It Isn't Alienation, It's Islam
Time and time again, people argue that it's the poor treatment of Muslims that causes them to blow up the rest of us. Here's Farrukh Dhondy in The Wall Street Journal about the poor, alienated British Muslims:
Frustration and aimlessness are the seeds of alienation. British identity gives them no goals. They turn, instead, to the disciplines that were instilled in them from birth. Al Qaeda's aim to dominate the world with a universal Shariah kingdom makes them part of an elite. Their stance is fundamentally ideological, and being the ideology of religion, with 72 virgins on offer in paradise, it is fundamentally illogical. Their basic Western education makes them aware that they may be challenged in their fantasies of faith by more enlightened arguments of other Islamic persuasions. Instead, their spokesmen and suicide notes refer to British policies and lend a veneer of logic, of cause and effect, to their murder.
He does, to his credit, suggest Muslim persuading Muslims is the answer. Still, I've written here before that I had a pretty crappy childhood. I grew up in a neighborhood where everybody was Christian, and seemed to have been raised to be extremely unfriendly to Jews. Gregg Heinrichs, now a prof at Eastern Michigan University, was one of only a few exceptions. Anyway, for much of my childhood, I had no friends, kids chased me around and called me "dirty Jew" and told me I killed Jesus. (Yeah? Well, I got away with it, didn't I?) My dad even had to go to see Mr. Townsend, the junior high school principal, to get a bunch of girls to stop throwing chairs at me in the hall and calling me anti-semitic names.
Anyway, my point is, I reacted by growing up kind of a doormat, doing anything to be liked, and then, in my 20s, figuring out that wasn't working for me and developing self-worth. These days, obviously, I'm completely over a need to be liked! Still, I somehow never came up with the notion of murdering thousands upon thousands of other people as a way to make something of myself, or make up for past wrongs. Is my libertarian/fiscal conservative/atheistic bent the problem -- or is it Islam?
besides if you take a look at polls of muslim views towards westerners, they actually seem to get worse in countries like britain whose citizens have positive opinions of them
sultan knish at August 16, 2006 5:41 PM
Amy -
I occasionally read your blogs, and find them very insightful and occasionally entertaining. However, I do consider myself a Christian. I'm not writing to argue over science versus God, or try and convert you or even tell you you're going to hell. I'm writing to apologize to you for the treatment you were given growing up by "Christians". I had nothing to do with it, but I hate it when people profess to be Christians and then treat people who do not necessarily agree with them like they are so much crap. I try to be nice in general. I have friends who believe many different things. To mistreat someone and belittle them because they believe differently is inexcusable.
I know how you feel about Christians and religion in general (well, I know how your writings come across). I am prepared to be blasted for my beliefs. Like I said earlier, I'm not here to argue with you. I'm just here to tell you we're not all like that.
Sharon
Sharon at August 17, 2006 9:46 AM
Thanks, Sharon, I know that. And it's sweet of you to post this. I know many people who are Christian who are pretty amazing people. The thing is, all god-centered religions contribute to divisiveness and hate -- and what gets me is that there's no proof of god. It's like hating people for not believing in the tooth fairy, which makes it all the more obscene.
Amy Alkon at August 17, 2006 10:26 AM
There may be no scientific proof of God, but I'd just rather believe in one. It's all a personal preference. If it wasn't for my faith in SOMTHING, I would have probably been certifiably crazy by this point. I don't hate people who don't believe in God. I don't hate people that believe in other Gods, Goddesses, Aliens from outer space, or whatever. Religion is all in how you interpret it. In my opinion, I'd just rather everyone try to live together and NOT hurt each other because of different beliefs. The fact that you consider yourself to be an athiest dosen't mean I shouldn't respect you as a human being. It just means you believe differently than I do. One of my best friends is Wiccan, and I love her like she was blood family. I'm just tired of the few outspoken people who claim to be Christians not acting like it, and all of us having to be punished for it. It's no different than assuming that all followers of Islam are terrorists. They're not. People just need to get real and start focusing on the things that really matter.
Sharon at August 17, 2006 10:39 AM
By the way, I apologize for that post posting double...my computer is being a pain in the ass today.
Sharon at August 17, 2006 10:41 AM
Dear Sharon,
Great blog you've initiated! I am glad I happened to see it.
You say, "Religion is all in how you interpret it." But how else do you interpret clear instructions to 'leave nothing that breathed alive' (Bible, Joshua 11:11), 'constrain them to come in' (Bible, Luke 14:23) or 'slay the infidels wherever you find them' (Holy Quran 9:5)?
I feel the problem lies not with interpretation, but the original itself. This is especially demonstrable in prophet-inspired monotheisms like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but is equally evident in the now-harmless Zoroastrianism, as well. We shouldn't forget that Daniel, the Biblical prophet, was placed in the lion's den for his beliefs – not looks - by the Zoroastrian governor of the Persian province. The peaceful, benevolent and theocratically harmless face that some monotheisms present, conceal an inherent fascism and intolerance that is instilled by doctrinal – not interpretative - exclusivism.
In sharp contrast, the attitude of the polytheistic Roman Empire towards 'other' persuasions was qualitatively superior, in that none was persecuted on the basis of religious beliefs. Those that were sentenced to punishment were usually either practitioners of religious rites (like human sacrifice among others) that impinged on the rights of others, social delinquents or out and out criminals.
The 'Christians' who were apparently thrown to lions were most probably ultra-orthodox Essene Jews belonging to the so-called Jerusalem Church, whose opposition to the upstart, Saul/Paul, for admitting into his new-fangled religious enterprise gentiles from around the Roman Empire, is well-recorded. Saul/Paul was an influential Roman ‘citizen’ and may well have had something to do with it!
Or, take the case of polytheistic India where the ‘state’, per se, has always been secular irrespective of the individual faith of the king. Even antipodal doctrines like Christianity and Islam sought and received state protection. The Jewish community of Cochin still retains its religio-cultural identity intact among an overwhelming majority that is ‘gentile’. Also, some of the greatest names in Indian history are those of religious reformers like Budhha, Mahavir and, more recently, Dr. Ambedkar. All of them spoke against the ills of established ‘religion’ and its deleterious social consequences, and are yet remembered as great souls.
atlantean_53 at August 20, 2006 2:33 AM
I can't respect the thinking, or rather, nonthink, of anyone who believes, without evidence, in god. You have the capacity of rational thought, yet, intellectually, you live like a savage.
My being rational doesn't hurt you, and probably helps a lot of people -- those who ask me for my advice. Religious irrationality hurts all of us. Why do you think they're looking up our asses at the airport?
Amy Alkon at August 20, 2006 8:56 AM
Leave a comment