Comments below in BF --------------------------------- Hi Billy,
On May 29, 2009, at 10:58 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[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. 1000 years ? Deaths of Hindus at the hands of Muslims, a minimum historic estimate, about 70 or 80 million, and possibly over 100 million. There is an entire scholarly literature on the Hindu holocaust. Most recent installment, the 1971 war in which a best guess is that around 2 million Hindus were killed. What comes remotely close to such a record ? Nothing I can think of. -------------------------------------------- As for "Socialism," I don't buy any use of the term on orthodox Marxist lines Communism, while it is sometimes referred to as "Socialism," is anything but Social Democracy / Democratic Socialism, or for that matter, the British Labour Party or equivalents in Australia or Japan. 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. Your point is well taken, but a strong case can be made for making (a) equal to the other factors combined, or at a minimum twice as much a factor as any of the others. To quantify, 40 % / 20 - 20 - 20 . But then, this outlook is congruent with my ( very heterodox ) Biblical fundamentalism and my Constitutional originalism / strict constructionism. 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. Probably no accident that , in this context, OT names were so popular in the 19th century in America. 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. Seems to me to be both. 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. Well, yeah, but it is one helluva minority of maybe 10 % or 15 %, most of whom are armed and very willing to commit mass murder. Hence my gripe about minimizing the importance of this population, since , like the Taliban now operating in N Pakistan, it would not exist except for a minimum level of tolerance by the majority, or by a large segment of the majority. 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. This seems to be turning the tide against some / many. of the militants. It did in Algeria, now Iraq, and apparently Indonesia. You may not think that a worthy or achievable first-order goal, but Etzioni (and I) do. Whatever works is OK with me. Its just that when all is said we would be better off in a post-Muslim world, NOT a post Arab world etc, but a world where Islam no longer exists or is reduced to insignificance. Pipe dream ? For 2009, obviously, but don't be so sure for the future further out than that. -- Ernie P. = _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
