On Faith: Muslim-Christian Crisis

Jason Pitzl-Waters —  January 5, 2011 — 76 Comments

My latest response at the Washington Post’s On Faith site is now up.

Here’s this week’s panel question:

2011 began with some bleak news for Muslim-Christian relations around the world. Recent attacks against churches in Iraq, Nigeria and Egypt have killed dozens of Christian worshippers. Meanwhile, the Pakistani government is standing by the country’s controversial blasphemy law which critics say threatens religious minorities. How should political and religious leaders deal with these challenges to interfaith relations?

Here’s an excerpt from my response:

These events are the sad fruits of mixing raw social and political power with religions that operate on a exclusionary, one-true-path, basis. What you see in Iraq or Egypt is just the extreme and violent form of a sickness that has haunted history since the now-dominant monotheisms rose to prominence and power. If you believe that only your faith can hold the truth, and that all others are either duped, ignorant, or evil, all you need to do is add the promise of power for the persecutions and violence to begin. This is not a controversial statement, or at least not a controversial statement to anyone who has studied history. The histories, chronicles, and even the holy books of the monotheisms, all attest to the fate of groups that their God doesn’t approve of.

I hope you’ll head over to the site and read my full response, and the other panelist responses, and share your thoughts.

In Paganism, Religion , , , ,
permalink

Jason Pitzl-Waters

Posts

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    Jason's response starts out excellent and then just keeps getting better. Everyone should go to the WaPo site and read the whole thing.

  • http://meadowsweet-myrrh.blogspot.com/ Ali

    Of course, you don't address why a fair number of Pagans, who belong to a supposedly tolerant and diverse community of non-monotheists, are also in the anti-Muslim camp (not to mention plenty who are in the anti-Christian camp). If the perspective of "one truth only" were really the primary cause, you'd think it would be a much less prevalent view among those of us who don't subscribe to monotheism.

    You also don't address the fact that, despite a rise in non-governmental conflicts (what we call either terrorist attacks, or revolutions, depending on whose side we're on), the actual total of global conflict has been decreasing for the last fifty years at least. In fact, a recent study indicates that the majority of global conflict can be traced almost entirely to the actions of (and reactions to) the three US-led "coalition" wars (the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraq occupation and the Afghanistan occupation), in which many countries "participated" by sending token troops who did not engage in direct combat.

    It seems to me that, as usual, religion is being used to obscure the real issue here, which is imperial power and various forms of colonialism. I doubt it would be enough to ask the monotheists to step down from power. Neither the Roman Empire nor the Mongol hoards were monotheistic. We may have to face the hard truth that, regardless of religious or secular worldviews, it is imperial power itself which gives rise to these types of conflicts. It may be that people ascribe their resistance against imperialism to religious motivations because it takes a "super-natural" and larger-than-life advocator to resist what may seem otherwise to be an unstoppable world power.

    • http://www.tigerseyetemple.org/ DanMiller

      Ali, really agree with your last paragraph. Add to imperialism and colonialism, should be capitalism. Would the Middle East be the powder keg it has been if it didn't have oil and the vast wealth and power associated with it?

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      Ali, recent attacks on Christians in Nigeria, Iraq and Egypt have not been acts of resistance against imperialism or any such pomo mumbo-jumbo. These have been the acts of evil cowards for whom no punishment is too great, and no ideological pretext can "contextualize" this away.

      And the sad fact is that Islam teaches people to believe in killing in the name of religion. In both Egypt and Nigeria a majority of Muslims support the idea of executing anyone who attempts to leave the "religion of peace."

      • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

        While the scale of violence that is a direct or indirect result of imperialism (which is a critique that has a lot more weight than the term "mumbo-jumbo" would imply) probably does overshadow that which is actually rooted in religious intolerance, that does not refute the fact that much violence is, as Jason notes, caused by religiously-motivated intolerance.

        I'd agree with Apuleius at least that far. Yeah, it's perhaps a distraction to us in the United States in particular to focus on violence in other parts of the world, or non-governmental violence. But he is right in saying that whatever the fruits of imperialism may be, it is fair to examine what role religions, especially those prone to intolerance, may play.

        However, I don't know on what basis you are maintaining that the majority of Egyptians or Nigerians would agree with the idea of killing those who leave Islam. To the best of my knowledge, neither country is particularly reliably able to figure out what a majority of its citizens feel about anything–I would not cite either as an example of a robust democracy. So I don't know how we could possibly know what the majority of Egyptians or Nigerians think on any issue.

        Are you aware of some studies on the subject, Ap, or was that simply a rhetorical flourish? If it was, it wasn't very good evidence of your own level of openness to religious pluralism.

        Which, admittedly, is not something that's universal among Pagans. Ali is right that the correlation between polytheism and pluralism can be (and perhaps often is) overstated, I think.

        • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

          I posted more information about the survey results I was referring to below. Basically I was talking about two reports published by the Pew Research Center, one focussing on seven Muslim countries, and the other on Muslim communities in Europe. Both studies showed widespread support for extremist ideas and extremist groups throughout the Muslim world.

          • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

            Thank you.

            Though, as with surveys on issues relevant to Paganism put out by the Pew, there is always room to ponder what biases might have been incorporated into their surveys, it is certainly more substantial than a mere assertion! *smile*

            And, to quote the old Muslim saying, "He who cites his source saves the world."

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Pew is basically a right-wing Christian propaganda outfit. I've got sources for that, too! But I think the results they obtained fall under the heading of "you can't make this stuff up." Also there have been other polls done previously that showed much higher levels of support for Al Qaeda in the Muslim world. In fact, for those who follow this kind of thing, the 2010 results were actually considered a positive sign of Osama bin Laden's declining popularity and influence (he is now just slightly less popular than George W. Bush was at the end of his second term).

            And I'm serious about Pew's religious/political slant. The head of their Religion division ("The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life") is a fellow named Luis Lugo, whose last job before coming to Pew was at the Center for Public Justice (website), a group that divides it's time between fighting against gay rights and fighting for government subsidies for religious organizations ("faith based initiatives"). On his official website at Pew (here), Lugo fails to mention his past work for the CPJ, or his past membership in the organization Christians in Political Science.

          • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

            Yes, I believe the potential for bias at Pew is pretty well acknowledged. That was my one concern, though; I do not trust Pew to be objective in their approach to any religious question.

            Whether or not one can make this stuff up, it is quite possible to struggle with sampling methodology in poor and repressive countries. I am not sure I would thoroughly trust any poll to be an accurate reflection of those countries' citizens. However, despite my concerns about possible religious bias at Pew, they are generally well-respected for their methodologies. I doubt, for instance, they would gather such polling information by attending Palestinian protest funerals (if they'd been studying Palestinian attitudes). I think I'd trust them not to introduce such distortions deliberately, in other words.

            Which makes the results of this research especially concerning. As you point out.

          • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

            Incidentally, I still believe it is essentially impossible to tease out what of the attitudes described here reflects religiously-rooted hostility, and what is actually a hostility to secularism, seen as a ploy of Western nations to re-establish colonialism. Obviously, I don't believe secularism is any such thing… but neither do I believe that the colonialist past is irrelevant to the attitudes in the modern Middle East. So as concerning as these statistics clearly are, I would be slow to conclude that it is Islam itself that is the problem. The canvas is broader, and contains more hues than just the religious tones.

      • kauko

        I agree. While the legacy of European colonialism and imperialism have their fair share of responsibility for the state of the world today, there is far too strong a tendancy for those on the Left to lay responisiblity for everything wrong with the world on them and ignore other causes (especially if those causes aren't politically correct to believe in).

        • Robin Artisson

          You said it, bro.

        • Rombald

          I'm kind of with kauko here. Apuleius characteristically overstates his case with the "pomo mumbo-jumbo", but he's right that the vileness of Islam is independent of imperialism. Muslim terrorists in the UK? – fair enough, blame it on imperialism – but what about those in Germany and Sweden? When were the Copts – a downtrodden community – ever imperialist? In any case, I don't see why one shouldn't oppose both Islam and imperialism.

          Another point is that we tend to hear about the killing of Christians, because they have vocal supporters in the West, but Shariah actually accords some tolerance to Christians, as dhimmis, whereas it insists on the extermination of non-Abrahamists. The tendency to publicise persecution of Christians makes some Western secular liberals see the support of religious freedom in the Islamic world as a Christian plot, so it would be good to hear more about people persecuted for converting to atheism, Buddhism, etc. – they do exist.

          • Rombald

            Just to add a bit more.

            I personally know several ex-Muslims, in England, who have told me they are atheists, but have to either lie about their disbelief or avoid all Muslims, because of real danger. I also know one Iraqi Kurd who is Pagan, having rejected Islam, and returned to the fire-based religion of pre-Islamic Kurdistan – he avoids Muslims at all times.

            I have also seen a website by Iranian and Afghan converts to Buddhism, which was an important religion in those areas before Islam. I have also read about Muslim Indians who have converted to Hinduism.

            There is also the point that many now-Muslim areas were Pagan quite recently. Luristan, formerly Kafiristan (ie. "Pagan Land"), in southern Afghanistan, was converted at gunpoint in the late 19th century. In much of West Africa, there is only a veneer of Islam over Paganism.

          • kauko

            Of the top of my head I can think of Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was raised Muslim but later sought asylum in Europe and became an atheist. She is a very vocal and well known critic of Islam.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            It is definitely true that Islam tends to be far more tolerant of Christianity than any other religion, not that that is saying much.

            But Muslims save their worst violence for "their own". If you practice the wrong kind of Islam, or are born Muslim and then try to leave "the religion of peace", look out.

          • Nick_Ritter

            'But Muslims save their worst violence for "their own".'

            Which, I think, is amply shown by the assassination a few days ago of Salmaan Taseer, governor of the Pakistani state of Punjab. He was assassinated by his own guard, over a disagreement concerning the Pakistani blasphemy law; Taseer was seemingly against it.

          • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

            Yes, this was a terrible event.

            It is worth noting, however, that Taseer was also Muslim–a moderate Muslim. He knew perfectly well that, by opposing the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, he was placing his own life in extreme danger.

            If we in the West can sit by, and from safety outside such internal conflicts in Islam, simply condemn all of Islam for intolerance, we run the risk of increasing the intolerance from without which men like Taseer are already rather heroically confronting from within. I cannot find it in myself to condemn outright a religion that produces a Taseer to stand against the violence and oppression we condemn.

            We are blogging about it–he spent months literally chained to a prison cell floor over it. He said outright before his death that he denied Muslim terrorists the right to define who is or is not a Muslim. I believe it is important to honor those words ourselves.

            Neither we, nor the terrorists, get to tell men like Salmaan Taseer they are not "real Muslims." This, I think, is key.

          • Nick_Ritter

            My earlier reply to you seems to have disappeared, so I'm writing it again.

            You wrote: "I cannot find it in myself to condemn outright a religion that produces a Taseer…"

            Was it Islam that "produced" Salmaan Taseer, in the sense of producing his opposition to blasphemy laws that seem well-grounded in Islamic ideology?

            You seem to be assuming that, as a Muslim, his opposition to Islamic blasphemy laws must necessarily have arisen out of his Islam. In this, I think, you are making the same mistake as a lot of the people you criticize for their anti-monotheistic stance: the inability to distinguish between individuals and ideology.

            It's like this: Christianity and Islam are, by nature, religious ideologies that are inimical to pagan and indigenous religions. Individual Christians or Muslims might vary from that and in doing so are at variance with the core of the religious ideologies they subscribe to, and that is worth noting.

            The argument that "Christianity / Islam is a bad religion because bad people have been Christians / Muslims" is a dead-end argument, as is the one you counter with, which I paraphrase as "No, some good people are Christians / Muslims to, so it can't be *all* bad."

            My stance is something more along the lines of that Christianity and Islam are, in their very basis and foundation, inimical to pagan and indigenous religions; and they *must*, by their nature (as shown in their scriptures and histories) encourage violence against pagan and indigenous religions, against any other religions whatsoever (including each other), and against their own whom they do not consider to be "faithful" enough. In other words, Christianity and Islam are not bad religions because bad people have been Christians and Muslims, but because Christianity and Islam encourage or require people to do horrible things in the names of their faiths.

            You think that Islam is responsible for the existence of Salmaan Taseer, and is therefore maybe good. I see Islam as responsible for the death of Salmaan Taseer.

          • Don

            " I cannot find it in myself to condemn outright a religion that produces a Taseer to stand against the violence and oppression we condemn."

            I doubt if he were unfamiliar with Western principles that he'd be standing against violence and oppression.

    • Don

      How does bombing Coptics have anything to do with imperialism? Coptics were there way before the Muslim horde rode in.

      • Tomb

        If you can't beat at the Christiands in the UK you beat at those at home.

      • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

        On the other side of the equation, has anyone read this story? Egyptian Muslims Throng in Thousands to Protect Christians?

        At one point in the story, we read that "Father Marqus, the Bishop of Alexandria, said that in his entire life he had never seen the degree of solidarity of Muslims with Coptic Christians that he has witnessed in recent days. He said that Muslims attending the funeral of the Christmas victims of the New Year’s Day bombing had treated them like Muslim martyrs… …The act of terror, he said, will have the opposite effect of the one intended, and will instead increase the love of Christians and Muslims for one another."

        Food for thought.

    • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

      I think that both of you are confused, either monotheism or imperialism (or any other -ism you'd care to toss forth). Frankly, when you look at the base motive of any conflict, it is about resources and power (which often go hand in hand).

      • Nick_Ritter

        You think no one kills in the name of belief?

        • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

          PLENTY of them do, or for no reason at all, but large scale things like wars? No.

          • Nick_Ritter

            Well, now we come to an interesting question. Which is the reason for religious wars (which have certainly occurred): the reasons of the people calling the shots, possibly with ulterior motives, who use religion as a motivating force for their side; or the reasons of the vast number of those religiously motivated people who actually wage the war?

            The thing is, even if you don't think that religion is at the basis of the number of religious wars that have been perpetrated in the name of one or another monotheism, the ability of these monotheisms to be used as motivating factors for war *is* significant.

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            A counter-question for you, Nick: Would those who join up to 'kill the infidel' have happened without those in charge calling for it?

            And as has already been stated, there were plenty of wars where religion meant absolutely nothing (Rome, the Golden Horde, Alexander the Great, most of the history of China, both world wars, etc.)

            I don't dispute that religion as a motivator (and I don't single out monotheisms under that, sorry for the pun) is extremely powerful, I'm saying that it isn't the reason for the conflict in the first place. For example, take a look at the Thirty Year's War, ostensibly between Catholics and Protestants, which devastated Germany in the late 1600's. But take a look deeper, and you start seeing the conflict as a jockeying for position between the Protestant English, Lutheran Germans, Catholic French and Spanish, Protestant French, Catholic Swedish, etc, all attempting to seize various trade routes, to disrupt their rivals' materiel and support, etc. The German States (the Holy Roman Empire, sort-of) at the beginning of the conflict was one of the wealthiest nations at the beginning of the war, and afterwards, it never truly recovered.

          • fyreflye

            Has there ever been a poll asking Americans about the claim that 9-11was staged by the US government itself? There are a large number of deluded fanatics in this country, too.

          • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

            And there is a point in that, no matter how high a percentage of deluded fanatics a religion may have, in my opinion, that does not deny those who are willing to live peacefully with the members of other religions the right to hold whatever beliefs they choose. (Or even if they are not willing to live peacefully. Though they ought not be free to act on their beliefs, needless to say.)

            I admit, I am comforted and supported in this belief by my reading of history, which seems to show that tolerance and a cosmopolitan, pluralist worldview wax and wane among cultures and civilizations, and so I live in hope that those who have not yet learned to value these things may rise again where they have been in decline.

          • Robin Artisson

            You can't separate those in charge from the horde of the faithful, because they belong to the same disease.

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            Really? You think that a family as ruthless and pragmatic as the Hapsburgs or Bourbons would get caught up in the religious fervor of their time if it didn't have some economic benefit or consolidation of power to themselves?

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Eran Rathan: "You think that a family as ruthless and pragmatic as the Hapsburgs or Bourbons would get caught up in the religious fervor of their time if it didn't have some economic benefit or consolidation of power to themselves?"

            The phrase "some economic benefit or consolidation of power to themselves" covers quite a variety of sins. Religious megalomaniacs do not distinguish between spreading the true faith and increasing their own personal power. Girolamo Savonarola is a prime example of this type of charismatic demagogue, part of whose power lies precisely in the purity of his or her own belief.

            It isn't always necessary to have ulterior motives. Some people truly are motivated by religious hatred, or, more generally, by some kind of extreme ideology. This does not mean that all radical ideologies are evil — just the ones that encourage people to commit mass murder.

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            Savonarola was responsible for a war (or even large-scale conflict)? Really? Which one?

            As I said above, it comes down to power and money (which are often interchangeable). Look at what happened to Savonarola if you don't believe me.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Savonarola was just the beginning. Luther was a big fan of Savonarola, and was far more successful. But Luther neither enriched himself greatly, nor held any kind of direct political power. He devoted himself to religious power, and, more specifically, religious hatred and conflict. Calvin was nearly the same, although he found it more convenient to wield political power, for religious purposes, in a more direct way.

            The point is still the same. Those who loudly proclaim some violent ideology often believe it themselves. An ideology like fascism, for example, is a sufficient motivation to do evil all on it's own. One does not have to go looking for ulterior motives.

            But let's have a more recent example. Is Osama bin Laden getting rich, sitting in his cave? Must he have some ulterior motive, or does he actually believe in what he says and in what he instructs others to do?

          • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

            Apuleius wrote: [Luther] devoted himself to religious power…Calvin was nearly the same, although he found it more convenient to wield political power…

            Thank you for further illustrating my point.

          • Nick_Ritter

            Except that Apuleius hasn't further illustrated your point, which was that religious conflict is *really* about political power or control of resources. Apuleius' example of Calvin is someone who:

            "wield[ed] political power, for religious purposes"

            That is to say, it was still all *really* about religion, for Calvin. Your insistence that religion cannot be a prime motivating factor for conflict or any other major movement of people and their efforts seems to be indicative of a particular blind spot, one of a certain cynical post-modernism. Cynicism is not objectivity.

    • Robin Artisson

      Ali, is there no depth of denial to which you will sink to protect and apologize for Monotheism and the religious fanaticism that it uniquely has caused in the pages of our history, and which it continues to create?

      • Crystal7431

        I think he makes a good point, though. However, I really don't think there is one simple factor that has led to the problems we're facing in the Middle East. I believe it's far more complex than that, but undoubtedly it would be far less dangerous for the average citizen if religious fundamentalism were not thrown in the mix. This has been a great debate. I've really enjoyed the back and forth.

      • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

        Robin, is there no rhetorical exaggeration you will not employ against those who disagree with your ideas? While I don't agree with the emphasis Ali places upon it, it's hardly denial to examine the effects of colonialism and imperialism on the politics in the Middle East (and Africa and Asia), in addition to and comparison with the effects of religion.

        Nor is oversimplification of history or the arguments of others likely to improve anything about either this discussion or the world.

        • Robin Artisson

          Answer me this- why is it you- and no one else- that rushed in to defend Ali? It's a no-brainer, Cat.

          • northernsea

            People have not rushed in to defend Ali because she is right and that needs no defense. It's the ones who have responded with puerile arguments that are not worth responding to and who are the brainless ones.

  • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

    During 2010 the Pew Research Center polled Muslims in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey. Pew found that on average, 18% of those polled support Al Qaeda. On the question of "the death penalty for those who leave the religion of Islam" they found that among Egyptian Muslims, 84% are in favor of executing "apostates". In Nigeria it was 51% (again, only polling Muslims). In Pakistan it was 76% and in Jordan, 86%. The details are available at Pew's website here. I have summarized some of the highlights on my blog here.

    The point being that the problem with intolerance and extremism in Islam is not a problem of a tiny isolated minority. Pew also found that the Muslim Brotherhood and similar extremist groups are extremely, if you will, popular among Muslims living in Europe. More information on that report can be found at the Pew website here (and, for the impatient, I have also provided my own summary here).

    From a purely theoretical standpoint it is sometimes tempting to lump "the Abrahamic faiths" together. But in practical terms there is clearly a case for treating each of them separately, while also recognizing that they do have important commonalities. What we really need is an objective scale of "murderous intolerance" which takes into account (1) contemporary attitudes and activities of a religion's adherents, (2) the accepted teachings of a religion, and (3) the documented history of a religion. No religion would get a perfect score, but most would be grouped together safely down at the lower end of the scale. Judaism, Christianity and Islam would be the primary outliers at the higher end.

    • Don

      Something else also interesting: in a summer 2008 poll conducted by World Public Opinion, only 16% of Egyptians believed AQ was responsible for 9/11, while 43% believed Israel was responsible. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/i…

      • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

        The NYC mosque founded by Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, Imam Rauf's father (Rauf is the Ground Zero Mosque dude), was led by an Egyptian cleric who was a "truther" until 2001, when he suddenly returned to Egypt and was replaced by Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, who promptly announced that the believes that there existed no "proof" that any Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks (his predecessor had more bluntly insisted that "only Jews" could have done such a thing). Also, in September, 2010 a founding member of American Society for Muslim Advancement (AMSA, whose current executive director is Daisy Khan, Rauf's wife), Dr. Faiz Khan, was exposed as a 9/11 truther.

        • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

          Are these dates garbled, Ap? If by a "truther" you mean someone who denies Muslim involvement in 9/11, it's hard to understand how that could apply to someone until 2001… that being the year of the attacks. Has some meaning been lost in the syntax here? (No snark–I'm confused by this post. Apologies if I'm simply being dense here.)

          Also–if you can conveniently cite sources here? I'd be grateful, though I also understand you're not writing a doctoral dissertation; these do remain blog comments.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha did not become a "truther" until September 11, 2001, but he was already the Imam of the Islamic Cultural Center, and one assumes he was already an anti-Semitic scumbag as well. I would like to know more about him and how long he was Imam there and what else he may have said, etc, but for some reason the Islamic Cultural Center of New York's website doesn't say anything about their former Imam.

            So, the mosque was led by Gemeaha until just after 9/11, 2001, when Gemeaha publicly stated that "only Jews" could possibly have been behind the attacks. He was then suddenly replaced by Omar Saleem Abu-Namous who showed how moderate he is by only saying that there was no "proof" that Muslims had anything to do with the attacks.

          • Baruch Dreamstalker

            Isn't it to the mosque's credit that it terminated Gameaha?

    • http://greattininess.wordpress.com Johnny Rapture

      "No religion would get a perfect score, but most would be grouped together safely down at the lower end of the scale. Judaism, Christianity and Islam would be the primary outliers at the higher end."

      I just don't buy this, for a lot of reasons. Reasons like the reality that Judaism (whatever that is) has never existed as a military power outside of greater Syria (though really that's the work of Israelite kings and modern Israelis), a situation that doesn't seem like it would make the Jewish-caused death-count to be a "primary outlier."

      • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

        Judaism is also an outlier among the monotheisms because of the relative mildness of its intolerance.

        Even in terms of theory, as opposed to practice, Judaism is less extreme than the Evil Twins. Most of the traditional Jewish scriptures are not even genuinely monotheistic, rather they are monolatrous. That is, they only demand exclusive worship of their "one god", while still allowing for the existence of other Gods. Christians and Muslims, on the other hand, accept the existence of other Gods only as evil demonic forces, not as genuine deities.

        It is probably not until the latter portions of the Book of Isaiah ("second Isaiah") that full-blown monotheism enters into Judaism.

        The distinction I am making here is not arbitrary. Ancient Pagans also recognized that despite their fixation on their "one god", the Jews followed an ancient tradition that was to be respected. The Jews, for their part, lived peaceably with their polytheistic neighbors, (except, of course, for when they didn't).

        Christians, on the other hand, were reviled as anti-social fanatics who worshipped a dead guy and who showed no interest in living in harmony with people who had different beliefs.

        • http://greattininess.wordpress.com Johnny Rapture

          I don't think I'd have any interest in "living in harmony", either, if I was "reviled" as an "anti-social" fanatic who "worshipped a dead guy." Except oh wait that's not what happened in the first place, anyway.

          • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

            I'm afraid you've got your cart in front of your horse there, Johnny. In the ancient Pagan world minority religions with strange beliefs and practices were not looked down on. Why? Because all religions were minority religions with strange beliefs back then! It's called history, Johnny. It is found in books.

  • bard08

    One of my dearest friends is Coptic Christian and has family living in Egypt; with that said this was very hard news for her and her family. However, the recent attacks are nothing new. The dominant religion in Egypt is Muslim, so what we see here is a lack of protection for the minority faith. From what she has told me not all Muslims in Egypt are radicals, but those that are involved in Al Qaeda support and follow through with these attacks. As stated by many others here, when there are a handful of monotheistic religions that all claim to have the one true deity people are going to run into violent problems.

  • Robin Artisson

    Superb, Jason. I knew you were a true believer. :)

  • Baruch Dreamstalker

    I read Jason's WaPo piece after reading the comments to here. He doesn't really say that religious animus is the only cause of violence, but that it's all you need.

  • fyreflye

    @Apulieus: ‘…I think the results they obtained fall under the heading of “you can’t make this stuff up.”‘

    Well, some often do. But you can also skew results by the way you frame the question. “Do you support Al Qaeda?” is likelier to get a yes answer than “Do you support the killing of innocent women and children as a means of avenging insults to the Prophet Mohammed?”

    All polls are paid for by someone, usually someone who hopes to get an answer s/he likes. The pollsters who stay in business are the ones who please their clients. Who paid for this particular poll? Telephone polls are also notoriously unreliable, depending for results on who has a telephone, is at home, and answers the phone; rather than using detailed questionnaires and selecting for different demographics.

    I personally don’t doubt there’s X amount of Muslim fanaticism in the world, but I wouldn’t name any figure based on poll results.

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      Actually in the same poll people were asked if they supported killing people solely because they wanted to change religions, or solely because they had committed marital infidelity. About twice as many people answered "yes" to those questions as to "do you support Al Qaeda?"

      Besides, what planet do you have to be from to think that the question "do you support Al Qaeda?" is some kind of trick question that is cleverly designed to "skew" and "frame" the results to make Muslims look bad? I mean seriously, do people freaking support Al Qaeda or not? That is a very simple straightforward question!

      If the results from asking Muslims "do you support Al Qaeda?" make Muslims look bad, the problem is not with the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • druideric

    monotheism—1 is the loneliest #

  • http://sari0009.xanga.com/603410074/imagination-and-virtues-of-equality/ KarenAScofield

    Perhaps after we're done with decades, centuries and even millennia-long variations of belief-based identity clashes and power structures, we can really get out of the dark ages.

    Once a fierce focus is taken off behavioral patterns and demonstrable ethics and character in relation to our more functional ideals (e.g. equality), humans tend to go ape ship on each other, our times of peace and war similar to the different phases in the cycle of domestic violence (nice-nasty-nice-nasty-nice-nasty). Whether we had a national or global theocracy…the factions/denominations/parties would fight for top dog status. Belief-based identity clashes suck. They'd suck if rationalism vs. religion, religion vs. religion, religion vs. religionism, or rationalism vs. rationalism ruled the earth.

    It really is better to teach people how to think than to tell them their beliefs are wrong, crazy, damned, criminal, insane or less.

  • Leea

    I certainly agree with Jason's comments. I wonder, however: if polytheistic religions were the norm, would there be as much intolerance? I have read comments on this blog as well as other places, where people in the Pagan world seem to demonstrate as much hostility to others who are different/practice differently-as some in the more "mainstream" religions. Can calling someone a "playgan", for instance, be symptomatic of the kind of intolerance that in the larger world leads to extremism? I wonder if, as we become more predominant over time, we too will sucomb to the temptation of extremism?

    • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

      Leea, you are equating "hostility" (that is, criticism) with intolerance. The problem in places like Nigeria, Egypt and Iraq is not that Christians and Muslims are saying unkind things about each other. The problem is that Muslims are attacking and murdering Christians.

      But we needn't limit ourselves to speculation. Everywhere on earth, and throughout all of human history, wherever people are free of the influences of Christianity, Islam and Communism one finds religious freedom. It's really that simple. (This is like saying, "in the absence of pollution one finds clean water.")

    • kenneth

      The phenomenon you reference here is more like the intramural conflicts we see in, say, Judaism – ie arguments over who has the "real" version of the faith (or craft in our case). It is an annoying thing to be sure, but there is one important difference from the monotheistic faiths: we have no general movement to evangelize/convert or "correct" each other for heresy.

      • Leea

        agree Kenneth-what I was thinking about, I guess, is what could happen in say, another thousand years, if we stay on course. Could we develop "corrections" (good word) for heresy? I hope not…

    • kauko

      There has got to be some tortuous mental gymnastics going on to equate the intolerance inherent in a religion that compels its followers to slaughter women, gays, religious minorities, people who leave the religion etc with the normal kind of disagreement and criticism (however petty) that goes on among any group of people.

    • sarenth

      There is a point to having standards and saying "this is practicing this branch of Paganism" i.e. norms of orthopraxy, or "I have 'x' education in becoming a priest/ess, clergy person, etc. from 'y' seminary or center". It establishes a baseline of what is acceptable as normal in a community. Otherwise, your label means relatively little. I don't think that calling someone "playgan" is symptomatic of the kind of intolerance in, say, Christianity for ideological battles that occur over orthodoxy or orthopraxy. I think calling someone a "playgan" is a crude, ineffective way of telling a person "you're playing at being a pagan" or, alternatively "you're doing it wrong!".

      If someone presents themselves as a Wiccan this week, an Egyptian Way pathwalker next week, and the following week is something else and says "I'm a serious Pagan!", they are either deluding themselves, failing to find their feet in their path, or have some reason that I can't fathom, but can't evaluate from my position unless they tell me what it is. However, if that person claims "I'm really a serious practitioner of Paganism!" and they won't stick with any training, books, etc. without throwing it aside when it becomes boring, then perhaps they have earned the title "playgan". It isn't intolerant to label something as it is. If you cannot establish a relationship with the Gods, refuse to do the work for initiations or work for titles within the structure you're supposed to be studying, then you aren't that 'x' title or 'y' state of being.

      This is fundamentally different than you saying "I worship "x" God from "y" pantheon and "a" Goddess from "b" pantheon" and I saying "well, you're wrong, because-". Historically speaking I could be right or wrong in my critique of the individual, but I don't need to be a jerk about it if I disagree, and my disagreement with their religious practice =/= intolerance. I don't need to agree with your decisions to tolerate them. So long as the person worshiping "x" God from "y" pantheon and "a" Goddess from "b" pantheon, and is honest about it, I tend to not care so long as it makes them happy and the results from such worship/work are tangible for them in some form.

      • Don

        A tangential issue, but can we stop pretending the orthodoxy/ orthopraxy dichotomy has anything to do with paganism whether ancient or modern? I have yet to be convinced that such a dichotomy existed in ancient paganism.

        • http://egregores.blogspot.com/ Apuleius

          The orthopraxy/orthodoxy dichotomy has it's origins in the anti-Pagan polemics of the Christians, according to whom ancient Pagans didn't really have "beliefs" or "faith" or any "personal relationship" or "intimacy" with the divine. All Pagans had, according to this view, was the performance of rituals, which they did blindly without any sense of why the rituals are done or any genuine religious experience associated with the ritual performance itself.

          The simple fact is that all religious traditions have both beliefs and practices. How anyone (especially a Pagan) could ever fall into thinking otherwise is a mystery.

          • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat_C_B

            I think because, polemically-based distortions aside–because, of course, it's utterly ridiculous to deny the experiential, relational aspects of Pagan worship–there really is a difference between how most Pagans regard their beliefs. If you and I do not agree on the nature of the gods, their number, or any number of their myths, we will almost certainly still be able to worship them together. This is unthinkable in the creedal religions–though whether that is because they are creedal, or they are creedal because they are monotheist is hard to say. (I tend to think it has something to do with a continuity with or a discontinuity with non-literary source materials and traditions–and that this is the root of the distinctions which can be made in how Judaism approaches religious differences vs. how most branches of Christianity and Islam do. Your interpretations may vary, of course.)

            Pagan cultures of the past, at least, have tended to be far less obsessive about matters of heresy; doctrine has been genuinely less central to us in the past.

            I sometimes think that, in the present day, with our heavy flavoring of ex-but-not-yet-post-Christian Pagans, determined to define ourselves in opposition to that religion, we either over or under emphasize the role of belief or correct/traditional teaching to us today. Far too many of us seem to define our religious practices as a kind of spiritual libertarianism, where "nobody gets to tell me what to think or do." (I tend to think the gods get at least a voice in our ideas and actions, and that Paganism is not a stranger to ethical concerns… some of which we even share with monotheists.)

        • sarenth

          I think that there was a bit of orthodoxy in that it was orthopraxy. For instance, in many ancient and modern religions, if you did not do a sacrifice a certain way to a certain God, Their disfavor would be shown down upon you. There wasn't much separation, if any, between what was 'right' for the tribe/civilization/etc. and what was 'right' religiously/spiritually speaking. Given the ideas of orthodoxy and orthopraxy as separate things more or less made themselves known during Roman rule with the advent of Christianity, I can see where you are coming from.

    • Crystal7431

      There's quite a bit of difference between fearing for your life in the real world and fearing a verbal ribbing on a blog site. People who comment regularly on here say a lot of things but none of them are of the temperament to go on a killing spree in the name of whatever it is they call holy. I think I speak for most of us when I say as long as you leave me and mine alone…

      • Leea

        Oh, I do understand the differences. I guess I was thinking of the early years of Christianity..when differences FIRST started-I wondered if it started with the general kind of comments about "no, that's not what was intended". I don't think anyone in the Pagan community (well, who isn't severely mentally ill, anyway) is going to start killing other traditions (Wiccans killing Druids, for ex). It's just humans seem, at a basic level, to be pretty tribal. If we don't kill over race, it's religion. If not religin, it's tribe. And, I've just noticed over the years that as we become more open, as we've branced out, it seems that there is more-derision, less live and let live…

        • http://sari0009.xanga.com KarenAScofield

          Leea,

          Unburdened by a cultivated and informed awareness of which power paradigms we build and why, we humans tend toward rather binary, intolerant and frequently bloody pack or tribal modes…and yet we think ourselves a tremendously clever and intelligent species while really dumb dualisms and other methods of limiting scope (e.g. the Five Major Faiths policies, which always beg triumphalism anyway) still reign worldwide.

          Many visionaries and luminaries have commented on this, each in their own way. Isaac Bonewits noted it frequently. American founders noted it and forbade establishment of religion and brought up separation of church and state. Ancient democracies explored safeguards against tyranny of the majority within democracy. Technological luminary Jaron Lanier, the guy who coined the phrase AI, talks about “confusing the status monster” as the path to civility.

          Not just pluralism will do. We need robust healthy functional informed pluralism, else much is easily lost.

          The solution is actually a constellation of solutions — we need to have enough of ways of having status and enough reality checks from enough corners so that we don't all follow one leader or pecking order into bloodshed and atrocity once again. Then we have a hope of turning pluralism into robust pluralism.

          Otherwise any one reigning political party, art, culture, discipline or perspective may turn toxic, turn to us vs. them crap, to identity clashes that ignore a lot but solve little. Else we will continue to suffer a military-on-top perspective across the globe, as opposed to military sharing the upper hierarchy with higher quality intellectuals. Else religion will continually turn to dualism-prone **religionism** at the most crucial of times. Else rational disciplines will continually slide into rationalism vs. religion or one stripe of rationalism vs. another stripe of rationalism (dualism). Else “ethnic cleansing” or other forms of genocide will continue to rage somewhere. Otherwise, it’s all still the us vs. them tribalism that’s divorced from a good look at how we treat each other, why, and what better options or natures can realized.

          The latter (creating better options and natures) is more of a magical mindset…a 'we can make reality according to will' kind of thing instead of falling into the same old problematic ruts.

          • Leea

            Elegantly put, Karen. And thanks to you and Cara for seeing where I was going with my thoughts…

    • http://sari0009.xanga.com KarenAScofield

      Leea, yours is actually one of the most important questions, in my opinion and the answer as long as we don't better understand what type of power paradigm we're building and living every day, yes, we could have as much intolerance and bloodshed if Paganism were the norm.

      The sad thing is that it's not that difficult to switch from one belief-based identity clash to another — people just changes their platform a bit but the power paradigm and a lot of the dirty and stupid people tricks stay the same, and root issues remain poorly identified/addressed, and people aren't very forthcoming about their behaviors or what they mean in relation to informed ideals.

      Pluralism isn't automatically robust or functional. Those qualities demand a lot more of us.

    • caraschulz

      "if polytheistic religions were the norm, would there be as much intolerance?"

      If we look to the past to gauge that answer – we could say with 100% assurance: Perhaps

  • Crystal7431

    Excellent response, Jason.