurgence of religion in search of morals. “Enlightenment rationalism may not be a sufficient basis for a cosmopolitan morality in a multi-cultural world. (57)”
The apparent failure of enlightenment rationalism and the resurgence of religion may very well provide the framework for promoting the concept of a common morality to a global audience. A religious lens would allow a broader, more global, promotion as opposed to that of a western-centered secular rationale. Religious pluralism, the idea that truths about the nature of God and man can be found in multiple religions, would become the mode of communicating a concept such as common morality. Basic similarities would be exposed among the world’s various cultures and religions. As an example, the Golden Rule appears in the texts of at least 15 of the world’s prominent religions as a fundamental teaching.
This concept should be promoted primarily through education. Scholarly instruction of the world’s religions would expose their fundamental similarities and superficial differences. Equally as important would be emphasis given to cultural diplomacy and exchanges. The similarities among people from varying backgrounds become glaringly apparent when they meet face to face and engage one another in earnest dialogue.
It is important to recognize that the major world religions are accepting of any individual if they proclaim their belief. There is no exclusion on gender, culture, ethnic or economic factors. With all of these potentially inflammatory issues effectively made equal the only difference among people is religion, and once similarities are exposed excluding identities melt away. With all things equal what cause would there be for international conflict?
I find the article “Religion and U.S. Grand Strategy” a very interesting way to look at American values. It is very true that American values are deeply routed in the ideals of Christianity. This has been explained by many philosophers over time. I also agree that all Americans have this capitalistic/religious work ethic. However, Americans do take this religious drive further and extrapolate it into foreign policy. American children are taught that we are better than the rest of the world and that the world depends on the US to keep order and morality in the world. Also, children are told that the US is the only truly free country in world. I now question that we are even the freest country in the world. In some aspects I feel that this does our country a great injustice and we have recently found ourselves in adversarial situations in which we probably do not need to be and probably should not be. We should not be the ONLY ones “charged” with watching over the world. We have given ourselves this title based on religious values and it is causing the rest of the globe to build up animosity toward us. I hope that we realize that we must join with other countries if we want to successfully help the world. We, alone, cannot “fulfill God’s mission” because we do not have the resources to keep the public support for long term expeditions in places like Vietnam and Iraq. Also, we do not have positive relationship with many of the countries of the globe which is apparently necessary when influencing a population.
I agree with Michael that the article "Religion and U.S. Grand Strategy" was an interesting way to look at American beliefs. Regardless of religion, the simple fact that the U.S. feels the need to reform the world and impose our values on it is a bit scary. While true freedom and human rights are certainly important goals, the often misguided means of achieving these goals do not necessarily justify the final product. This, of course, also assumes that we reach the goal we are working toward, which is often not the case. Furthermore, the issues we choose to fight in order to create our "more perfect world" seem arbitrary or disordered. Generally, it seems that our definition of a better world is one in which we have fewer security issues, great economic power, and are basically in charge. Does this attitude take into account the billions of people who live in far greater poverty than anyone in the U.S.? The people who live in fear because they are the potential victims of the genocide sweeping their country? The people for whom complaining about the nearly $3-a-gallon gas prices is unfathomable, since they don't even have clean water, much less a car or the money to buy gas? It seems to me that the U.S. could use its global strength and resources to join with other countries to work to solve issues that affect billions of people everyday. Acting alone, and believing that we are on the moral high ground, is a sure path to destruction, and is unlikely to do much good for the world. The belief that the resources we have should be shared is certainly valuable, however turning this view into cultural and value impositions on others is no longer helpful. Often, it seems, when religion is involved, the transition to imperialism, at least in a cultural sense, occurs. Thus, the U.S.'s already held "fix the world" view becomes a "fix the world and God is behind us so we can do no wrong" view. While I do not believe that religion is a bad thing, we must be careful of how much it is mixed into our foreign policy.
The Wahhabism article is very interesting because it widens the view of what Wahhabism really is all about and how much more widespread it is than people think. If you look up Wahhabism in a dictionary it talks about the intolerant Muslim sect in Saudi Arabia. However, it fails to outline exactly what makes a person a Wahhabi. In Khan's article he addresses this issue. The four main characteristics of Wahhabism are: being extremely intolerant to any who do not share their (the Wahhabi's) specific religious beliefs, being in opposition to difference and pluralism, being anti-civil rights, and being extremely secular - that is believing that the purpose of politics is to serve their values. These characteristics help to provide a guideline by which one can objectively identify Wahhabism throughout the world.
Khan then is able to identify Wahhabi sects, in addition to Saudi Arabia, in both the U.S. and India. Although the first step to fixing a problem is discovering it, where does this leave us? After identifying Wahhabis what can a person, a society, or a global order do about it? There may be an effort to prevent the Wahhabis from negatively affecting others, but to try to put down the Wahhabis would be hypocritical. It is especially hard to interact with people in a rational way when religion is involved because so many people can hold so many different positions that they claim are divinely justified and right. This leaves little room for negotiation or rationality. Therefore, the struggle between secularism and religion will continue in the political realm for the foreseeable future.
In “Religious transnationalism and global order, with particular consideration of Islam,” James Piscatori writes about many issues relating to globalization and religion. He writes at depth about the dissenting views on globalization and how it affects different parts of the world, but what I found most interesting was his mention of how China uses religion.
China has an interesting history of interaction with religion, and much if it comes from other nations. In the first century, the Chinese government imported Buddhist monks from India to help back up their rule. These monks were later stripped of power and respect by a later dynasty (Piscatori 76). Numerous missionaries were sent to China by western powers, but none were able to convert China. The western powers were later able to defeat power with their military strength, but they were never able to convert to majority of the Chinese people.
This historical backdrop segues to China’s current stance on religion. Piscatori writes “transnational religions linkages are seen as enhancing China’s international position. Indeed, the only religions that the state formally recognizes are precisely those with clear connections abroad.” This goes along with a Chinese tradition of religion. While westerners subscribe to one particular religion to which they are entirely subordinate, the Chinese have traditionally been able to take pieces of philosophy from religions such as Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. The Chinese bureaucracy has added Protestantism, Catholicism and Islam as supported religions. This is due to a transnational force that religion places, and having connections across the world is seen as increasingly important for the Chinese economy.
Piscatori, James. "Religious Transnationalism and Global Order, with Particular Consideration of Islam." Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales P, 2000. 66-99.
I found Dr. Khan’s article “Rise of Political Christianity” extremely accurate and unfortunate. I am very surprised that it was published in the National Catholic Reporter. I remember in the 2004 Presidential elections, many people who voted Democrat did not do so because they liked John Kerry, or even because they supported his ideas. Instead, many people voted Democrat because they could no longer stand having George Bush as their President. This did cause many people to think that John Kerry, a northern Democrat from one of the most liberal states in the Union could beat a highly unpopular incumbent. After the elections people began to wonder if a northern Democrat could ever win the presidency in a new America in which ideologues had so much influence. Because of this change, the country was staunchly divided and political commentators could easily distinguish most of the fifty states by referring to the “red states” and the “blue states.” When we hear the term red state or blue state we get a stereotypical image of what each state is like and what each state stands for. This bipartisan division among parts of America is scary. I sometimes wonder if American democracy can stand such polarized divisions. We have even see changes that limit Democracy that stretch beyond the patriot act and limitations of civil liberties. Even the Senate, which has traditionally prided itself as the “chamber for debate” has become more and more partisan to the point where Senators have begun questioning the direction of Democracy in the US. The majority party threatening to end the traditional filibuster allowed in the Senate as Democrats threaten to shut down Washington. Where does this partisanship get us? Nowhere. When does it end? Hopefully soon, as many political analysts predict that it would be difficult for a right wing ideologue to win the presidency in 2008 as Americans are looking for a change in the political landscape of Washington. However, the people who win party primaries are typically much further to the left or right than moderate America. If a liberal Democrat from a northern state and a right wing Republican were to win their party’s nomination, I still feel the Republican would win.
The article “Wahabbism Goes Global” is one that discuses a topic that I find quite disturbing in America. The fundamentalist principals of the extreme right wing such as the Reverends Graham, Roberson, and Falwell seem to me completely juxtaposed to classic American traditions. These ideologues do preach a policy of hatred, biased, and racism. After every natural disaster, such as hurricane Katrina, one of these so-called “Reverends” preach how God was mad at a particular race or creed and has brought death to millions. These comments are always plastered as top headlines on the New York Times or The Washington Post as if such ignorant comments deserve national and global media coverage. What is even scarier than the widespread media coverage that these bigots receive is the following that these people get, and how politicians tailor to them in spite of their horrible remarks. John McCain, a Senator who smartly defied and opposed these right wing ideologues during the 2004 Presidential primaries, recently delivered the commencement speech at Falwell’s University as he realized he needed right wing support to win in 2008. McCain later made excuses to explain why he agreed to make this speech when being chastised by John Stuart on the Daily Show. President Bush is known to be fond of these right wing supporters who donate heavily to his campaign. One begins to wonder if these “extreme right wing ideologues” are really that extreme. Is this what our nation is turning into? If so, what makes us different than the terrorist who preach jihad? Because we believe God is punishing the people that are killed in unfortunate events instead of doing the killing? In any case, all of these closed minded, religious fanatics believe harm should come to those who do not share their beliefs and this American “Wahabbism” scares me to no end. I wonder if this country I have been taught to view as the most freedom loving, liberal, and equal country in the world comes even close to meeting those ideals.
Like Diane, I found the article on Wahhabism interesting. I was relatively uniformed on the topic, and generally feel that Wahhabism, regardless of what religion holds itself in the exclusivist position, is disconcerting. Such forceful intolerance and hatred is difficult to combat, and when people hold such strong views it can be difficult to have a productive conversation about it. I thought it was interesting that while many people would recognize Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, few would probably identify it as an issue in America or India, but Khan makes it clear in his article that it is certainly present. Perhaps before so strongly judging other people, we should step back and look at our own religious beliefs and tolerance.
Wahhabism is unfortunate because it casts a negative light on the larger religion of which it is a sect. For example, many Americans view Islam unfavorably, when in fact their main perception of the religion comes from the Wahhabist sect. Along these lines, I believe the same is true in America with evangelical Christianity. The very fundamentalist leaders and churches overshadow those who truly live for the tolerant, loving vision of Christ. As Dr. Khan stated in his article, we must fight Wahhabism in all its forms.
Reaction to John L. Esposito and Michael Watson in "Overview: the significance of religion for global order"
Historically, religion has been one of the most motivating, powerful, and dangerous factors of human actions the world has ever known. However, the separation of church and state was a brick wall to this reality, effectively necessitating a halt and re-route of religion in the public realm. In “Overview: the significance of religion for global order,” Esposito and Watson address this reality, attempting to decipher what religion’s new role is in the global sphere.
Esposito and Watson mention that religious leaders “may be suspicious of the motivations of politicians turning to religion to strengthen national identity and/or bolster the state” (22-23). However, in light of recent in-class discussions regarding President Bush’s religious support system, the opposite seems to be true. One finds that candidates for political positions will use their religion as a stepping stone to success. Religious leaders who acknowledge this fact do not seem hesitant to use this to their advantage, providing support (and therefore a large voting bloc) in exchange for a voice in the White House.
Few would argue that this- the use of religion as a political tool- is the true purpose or motivation of religious faith. What, then, should be the role of religion in the post-modern world? Is there room for faith, or has the capitalist market effectively negated the relevance of a Higher power? Esposito and Watson explain that “[m]odernity, basically, has often represented so much confidence in man’s powers, theoretical and applied, that any reference to the transcendent or spiritual was felt to be redundant” (18). Why are those of faith fighting this trend? What has caused this resurgence in religion? And, more importantly, are the new world and religion compatible?
While many in America no longer believe in a Supreme Being or Divine Law, I would submit that faith in the US is still as strong as it has ever been. Our culture has abandoned worship of one God for the worship of another. It should not surprise those of no religious affiliation, then, that there is a public outcry among the religious concerning society’s devotion to (what many view as) a new Golden Calf: “neo-liberal economics and its complement in secular liberal statism” (26). What is required, then, is a better understanding of the critiques of both societal trends. Both capitalist and religious societies have faults, and those who are quick to point out the glaring contradictions in man’s interpretations of Divine Justice should be –though generally are not- as eager to acknowledge the shortcomings if a society based on “[M]aterialism…[as] the reigning paradigm of rationality” (18).
Esposito and Watson emphasize the important role religion continues to play in civil society. Essentially, religion provides for the public what capitalism takes away. They remark, “Free-market capitalism in ignoring the role of social ethics and social relations...has the indubitable effect in weakening these and the social responsibility and social cohesion that goes with them” (28). The cohesion of society is vital to its survival; man is a social being, and without such interactions in place, he, though financially richer, would be considerably poorer.
Religion, then, can still play an important role publicly by putting its teachings into practice. At the heart of many of the world’s religious teachings are compassion for the needy and justice for the wronged. And, in fact, these are two of many elements that have taken a backseat in the cut-throat economy of the 20th and 21st centuries. For religion to continue to be relevant in this world, it must focus on providing these essential attributes, through “institutions, organizations, associations, groups, and movements” (32). By providing what capitalism never can, religion will still play an extremely important role around the world.
Esposito and Watson make a final point in encouraging ecumenism, or “unity in diversity” (34). The beauty of this trend is that it values dialogue between different faiths, and encourages action to correct social injustices without sacrificing the integrity of the various faiths. In this is a powerful method of “reducing barriers, including of misunderstanding and mistrust, and creating the occasion for a constantly and practically renewed degree of unity, in particular in response to the world’s problems and possibilities” (34). By seeking the commonality in varying faiths, instead of emphasizing their differences, this new way of viewing religion may become one of the most powerful motivators for social change in history.
I agree wholeheartedly with Esposito’s and Watson’s analysis of the continued importance of religion in today’s selfishly-driven economy. Without the values that religion strives to promote, capitalism runs the risk of creating a society of the “economic man [who is a] fully alienated man, ready to abandon friends, neighbors, and perhaps his (extended) family for incremental material rewards” (29). That is not a world in which I would want to live.
Works Cited:
Esposito, John L and Michael Watson. “Overview: the significance of religion for global order.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 17-37.
In the overview written by editors Esposito and Watson, they describe the shift towards the dominance of global market capitalism. This shift is followed by a social order marked by “modern” values of materialism and consumerism. Because of this materialistic determinism, it becomes necessary to conserve the traditional community and culture. In the face of this challenge, the editors present a solution called “unity in diversity,” a method which respects the importance of individual religions and in which diverse groups work together to promote understanding, overcome cultural barriers, and develop solutions to complex global issues. Two examples of this method are presented later in the book from different perspectives, one Buddhist and one Jewish.
The chapter “Buddhist response to global development” by Sulak Sivaraksa presents two projects which offer unity in diversity solutions to deal with the rising global culture of consumerism. The first project is called an “Alternative to Consumerism” and describes consumerism as a new, “demonic” religion in itself. Its goal is to come up with a new movement to provide an alternative lifestyle to the values of global market capitalism. The second project is called “Spirit in Education,” which critiques Western-style education. They aim to reform education to stress spirituality, ecology, intellect, and justice.
I see major shortcomings in these two solutions. I do not believe that turning away from the emerging global market capitalism is a realistic or beneficial path. By turning away from it and ceasing to teach subjects like business, people will only fall further behind and be economically exploited. I think a better solution would be to find a way to integrate into the new global order in such a way that doesn’t sacrifice or destroy traditional values and culture.
The perspective presented by Dan Cohn-Sherbok in “Judaism and global theology” is a better and more productive solution. He recommends a shift from a Judeo-centric to a theocentric model, one in which one Reality is true, but which is incomprehensible to humans. Each religion is valid but not completely true; it is merely on a journey towards finding that higher Truth. This encourages and incorporates inter-faith dialogue. It becomes necessary to understand, tolerate, and learn from other religions. I realize that this is not realistic to have people follow, since to do so would mean admitting one’s own religion is not the ultimate truth. However, I think that it is a good idea and an important one to discuss and think about. It works with diversity to form a solid foundation in which inter-faith relations and understanding could take place in an increasingly complex and changing world.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reaction to issues raised in Esposito's "Political Islam and Global Order" and Simon Murden's "Religion and the Political and Social Order in the Middle East."
One of the many obstacles in the way of improved relations between the Western world and the Middle East is the fact that misconceptions and false impressions of Islam are VERY prevelant (especially in the US). These misconceptions are apparent in all levels of society, from the uneducated and politically ignorant, to the supposedly well-informed population.
One such misconception is the tendency for many Westerners to view Islam as a totally unified movement, or as one of the article put it, a "monolithic threat." Holding such a viewpoint can make the growth and spread of Islam seem far more threatening to some. Many people don't realize that in reality, there is much division in Islam of interests, beliefs, and political views (just like in all religions).
Murden's article did an excellent job of identifying the four most prominant classifications of Muslims that developed after the resurgence seen in the 1970's (traditionalists, fundamentalists, pragmatists, modernists), as well as the divisions between them.
Of these four groups, Islamic Fundamentalism is probably the one most Westerners are familiar with (although "familiar" is a poor choice of words, considering that most people in the US have very misguided views of Islamic Fundamentalism.) People are quick to associate fundamentalism only with extremism, radicalism, and terrorism, when in reality such generalizations are unfair. There has been terrorism associated with fundamentalism, as Islamic fundamentalism has been the primary political opposition in many Muslim countries for the past few decades. However, many Westerners continue to view fundamentalism as a "unified world-wide movement," which is not true.
As far as solutions go, better education could help a little. One of the disadvantages of a secular society is that religion is often pushed so far out the public sphere that people never have the chance to learn about other traditions (many don't even have a firm understanding of their own). However, as long as it is the in interest of the government for us to have such distorted views of Islam, I can't see foresee any major pushes for change. And I think you can make a good argument that is in our government's interest, because a nation that views Islam (Fundamentalism in particular) as a unified, monolithic threat is much more likely to support the "war on terror."
On Religion and the US Grand Strategy
As Vlahos points out in this article, America isn’t now and hasn’t ever been completely secular; moreover, President Bush and other Christians in the government have done a lot to make America seem less secular. Yet, I feel that America is much more secular in comparison to Muslim nations though Bush’s administration as blemished that significantly.
I’m also tired of the thought that all Americans are like President Bush. Because of Bush’s religious rhetoric, I feel the whole world thinks America is a country full of born again Christians. At the same time, that thought makes me feel like America misunderstands Muslim nations along the same lines. Perhaps there are Islamic youths out there who feel the same way about their leaders
Additionally, I feel that America is showing its disapproval for Bush’s actions. I think that Americans have seen that Bush has used his office for purposes other than those delegated in the Constitution. Bush barely won the presidency both times and I feel like his exploitation of religion for political ends will ultimately hurt both religion and politics in America.
On the Rise of Political Christianity
I must say that this is the first of Professor Kahn’s article where I’ve seen him make truly strong, bold statements. For instance, the first sentence is pretty clutch, not too mention how funny it is picturing Karl Rove as a Machiavellian genius.
The Republicans took advantage of the transitory factors mentioned by Professor Kahn to create change in the political culture and they did a good job of it, but that is how the game of politics works. But I look down on such tactics and feel that they run against the principles of democracy because Bush catered his campaign, and his time as President thereafter, to one religious group. Now I fear that the 2008 election will once again be determined by issues that have religious implications. Why don’t we focus on issues that have significance to a larger constituency, the American people as a whole.
“It is time for American Muslims, American Jews, American Hindus and Buddhists, American Christians who are moderate, secular and liberal, to come together to form a moderate and pragmatic center, eschewing the aggressive anti-religiosity of the extreme left, respecting the religiosity of the right, to restore balance, and preserve American democracy and its traditionally balanced relationship with its first institution – religion.”
I think this is a bad idea. It is almost as if that statement is saying lets unite all the other smaller religious groups together so we can counteract the big religious group. To me, it is only turning it into a bigger religious conflict, which is exactly what we don’t need. It galvanizes the “us vs. them scenario”. However, I do champion the idea of forming the idea of a moderate, pragmatic center disregarding religious preferences. By uniting all other religions, it alienates the religious types that support Bush, thereby encouraging their current support of the Christian right and dampening the likeliness that the more moderate of Bush’s religious supporters will shift to the moderate, balancing center. It also increases the left’s distaste for religion all together, forcing them farther to the left, detracting once again from the moderate center Professor Kahn is striving for.
Another idea that struck me during this article is the inefficiency of the two party system. There are so many issues at hand and not everyone can be simply categorized by Republican or Democrat, right or left, religious or non-religious and so on. The fact that there is only 1 Independent in both the Congress and the Senate is frightening. Surely there are moderates in both parties who want to voice their true opinions but feel like they can’t because they would be looked upon as disloyal to their party. And once you’re a disloyal party member you don’t get put on the committee you want and your bills get dismissed and you effectively lose all your political power. Instead of creating a moderate center based on uniting religious groups, why don’t we start a moderate political party?
On Religion and the Modern World Stage
First of all, why did Kober choose the starting point of his article as the 16th century? I argue that religion has had a much greater impact on wars being fought long before the 16th century. Moreover, Martin Luther was not the first to challenge church doctrines and fight ideological battles within one religion.
First of all, Pope Gregory VII and the Investiture Contest during the second half of the 11th century could have been a better starting point to start talking about religious reform that had secular impact. The result of which, the Concordat of Worms in 1122, separated spiritual and temporal powers and denied secular kings from making religious appointments (almost as if it was the seed of Roe vs Wade). Though the Investiture Contest didn’t fall the Holy Roman Empire, it did manage to leave its King, Henry III, deposed and excommunicated.
Once again, religion has been influencing wars long, long, long before the 16th century. Has this guy never heard of the Crusades? First Crusade, 1095, preached by Pope Urban II. Though Alexius Comnenus wanted to start a Crusade in order to regain lands lost to the Seljuk Turks, a Muslim group, in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Urban’s priorities were to recover the holy land of Jerusalem. Religious implications are only further ingrained when we think that Crusaders were told that they would go right to heaven as martyrs if they were killed. Oh yea, who did these Crusaders use for practice on their way to fight the Turks: Jews, homosexuals, and heretical groups. Go figure.
Second Crusade, 1144. Third Crusade,1191. Fourth Crusade, 1204. Not to mention the Knights of the Temple and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem were great religious militant orders started after the 1st Crusade.
Not only that but the Spanish Reconquista began long before the 16th century. Ferdinand III had conquered most of Spain from the Muslims by his death in 1252.
I could go on. But I think Kober’s article is garbage. I think the only reason he started with the 16th century was so he could make the vague connection between the invention of the printing press and globalization in his last sentence. He did slightly make the point that religion and war have been connected for a long time and it is still happening today. When will we learn?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stanley Kober may work for the Cato Institute, a respectable think tank, but he certainly does not do much profound thinking in this article. I agree with Ben that Kober seems to arbitrarily choose the 16th century as his period of comparison with the present; but more than that, he has no unifying idea to his article. Beyond a vague association between religion and conflict, Kober neglects to define the nature of that association or to consider the complexities of the role religion plays in his individual examples.
If indeed, as Kober asserts, “there are patterns to human nature,” then perhaps scholars and policymakers should devote their time to more thought–out studies of the role of religion in conflict. Upon close examination, it appears that many of Kober’s examples of well–known conflicts are actually more identifiable as ethnic conflict. Ted Robert Gurr is an ethnic conflict expert who published an empirically based theory of the determinants of ethnic conflict (“People Against States: Ethnopolitical System and the Changing World System: 1994 Presidential Address” International Studies Quarterly Sep., 1994). From statistical evidence of over fifty conflicts, Gurr concludes that the causes of conflict are a combination of ethnonationalism, reassertion of indigenous rights, and contention for power; moreover, these causes alone are not necessarily enough to provoke conflict. While admittedly, Gurr’s theory is based on extensive research, it stands out in the field of political science from the Kobers and all others who enjoy hearing themselves talk (or write, as the case may be).
A problem that needs to be addressed in order for the global community to truly begin to accept muslims is the education of the public about the muslim religion. The government and media lump all islamic sects together and does not seperate them when reporting on the war. Headlines like "muslims suicide squad" and "islamic terror" or "Muslim Fundamentalism" are pasted all of headlines, and news conferences. The problem is that to the common man, the word muslim has become synonymous with the word terrorism. Many Americans don't even know the Sunnis and Shi-ites apart let alone what a Wahabbi is. Ask many americans what sect they believe Osama Bin Laden belongs to, they will have no idea that he and his followers are all from a small deat cult of Wahabbis. The media by not seperating and acknowledging this fact puts fear in Americans towards all muslims because they do nothing to educate them. The government perhaps does this to add support to the war. The less the common man knows about the different sects, the more likely they will allow the government to attack all muslims without question.
Sulak Sivaraska puts forth a critique in the Buddhist Response to Global Development. Buddhism is a nontheistic religion based primarily in Central, Southeast, and East Asia. Since approximately 6 percent of the world’s population consider themselves Buddhists it does not carry the same clout as Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, yet it still offers valuable advice and perspective.
Sivaraska first declares that global development celebrates a way of life that is contrary to Buddhism because it rejects the inevitability of suffering. Buddhism is based on four truths; first, that suffering is inevitable. Secondly, the cause of suffering is desire and attachment. Third, the end of suffering is Nirvana. Lastly, the way to achieve Nirvana is the 8 fold noble path, which dictates the right understanding, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration.
This rejection of the first truth is false, he says, and the societal structures from which global development comes from actually takes the meaning out of life and replaces it with a surrogate happiness in the forms of material goods and consumerism. These consumption based ideas block an individual’s true development and block their ‘way to the source of real peace and happiness’, which is the 8 fold path.
Sivaraska goes on to explain the disparities in income and wealth between the North and the South, the intertwining of global and military economies, and all the suffering and pain which has been inflicted as a result of so called globalization policies. He sees technology and commodification as moving simultaneously, disrupting indigenous ways and in the end destroying the natural integration of planetary life. His argument is very significant, the drive forward in the name of progress has ended countless life forms and we as a species consume disproportionately larger amounts of resources than we create. So in essence we are living above our means, and while this may not be evident in this decade, generation or century, the lack of long term sustainability of our lifestyle will at some time be apparent.
Sivaraska also sees global development tearing people apart. “Human relationships are being replaced by impersonal commercial, technological, and bureaucratic connections”. Humanity is being seen less and less as sacred, and more as a commodity.
He outlines the challenge that humanity faces as ‘not the development of more and more technology, markets, and bureaucracies, but the spiritual development of wisdom and compassion’. Put very simply Sivaraska sees two ways of seeing the world. On one hand there is the developmental, modern approach to life which tries to solve every problem, eliminating suffering and increasing our material comforts. Those types of people believe that they can change life to make it work for them. That way, they are in control of their life. The opposite approach, is that of Buddhists. They think that the root cause of suffering is not in the external world, in diseases, crime, natural disasters, etc. but it actually comes from within, because of attachments to things. Instead of trying to change the world to fit themselves, the Buddhists try to change themselves to fit the world.
This approach may seem pointless, because individual change seems almost pointless in a world of 6 billion people unless others change at the same time. Yet Buddhists believe in the idea of interconnectedness of all life (pratityasamutpada), so one’s actions will have widespread ripple effects.
Sivaraska puts forth a couple of programs to advance these ideas and address the problems we are faced with. The Alternatives to Consumerism project says that consumerism is a demonic religion in global development, with people believing in things rather than ideas. The project consists of collaboration of minds to revitalize sustainable alternatives to the Western consumer model, with inspiration coming from multiple spiritual backgrounds (religions/indigenous beliefs). The idea is to give people options of what lifestyle to participate in, although I don’t see if being very successful. The forward push of consumerism is far too strong and the proponents of Sivaraska’s ideas far too weak to make a considerable change in how our world is structured, at least in our current time.
The Spirit in Education movement is an attempt to offset the narrow, business and technology focused education of the West and to offer an alternative to it, based on the ideas of Buddhism, personal growth, social equity, ecological balance, etc. While sounding cheery and wonderful, it is doomed to fail on the large scale in the same way his Alternatives to Consumerism project will. Countries such as India, where Buddhism originated, haven’t adopted this model; instead they adopted the Western model and can’t get enough of the technological education. Unfortunately, short of some cataclysmic event which forces the reevaluation of our lives, I think that humanity will not embrace Sivaraska’s ideas and will continue on the globalizing path it is on.
It has been shown throughout the last few decades that although the western world state openly that they support a democratic Muslim world, this does not seem to be the case in practice. Esposito touches on these points in two chapters, stating that “demands for democratization trouble both the autocratic rulers of the Muslim world, and many Western governments.
A good example of this that Esposito briefly touches on is the Algerian elections of 1989 and 1991. In 1989, Algeria held its first local elections under the newly drawn up constitution which was modeled after a democratic government. This expected party to come to power was the FLN, which had the support of the military. However, the newly formed Islamic party, the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) won more than 62% of the votes cast. This immediately troubled the FLN, and also many Western countries, mainly France and USA. In the run-up national elections of 1991, the FLN, with the help of the military tried to deter Muslim voting by jailing 2 of the FIS’s most prominent leaders. This however did not deter voters, and the FIS won 188 of out 429 seats, while the FLN only won 15.
The constitution called for another round of elections, and the winning party of both would have national victory. However, once again the FLN with the help of the military deterred this. They banned the second round, and jailed most of the leaders of the FIS on grounds that they were Islamic Fundamentalists. France, worried what impact Islamic Fundamentalists would have on Algerians in France, decided to back the FLN, and the USA went along.
Islamic Fundamentalism has spread fear all over the Western free world. Governments and media help spread this fear, putting the general public against the idea of their own independent states. Esposito touches on the media subject. The media puts fear in citizens towards all muslims by grouping all Muslims together, without consideration of sects and denominations. Osama bin Laden is of the Wahhabi Fundamentalist sect, however, in the news he is often addressed only as a Muslim. The government does the same thing so that uneducated citizens back them in their agenda. If sects were separated clearly to people, the idea of war against a whole country of many different sects would not be such a good idea.
One main reason democratic countries do not want Muslim democracy is because this could possibly break down “client-state” relationships between developed countries, and underdeveloped countries. If an independent democratic nation arises in the middle east, a certain degree of uncertainty arises, mainly uncertainty about oil.
In Chapter 3 of Religion and Global Order, James Piscatori argues that “old hierarchies of International Relations may be challenged as small states through the information revolution gain more non-coercive ‘soft power’.”
Soft Power is possessing the means to achieve policy goals without using military force or otherwise coercing through threats of violence or economic repercussions. Instead, soft power is based upon the attractiveness of one’s culture. It is the theory developed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye to counter the one-dimensional idea that intimidating hard power is the only major factor in international relations.
Piscatori first discusses soft power declaring that it works in the favor of the little guy on the international scene, saying that, “the previously voiceless group or weak state may now challenge established injustices and power and join the universal debate.” However, he goes on to contradict this idea later, suggesting that the entrance of the small states, specifically Islamic states, into the technological world, means that they must be dependant on Western nations to provide software and access to things like satellite networks.
This reliance actually gives the West more soft power over the Islamic world, not only because poll data shows that 70% of the Muslim world is awed by US technology, but also because it will result in the spread of Western culture and values. Piscatori discusses a possible reversal of the current resurgence of Islam if the “forces of infotainment,” as he puts it, take hold.
Joseph Nye probably wouldn’t agree with the suggestion that Western culture would supplant Islam, since according to the poll data he cites, only 38% of Muslims approve of American pop culture, and less than 15% want American ideas spreading. However, since 45% of the Islamic world is under the age of 14, it remains to be seen if Islamic youths might embrace the same culture that young Americans do.
Regardless of how this question is answered, both Piscatori and Nye cite the influence of soft power concerning religion and culture and the possible effects it could have on long-established ways of life.
Works Cited:
Haught, John. “Religious Transnationalism and Global Order.” Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000. 66-99.
Nye, Joseph S, Jr. Soft Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2004.
This is my religion and global order presentation.
I will be taking a different stance than what has been previously taken. One aspect of "Religion and Global Order" that I believe was missing was the downside of religiously driven globalization. For the purpose of this discussion Ill focus on Catholicism since it was discussed in the text and is a particularly powerful religion.
THe intoduction of Catholicism into regions previously dominated by another religion has lead to the destruction of local cultures. One of the important aspects of a culture is its reigion and reilgious history. By destroying a religion and replacing it by Catholicism, a part of local history has been changed and the path of its culture and traditions has been altered.
Another aspect of the downside is the absolute hypocrisy of some of the church's teachings in addition to how it views other religions. The obvious hypocritical aspect is the teaching of morality. How can a group in which recent mass allegations of sexual abuse by priests have been reported, only to be convered up and hidden by the church as much as possible. Also, many of the so-called heathen religions have been around far longer than Christianity has, so how can they claim the Bible, which was written and interpreted by man, is better or more correct then the other religious texts and beliefs.
Another problem, which I see as anit-globalizing, is the creation of new religious borders in place of the previously existing geopolitical borders. The Pope and other Catholic leaders speak to the peope instead of the government which circumvents many national ideals and inserts religious ones. One such religious border is the European Union. One basis of the EU is to create a Christian society with Christian beliefs. Recently Turkey has applied for a spot in the EU, only to be rejected. One of the primary reasons for this rejection is that Turkey is a Muslim nation.
This insulting method of religious globalization may lead to a backlash from other religious that are offended by the teaching of the Catholic church. Instead of seinding missionaries to preach about the need for people to save their souls and convert from their heathen beliefs, simply give people the information and let them make the decision of what is best for them.
I definately agree with Ben and Catherine about how Kober's article uses examples that, however superficially, support his argument. The entire content of his article seemed to be saying that religion causes conflict. Wow, now thats an incredible conclsion to come to. Ever since the first Jehovah's Witness came knocking on my door during dinner, I could tell you that relgion causes conflict.
Aside from the general drivel that he was spewing in his article, I don't even agree with his apparent sticking point that the weary acceptance of religious differences provided a cease-fire or ever will. The conflicts that plague this world have roots deeper than most people seem to accept. Simply accepting that other religions have the right to practice freely will not create world peace. THere will always be something to allow the hate to turn into violence. Peace is an unattainable goal when there has been hatred since the first time two groups interacted.
A problem I have with the article "Rise of Political Christianity" is the implication that the only people that would vote for Bush were the conservative Christian block. The margin by which George W. Bush won by in the 2004 election was larger than any margin in the last few decades. More people than the Christian right had to agree with Bush in order for this win to occur. This brings me to the flip side of Michael's comment about people simply voting for Kerry since he wasnt Bush. As a libertarian, my ideals do not align directly with either party. I do vote republican more often than not since many ideals of true republicans, and by this I mean republicans that still believe in limited government, are similar to mine. During the election, however, I, as well as many of my friends, gave Kerry as many chances as we could, but he was absolutely the wrong person to have in office. It has nothing to do with him being a northern democrat, but simply being a bad choice.
The view in the article that by controlling all three branches of the government the religious right can somehow circumvent the valued belief of the separation of church and state is absurd. Many people on the left seem to think that all republicans are religious zealots that would as soon overturn Roe v. Wade as open the Bible. This is simply untrue. The majority of republicans still occupy the traditional republican view of limited government, though neither republicans or democrats seem to be fulfilling that desire lately. People need to be less worried about whether religion somehow finds its way back into the mainstram of America and more about problems more pressing to the nation.
In the Person of the Year feature article in Time magazine last year, I read that President Bush is fond of carrying a Sharpie marker with him when he reads over his speeches. After the President returns the speeches to their authors for fine tuning, it is not unusual to see the word “FREEDOM” blocked out in bold black letters in the margins. The President is committed to his task, and, undoubtedly, his task is extremely simple: the world needs freedom and the United States will provide it. Granted, the policy behind the rhetoric is much more complicated than that (for example, why do some places “deserve” democracy more than others?), but the talk is easy to grasp. Apparently, though, we need experts to clarify things for us. Michael Vlahos has seen the writing on the wall (or in the margins). But how difficult is it to point out the simplicity of Bush’s grand strategy, when it spelled out for all to see? It is no secret that our President speaks of the world in black and white. Who really benefits from reading quotations (out of their context, I might add) to prove it? Vlahos is stating the obvious, and he might as well use a black Sharpie and a few words to do it.
Speaking of oversimplification, Vlahos’ essay on U.S. Grand Strategy is highly superficial. Besides the fact that the words of the President are rarely translatable to actual, technical policy, Vlahos seems to have an agenda to prove that Bush has a deeper meaning behind his simple rhetoric. I doubt this is the case; Bush is not hiding any Protestant values behind a secular veil. When President Bush speaks, he says what he means. Instead of trying to read ulterior motives into the big bold words, Vlahos should focus on how truly Bush’s rhetoric translates into action; policy and action are more important than the words behind them.
Stanely Kober's article, “Religion and the Modern World Stage” takes a simple-minded approach to explaining the cause behind current religious resurgence. In his article, he notes that the 20th century is marked by the fall of empires, such as the British, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires. He claims that the fall of empires has led to the formation of new, independent states, which seek a unique identity in order to be satisfied with merely being independent states. This identity comes from religion; hence, in Kober’s eyes, the fall of empires in the 20th century has led to current religious resurgence.
This is most likely part of the cause behind religious resurgence, but is certainly not the only cause. There are other factors that have been equally if not more important in fuelling religious resurgence. In Religion and Global Order, John Esposito and Michael Watson emphasize that globalization has been the major driving force behind current religious resurgence. Since globalization has broken down barriers between nations, nations have lost a sense of identity and have used religion to fill this void of identity. In addition, in Esposito’s essay, “Religion and Global Affairs: Political Challenges,” he explains that the growing welfare gap between nations has also led to religious resurgence. This growing gap reveals “the failure of the modern state”; thus, people of poor economic status have “shattered expectations” and find hope and promise in religion. It is obvious that the causes of religious resurgence are much more complex than the single cause that Kober has outlined in his essay.
commenting on James Piscatori's article, Religious Transnationalism and Golabl Order, With Particular Attention Paid to Islam...
I focused on this article mainly because I felt it is interesting that in modern times religion is often dismissed as incapable of being a transnational force. In my opinion, there is no reason to expect that religion cannot serve in this capacity. There are various reasons why pundits feel this is the case, as many point to the declining status of religion worldwide. Piscatori wisely points out that religion is not necessarily declining, however; church goers are increasing in Europe, and Christianity's rise in Latin America is undeniable.
I feel that too many people have a negative connotation of religion which leads them to write it off as supersition and such, which draws away from the fact that it is still widelt subscribed to. As Dr. Khan has alluded to, the future may see the West as patently Islamic and the South as Christian. Clearly this would require religious transnationalism, much in the same way Piscatori argues. I feel religion definately is a transnational force, and its study in globalization is vital.
Works Cited:
Piscatori, James. "Religious Transnationalism and Global Order, with Particular Consideration of Islam." Religion and Global Order. Ed. John L. Esposito and Michael Watson. Cardiff: University of Wales P, 2000. 66-99.
I have to acknowledge that the picture of George Bush accompanying the “Rise of Political Christianity” perfectly illustrates the situation. Jesus is floating above the President…arms outstretched, reaching over him and urging him on….perfect! I really think this is exactly what Bush has going on in his imagination.
Anways, I agreed with most of the points in the article. Something that crossed my mind while reading it is that I believe there are many people in this country who want religion to play a major role in politics who are reluctant to admit it…even to themselves. People are hiding their desire for religion-based government under the guise of pursuing “moral issues.” Although one can argue that morals and religion are tightly intertwined (as our class discussions demonstrated), there is still a difference between having more universal morals play a role in politics, and having the morals of one particular religion affecting policy. I think members of the conservative, religious far-right sometimes realize that what they are pursuing (essentially a Christianity-based government) is actually contradictory to some of America’s foundational values, so they try convince themselves and the public that they are pursing “moral issues,” not religious issues. If George Bush were to openly and blatantly admit that he was trying to integrate Christian beliefs into politics, I feel some of his conservative supporters might actually be turned-off. While it may be want they truly desire deep-down, they wouldn’t want to admit to themselves that they are supporting the violation of the Constitution and its separation of church and state.
On Wahhabism Goes Global
I think Wahhabism is a very scary ideology. Wahhabist views are detrimental to everything that most people stand for to the point that it just seems flat out backwards. It’s a shame to think a country like Saudi Arabia would try to actively spread Wahhabism through financial aid. I’m very surprised because if Wahhabism values were that strongly embedded then why isn’t Saudi Arabia aggressively trying to promote those beliefs through military force. If Saudi Arabia is so intolerant of other faiths then why don’t they totally suppress them; at least they allow people of other faiths to practice their religion, albeit privately.
I feel that America should take the exact course of action and totally suppress American Wahhabis. I can’t believe that anyone could blame something like 9/11 on abortionists and homosexuals. It’s terrible that people sink to the same lows as the people they are trying to counteract. I hate to see tax dollars supporting people that like. Way to go Bush. For some reason still I am skeptical of how strong the Wahhabi movement in America is. I have yet to experience anything that gives me the sense that it is strong, but then again, I live in a blue state.
It’s terrible that India is experiencing the same problems. To me it is another example of religion gone bad.
I found Dr. Khan’s article "Wahhabism Goes Global" very interesting. While many Americans are quick to scorn Saudi Arabian Wahhabis’ intolerance of other religions, anti-civil rights, and anti-secularism, many Christian-Rightist Americans are guilty of these same practices. Politically influential Reverends, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have frequently made claims such as: “Islam and its teachings itself are the sources of violence.” But, it is in fact these types of anti-Islamic falsehoods that incite much Anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. As a result, conflicting views and misconceptions are spread from both sides, creating a vicious cycle of ignorance and hatred. Thus, it is most important and essential, in this modern, constantly diversifying/globalizing world, for people of all nations to become better educated about various cultures and religions, so as not to continue this deleterious flow of ignorance and hatred.
Post a Comment
<< Home