Instead of giving any preliminary considerations to the (admittedly needed) background of an entire complex of issues that we should be concerned with in order to make the fine moral, practical and indeed ontological distinctions necessary to progress in the evolving situations in which we find ourselves, I choose instead to "cut to the chase," as the questions are now rapidly coming towards us, rather than the other way around.
I only have to refer to an article in the Star-Telegram that I happened to scan over breakfast this morning and report the simple statements of different members of our government to demonstrate just how far we are as a nation - as a civilization - from defining some very fundamental distinctions that need to be made before we progress in actions as well as statements that will necessarily carry an enormous import for the foreseeable future, and for perhaps beyond. Indeed, these questions should have been keenly occupying our minds quite forcibly over the last three decades or so - at least since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the subsequent U.S. hostage crisis that so profoundly and preemptively pushed them to our doorstep.
Well, it is (hopefully) never too late to think about the most fundamental questions, and I can think of no more opportune time than when they are being pushed, if not to the front page, at least to the 3rd of our local newspaper.
In a speech yesterday to the leaders of more than 60 nations, President Barrack Obama made the statement, "When people are oppressed and human rights are denied, particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines, when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism."
This statement hardly appears to be a controversial one; as a matter of fact, without placed in any context, it seems hardly the stuff to which any normal rational person could object.
The problem was, however, that the President was making this observation in order to single out the primary cause of the actions and attitudes of a very particular group of radical, violent extremists with whom we must in some measure deal, and our definitions and our attitudes, I believe, need to be carefully thought out and clearly articulated.
This is, apparently, what the President was attempting to do. As I follow the story, the paper observes that "Obama’s remarks came as he faces criticism for his administration’s reluctance to categorize as ‘Islamic extremism’ the threat posed by terrorists such as the Islamic State."
Obama went on to make his point more explicit with the statement, "The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie." He went on to accuse the terrorists of harboring "warped ideologies" and trying to use Islam to justify violence.
The President is obviously in the throes of making some very delicate but extremely important distinctions in order to avoid characterizing the religion and cultural tradition of Islam with violence, intolerance and acts of abomination. In essence, he is maintaining the view, and in my reading it is explicit, not implicit, that these acts are aberrations, not naturally integrated qualities of that religion.
He goes on: "These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative." He further denounces "the lie that we are somehow engaged in a clash of civilizations, that America and the West are somehow at war with Islam or seek to suppress Muslims."
As an individual coming from a Christian heritage, I know only too well the long history of the distortions of the teachings of that religion and how they have been used to justify crusades, pogroms, and persecutions of all kinds. I also am conversant enough with the history and meaning of the actual Christian tradition to know that these are abberations which go firmly against the basic core teachings of the doctrines of the tradition itself - teachings which are fundamental and stretch back to the very beginning of that tradition, and indeed, help to distinguish, characterize it and ultimately define it.
I have read enough about the history and traditions of Islam to be open to a similar interpretation of the "twisted interpretations" to which the President refers. But I am not in possession of such sure and scholarly interpretations of Islam that I can make such absolute statements with any real degree of surety and confidence. Is there something inherently violent and/or intolerant about Islam itself?
This appears to be the position of at least a number of members of the national Republican party, who, the paper reports, are "critical" of Obama’s statements. Though this particular article does not go into great detail, there appear two quotes from that side. One comes from Senator John McCain, who reportedly said, "The notion that radical Islam isn’t at war with the West is an ugly lie." Now, this statement seems to me to be ambiguous at best, primarily due to the qualifier "radical" in describing Islam. Could not "radical" actually mean the same thing as "distorted" or "twisted?"
The second quote offered provides even less insight, which is not surprising, given its source. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, says the article, accused Obama of being an "apologist for radical Islamic terrorists." The calculated distortions of this politician, which are designed to appeal to what he perceives as the basest stupidity and ignorance of his constituents (as well as many other similarly bigoted Americans) is all too transparent in its cynical opportunism to fool any but the most idiotic members of our society.
Both responses, however, do serve to highlight what appears to be a very problematic situation, especially in regard to critical conflicts that we, as Westerners, do have to face in regards to Islamic terrorist threats and acts of violence. As members of a pluralistic community with democratic principles, we certainly do wish, as the President is apparently seeking to do with his comments, to maintain civil and respectful relationships with any persons who come from a different cultural tradition than any in which we were perhaps reared. But what if the truth is that on some very fundamental levels, the beliefs of a different culture actually do clash with our own liberal traditions - what then?
First of all, of course, it is imperative that we find the truth in all this matter. People can say what they want and as much as they please when they speak from ignorance. I am proposing to commence and conduct a series of articles in this forum which will examine, both in isolation and in comparative studies, all of the major belief structures (or "religions") as they exist in our modern global society, and although my personal interests incline more to the "Eastern" traditions of India, China and the rest of the Far East, I certainly want to take a strong look at all three of the major "Occidental" traditions and their historical/cultural relationships. It is becoming more and more obvious to me that the history and traditions of Islam have a special urgency in these dangerous times, and it is vitally important that we, as Americans - and more fundamentally as "Westerners" - come to understand, to the greatest degree possible, the essence, the meaning and the true implications of this growing cultural conflict.
I especially want to ask for input and commentary from any and all interested (and especially informed) individuals where this subject is concerned. The ultimate strategy and goal must, I believe, be directed toward a sound and truly informed basis for understanding and communication along the lines of cultural differences. The final vision I hope that can be reached will be, in all my sincerest and most optimistic desires will be not merely a condition of "mutual respect and understanding," but rather, if on any earthly way possible, a "common human agenda."
Thank you and feel free to make comments. If you have something longer that you would like me to post about this subject, please e-mail it to:
No comments:
Post a Comment