"Violent crusaders" ? To be sure, in comparison with modern day standards of conduct many of the medieval crusaders were morally suspect ( to be kind about it ), but I don't buy, for one minute, the Left criticism of the Crusades as unjustifiable. The Holy Land was taken from Christians by naked force, unprovoked, as were many parts of the Byzantine Empire under Christian rule. For all the flaws in the Crusades my only regret is that they were not moire successful and enduring. Billy In a message dated 5/30/2009 7:05:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
"...delegitimize Islamic terrorism within the wider culture..." You get my vote for this one too. I am no religious historian, but I know that the mindset of the violent crusaders changed over time. Hopefully, the majority of Muslims, per Etzioni's data, will sway change in a more peaceful direction. ____________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie Prabhakar Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:55 AM To: Radical Centrist discussion list Subject: Re: [RC] Amitai Etzioni: The clash "within" civilizations 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. 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/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
