Hi Billy,
On May 29, 2009, at 10:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Ernie :
This is true enough as far as it goes, but the fundamental premise,
that
each religion is morally equivalent, is false on the face of it.
How many killings have been committed in the name of Islam in 30
years ?
On the order of 100,000 ( even after subtracting "military-inspired"
actions in Iraq )
The ratio is approximately 100 : 1
For a historian, you seem oddly focused on the short term. If you
expanded your window to the last thousand years, I suspect you'd get a
very different answer. And if you include Socialism (something you
have a personal stake in :-), I think the tension between pacifists
and violent revolutionaries would be even more dramatic.
This is not accidental even if, yes, not all Muslims are violent or
approve violence
Granted, ideology cannot explain all of the discrepancy, but it
would seem to be a
reasonable conclusion that it explains at least half of the
difference, and way
well explain much more than that.
Simply put, the Qur'an cannot be disregarded,
Of course not, but neither should it be overweighted. I would weight
the causes of Muslim violence as:
a) 25% what the Qur'an actually says
b) 25% how it is taught in the Madrassas
c) 25% poverty and injustice in Arab countries
d) 25% historical grievances with Israel and the West
The exact numbers are not important, but the fact is that I think all
four are roughly equal, and need to be treated holistically. If your
point is that we as the West don't take (a) seriously enough, then I
would agree. But if your point is that we should base our entire
strategy on (a), then I think you're oversimplifying the problem.
Nor can the OT, by the way, a new conclusion of mine, thinking about
the genocidal wars supposedly commanded by God in Joshua. To be sure,
while there are some other episodes of similar violence scatted around
in other OT books, Joshua seems to be the worst of it. But it still
is there
and how can anyone say that it has no effect on the less than ideal
conduct of some % of Israelis toward Arabs ?
Obviously it has some effect, and possibly more than anyone wants to
admit.
Exactly. And as an American, the analogy with our own genocidal
history towards Native Americans is cause for pause.
What could anyone expect without the basically anti-violence
influence of the NT ?
Core religious books do matter. This point will inevitably get lost
if one is
not well informed about the contents of these core documents or if,
in the case
of Etzioni, one wants to see equivalence for reasons of political
expediency
and moral embarrassment and is therefore open to self deception.
I think Etzioni's point is NOT "moral equivalence", but rather that we
all have "analogous" problems.
His real bias is that he believes in 'Security First' -- he is a
pragmatist about ideology, he simply wants to live in a safer world.
As such, he places -secondary- importance on human rights and civil
rights issues (not that he doesn't care, he just feels they are less
urgent). His real focus is on violent Islamic extremism, and I think
he is accurate in saying that it is a minority opinion.
It is worth noting that the most recent waves of Muslim violence
(Iraq, Pakistan, etc.) are *against Muslims* -- something I'm pretty
sure is forbidden in the Quran. That has the potential to
delegitimize Islamic terrorism within the wider culture, as arguably
has finally happened with the IRA in Ireland.
You may not think that a worthy or achievable first-order goal, but
Etzioni (and I) do.
-- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
