Robert Spencer read a lot into what Glenn Reynolds had to say about the evolution of religious violence. It's pretty obvious that Reynolds was not saying that all religions are equal. What he clearly said was that if secular authorities do not respond to Islamist violence regarding depictions of Muhammed, then other religions might follow suit in using violence to suppress things that they disapprove of.
Ironically, Reynolds is actually not far off as this is already happening, except in a form that is more "civilized" in the West. Many leading Jewish groups side (or in some cases sided) with censors and "human rights commissions" to outlaw expressions of anti-semitism, crush commentary about the Holocaust that ranges from the asinine (saying it never happened) to questioning the numbers alleged to have been killed.
It may be hard for some to see a parallel between wild-eyed zealots in the Middle East and Pakistan dancing, firing AK-47s into the area and otherwise creating a ruckus to demand censorship, and Jewish organizations lobbying to suppress speech that they don't like through "democratic means," but it is there. It's a case of people being so concerned by the outward appearance that they utterly ignore the fact that the end result is different in degree with the former result in horrific violence, and the latter "merely" resulting in loss of liberty and property.
Now, I don't want to single out the Jews; they're just the best example I could think of because both Jews and Muslims have a similar tendency to reactionary behavior when anything offends their cultural or religious sensibilities. Spencer is also correct in stating that many religions will not evolve in this direction, and that is indeed because they have doctrinal and/or cultural barriers against this. In the case of Christianity, it will actually be fundamentalists who will prevent this behavior because of their rigid adherence to orthodox Christian teachings and a more systematic, less easily short circuited general theology than that possessed by the political animals for whom "Christian" is merely an adjective that modifies their "conservative noun." This is to say nothing of left-wing activists (who have been far more likely to commit domestic terrorism) who may or may not wrap their molotov cocktails in the KJV.
As with all things pertaining to Sociology, we cannot conduct reproducible experiments to find out the exact truth here, but if there is an evolution toward violence, one factor will be the nature of the state. Modern Western governments are literally totalitarian in that they have assumed total jurisdiction for themselves in all facets of society. There is literally nothing so special that the state cannot regulate it even a little. The natural result of this evolution is that the various religious and ethnic groups will be drawn into conflict more often because the state will be the one that determines what is and isn't permissible. The obvious way to prevent this is to return to the traditional spheres of authority for different civil institutions, but no one is seriously putting that up for debate where it counts.
**UPDATE**: Woo! Instalanche!
Ironically, Reynolds is actually not far off as this is already happening, except in a form that is more "civilized" in the West. Many leading Jewish groups side (or in some cases sided) with censors and "human rights commissions" to outlaw expressions of anti-semitism, crush commentary about the Holocaust that ranges from the asinine (saying it never happened) to questioning the numbers alleged to have been killed.
It may be hard for some to see a parallel between wild-eyed zealots in the Middle East and Pakistan dancing, firing AK-47s into the area and otherwise creating a ruckus to demand censorship, and Jewish organizations lobbying to suppress speech that they don't like through "democratic means," but it is there. It's a case of people being so concerned by the outward appearance that they utterly ignore the fact that the end result is different in degree with the former result in horrific violence, and the latter "merely" resulting in loss of liberty and property.
Now, I don't want to single out the Jews; they're just the best example I could think of because both Jews and Muslims have a similar tendency to reactionary behavior when anything offends their cultural or religious sensibilities. Spencer is also correct in stating that many religions will not evolve in this direction, and that is indeed because they have doctrinal and/or cultural barriers against this. In the case of Christianity, it will actually be fundamentalists who will prevent this behavior because of their rigid adherence to orthodox Christian teachings and a more systematic, less easily short circuited general theology than that possessed by the political animals for whom "Christian" is merely an adjective that modifies their "conservative noun." This is to say nothing of left-wing activists (who have been far more likely to commit domestic terrorism) who may or may not wrap their molotov cocktails in the KJV.
As with all things pertaining to Sociology, we cannot conduct reproducible experiments to find out the exact truth here, but if there is an evolution toward violence, one factor will be the nature of the state. Modern Western governments are literally totalitarian in that they have assumed total jurisdiction for themselves in all facets of society. There is literally nothing so special that the state cannot regulate it even a little. The natural result of this evolution is that the various religious and ethnic groups will be drawn into conflict more often because the state will be the one that determines what is and isn't permissible. The obvious way to prevent this is to return to the traditional spheres of authority for different civil institutions, but no one is seriously putting that up for debate where it counts.
**UPDATE**: Woo! Instalanche!
I think Jews are perceived as being more "reactionary" than Christians not because of Jewish doctrine, but because that for whatever reason, Jews are far more subjected to conspiracy theories, scapegoating, and general nasty behavior.
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a classic example. This forgery, taught in many Arab/Islamic classrooms as factual, puts Jews in the awkward position of continuously having to defend themselves against ridiculous claims.
Fortunately, Jews are traditionally non-violent... although they may debate you to death :)
Since Christianity includes Jewish scripture in its scripture, I don't think that applies either. For whatever reason, though, there are a lot of Jews who are strongly in favor of having the government censor speech that they find to be hateful. This is an ironic reaction, since getting anti-Jewish speech shutdown is precisely the sort of thing that anti-semites can say "see, see they do control the government."
In all seriousness, I think using the government as a proxy to shut down speech you don't like is a difference in degree, not in general values, when it comes to censorship and freedom.
"In the case of Christianity, it will actually be fundamentalists who will prevent this behavior because of their rigid adherence to orthodox Christian teachings..."
Fundamentalists are "orthodox Christian"? Are you smuggling in some kind of ironic joke that Christians tell about Protestants?
"...Jews are traditionally non-violent..."
That's -- at most -- only a post-diaspora "tradition."
I used lowercase "orthodox" for a reason. Orthodox is the denomination, orthodox is the property of being orthodox in the generic meaning of the word.
Mike
You might have a look at this example as a starter: http://bnaibrith.ca/franksblog/?p=27
Cheers
JMH
Yeah, I'm familiar with their new stance on the issue, which is why I put "or sided" in the post. It also doesn't seem like the B'Nai Brith have done a complete reversal either, which is part of the point.
The Inquisiton was a purely Catholic phenomen that hasn't happened before or since. Since you mentioned Orthodoxy, those guys have never had religious police at any time I know of.
Christianity is getting weaker in America, not stronger. Combined with the fact that there is no cognate within Christianity to Islamic supremacy and you have a religion that, in the long term, is on its way out (in the US).
In addition to this I predict Christianity and other peaceful religions will continue to get lumped with Islam by thoughtless politicians/talking heads going out of their way to justify a religion followed by people who want to kill them.
This is why people like Chris Hedges can write best sellers warning about a Christian takeover when it is the Muslims who are agitating for supremacy and see Islamic domination as desirable. Yet Hedges' life is not threatened by any devotee of Christ.
In short, Instapundit, the Christian-backed religious violence will fail to materialize.
I think the sort of "Christian violence" we will see, if any, will use Christianity as a smokescreen for existing extremist ideologies such as the various racial nationalist groups. That said, if India is any indication, I think we may also see a reaction from Hindu groups to Islamic actions if Islam ever gets too powerful in parts of the United States. Hinduism, as practiced in India, is often not the "peaceful religion" its proponents make it out to be, and can in fact be quite violent to religious minorities in India.
In debate terms, Glenn would win. In the real world, Robert is right.
The problem is too many secularists want to lump all religion together. Glenn says he fears doctrinal shift. Well, I say, I have far more to fear from secularists who don't require as much doctrinal shift or torturous rationales to warp doctrines to go where Glenn fears the religious will go.
Its actually a fairly short step from 'survival of the fittest' and 'there is no God' to 'crush your enemies, rejoice in the lamentations of their women, drive them before you...'. After all, Conan was definitely fit.
If you think that fear is silly, then how much more so is the fear that the followers of the Prince of Peace will suddenly go on a rampage?
True, but most religions aren't revealed religions. They're a combination of mythology, culture, ideas, values, etc. The Abrahamic religions, unlike secularism and most other religions, can claim to be direct revelation by God to humanity. In the case of Islam, this works against us, but in the case of Judaism and Christianity, it adds an ominous tone to doctrinal shift; to paraphrase several passages from the Bible: whoever adds or removes from The Book shall have his name blotted out from the Book of Life.
It's not in the least bit unrealistic to expect Hindus to behave this way, though, as Hindus have violently suppressed Christianity and other religions in India for years. In several Indian states, the state was complicit in the actions.
Good point, Code Monkey.
I enjoyed the post. Let me see if I can deal with more than the first two para..
I've heard parliamentary systems are more unstable than the US system which tends to drive people to the center. Also, Germany has issues with Naziism which leads to instability. To counter this shakiness problem, these nations respond by limiting the free speech to some degree.
I'm pretty much an absolutist when it comes to Free Speech, but actual anarchy might make me change my mind. As we say 'the Constitution is not a suicide pact'.
I appreciate your contention that fundamentalists have a stored and reloadable base operating code that protects them to a great degree from viral infestation. I find the image of 'left-wing activists wrapping molotov cocktails in the KJV' to be both memorable and implausible. Moonbats hate Christians, and the Bible with a fine and pure loathing that Smeagol might admire. Would they try to warp things....mmmm....if Christianity continues to gain strength they might try to hijack it, but I think the operative word is 'try' and that hate is sooooooo much of a rush that most will give up or not even try.
'Traditional spheres of authority'; federalism; limited government; all men are sinners and not to be trusted with unaccountable power....yeah, this sounds good. I'm a little curious as to what you mean by 'Tsoa'. I think this is a bit more than simply federalism you're talking about.
I don't agree with Reynolds or Spencer more than about 50/50, give it or take. My point here was that if any group is likely to use Christianity as an excuse to commit terrorism, it'll be the "religious left" as the political left in general is the ideological wellspring of most of our native terrorist threats and incidents. In fact, I wrote that specifically to remind others that it'd probably be the left that would do it, and that they would use the bible (here the KJV) to excuse their political acts (the molotov cocktail at the usual targets).
The "spheres of authority" is an idea that sort of springs from both Calvinism and Catholicism. It's the idea that government is only one of several civil institutions ordained by God, and that the state has no natural right to the God-ordained authority possessed by these equal-but-different institutions: the family, the church and sometimes employers to some extent.
As an adherent of this general philosophy, I abhor the idea of state-licensed marriage as it is not the state's right to define marriage. The church, the mosque, etc. have that right except where they use force against an unwilling participant. That is because the only institution that has the natural, lawful authority to use force to carry out its mandates is the state. When I say force, I'm not talking about generic force, but rather the ability to render serious harm to life, liberty and property. I think you can see how this philosophy makes some of his conservative Christians unpopular with mainstream political conservatives, and how some of us end up with a decidedly more libertarian lean.
The primary reason that God instituted the spheres of authority was that no one institution can carry out all of the needs for life on Earth. The state actually needs the church and family because it is, by nature, incapable of nurturing the next generation or holding people accountable for their actions in ways that matter without resorting to the same courts used for serious crimes. The totalitarian state is thus an abomination, which is why I singled it out in the end as possibly the one thing, above all else, that would make such conflicts as Reynolds and Spencer argue about become inevitable. If conservative Christians do end up resorting to some political violence, in such a society, it will be to preserve their basic rights and traditions, not to force their way of life on others because the total-state will have made living according to their own ways nigh impossible.
I think I might be able to learn something if I drop by here occasionally. Thanks.