I regretted a bit that Emon restricted himself throughout to the language of religion and law, because I could see in some passages (I thought) a deeper argument to be made about civilization(s) and ethnocentricity.

He refers back, of course, but far too briefly for those of us who are mostly ignorant of the period, to the brilliance of mediaeval Muslim civilization, its advanced enlightenment, in the very terms that Europeans now understand that term.

He also notes that it was C19 colonialism, with its imposition of "secular" (read: European) legal systems throughout the Near/Middle East, that halted progressively more enlightened thinking among students of Islamic law. As he puts it, "the economic opportunities for religious experts declined rapidly. As the need for sharia experts diminished, the best and the brightest looked elsewhere."

Now, I had never thought of that before, although it makes good sense to me.

And as I was thinking of what Islamic tradition may have lost when religio-cultural theory was sidelined, left to the most marginalized or the most bitter or the most trapped, I started thinking also of what we in the West have lost, cutting away some of our own heritage (the brilliance of the [Muslim] Middle Ages, which we stupidly think of as the Dark Ages) in order to make our history sound entirely European.

Now, I am no expert on these things. I have heard about, eg, the lost world of al-Andalus, but I can't teach it or argue it to anyone.

But I do believe that, if religious or more broadly cultural traditions almost anywhere on earth these days are manifest in brutal ways, that is because they have been brutalized -- they are a product of a sick dance to the death that we keep performing with other cultures, sucking their life out of them while never realizing how much it could enrich our own.

quote:

---

But I do believe that, if religious or more broadly cultural traditions almost anywhere on earth these days are manifest in brutal ways, that is because they have been brutalized

---

I've found the neo-Sufi anarchist Hakim Bey an interesting commentator on some of these issues. Highly unorthodox and frequently problematic but...

quote:

---

But I do believe that, if religious or more broadly cultural traditions almost anywhere on earth these days are manifest in brutal ways, that is because they have been brutalized -- they are a product of a sick dance to the death that we keep performing with other cultures, sucking their life out of them while never realizing how much it could enrich our own.

---

First, you say that you this brutalization of religious traditions could be occuring "almost anywhere on earth". And later you say that this is a result of what "we"(by which I assume you mean the west) are doing to other cultures. On this point, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's silly to analyze cultural trends as emerging in a self-contained vaccuum. However:

Do you have the same opinion of brutalizations of religious traditions that occur within the west itself? For example, do you think the Inquisition came about because Christendom itself was somehow being brutalized by outside forces? And if some white, middle-class Christians get their kicks by bombing abortion clinics and villifying homosexuals, is this to be understood as resulting from some great wrong commited against white, middle-class Christians?

EDIT: Not plagarizing Magoo, seems to be a cross-post(if I understood him correctly).

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

Just out of curiousity, who brutalized the Catholic Church, and during what period in time were they the recipients, rather than the source, of brutality?

---

quote:

---

I started thinking also of what we in the West have lost, cutting away some of our own heritage (the brilliance of the [Muslim] Middle Ages, which we stupidly think of as the Dark Ages) in order to make our history sound entirely European.

---

Mr M and votd, I was hoping to think about traditions other than ours, traditions in which the philosophical underpinnings of what we call progress either halted or were subsumed into Western progress; but you are right: we have produced brutalized forms of our own culture, and they often manifest themselves in literalist religions.

quote:

---

Just out of curiousity, who brutalized the Catholic Church, and during what period in time were they the recipients, rather than the source, of brutality?

---

Romans throwing Christians to the lions in the first century comes to mind!

But just thinking about this 21st and the last centuries, consider the following:

Fides News Agency keeps track of "Martyrology of the 21st Century," being a list of priests, nuns, seminarians, laypeople killed in the line of work as volunteers working for the Church as missionaries or whilst working with communities in extreme poverty and degraded social conditions.

33 killed in 2001:
http://www.fides.org/eng/martirologio/martiri_2001.html

25 killed in 2002:
http://www.fides.org/eng/martirologio/martiri_2002.html

35 killed in 2003:
http://www.fides.org/eng/martirologio/martiri_2003.html

15 killed in 2004:
http://www.fides.org/eng/martirologio/martiri_2004.html

This list does not include cases where the Catholic community has been persecuted on a large scale by the current political régime and the ordinary lay Catholics suffer a lack of religious freedom and/or are discriminated against.

20th Century:
Bibliography of some persecutions of Catholics at:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/history/vlapomar/persecut/homepage1.htm

quote:

---

"The aim of this site is to focus on the major persecutions of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century, a period during which, according to some, there have been more martyrs than in all the previous nineteen centuries of the Christian era combined. In fact, on December 4, 2000, the papal committee which was in charge of the commemoration of the martyrs of the twentieth century, presented Pope John Paul II with eight volumes cataloging at least 13,400 martyrs for the century, seventy percent of whom came from Europe and the nations of the former Soviet Empire. ... While this site does not exclude other denominations whose origns are Christian, its main focus will be the Roman Catholic Church."

---

That site gives extensive bibliographies of books and articles dealing with the persecution of Catholics under the following régimes:

-- Mexican Revolution
-- Soviet Union
-- Spanish Civil War (ugly war, personally I think there were no "good guys" in that one)
-- Nazi Third Reich
-- Communist China

Also in the 20th century: The Armenian Genocide:
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/
Armenians are mostly Christians, a mixture of Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic. Hitler took the Armenian Genocide as a model for his "new and improved" version of mass-killing.

Cuba: still lacking in religious freedom:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=37631

quote:

---

He also notes that it was C19 colonialism, with its imposition of "secular" (read: European) legal systems throughout the Near/Middle East, that halted progressively more enlightened thinking among students of Islamic law. As he puts it, "the economic opportunities for religious experts declined rapidly. As the need for sharia experts diminished, the best and the brightest looked elsewhere."

---

My home library on Islam is quite limited, but I do have a fascinating book called Islam at the Crossroads originally published in 1934. The author, Muhammad Asad, was a convert to Islam.

Asad was born Leopold Weiss, in Lvov Poland, in 1900. He was the grandson of an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, but himself was not particularly religious until he converted to Islam in his youth. He moved to Pakistan and was a Pakistani representative to the UN for some time. He died in Lisbon in 1992.

Islam at the Crossroads made almost the same point that Skadl was quoting.

Asad saw a lot of Muslims in the early 20th century having dropped all of their religion and culture except for the name and slavishly following the worst of Western excesses: not just adopting western dress, but also adopting hyper-rationalism or even atheism in philosophy, lack of morality (especially sexual morality)---this was shortly after the "Roaring Twenties"---and an over-reliance on Technology as Saviour.

In other words, he saw the same phenomenon in the 1920s and 1930s that Emon, the Mop & Pail writer Skadl quotes, made: that European thought from the 19th century was degrading to a formerly flourishing Islamic culture.

If Muslims carried on like this, Asad said, they would be nothing more than a limp imitation of the worst aspects of the West.

Asad called for a return not just to Islam but to "full Sharia" of both Koran and Hadith. Islam is not just a label or a one-day-a-week religion, but a whole way of life and way of thinking. He recalled the high points of Islamic philosophy and creativity of the Middle Ages and called Muslims to be proud of their history and roots, and dive into it wholeheartedly and without reservation.

The Amazon listing for the book is at:

Enjoying and celebrating your own culture (ethnocentrism) not not *NECESSARILY* mean trashing other peoples' cultures.

e.g. Liking your own family does not mean you dislike other peoples' families.

G. K. Chesterton and Rudyard Kipling once got into an argument about patriotism vs. jingoism. Chesterton said to Kipling "You only like the British way of life because Britain has an Empire. That is jingoism. I am a patriot. I like Britain for herself. I don't care whether or not she has an Empire: I like the pub down the road and I enjoy chatting with my friends there and sharing a pint of beer with them and that is Britain to me."

On the up-side: Every snuffed-out candle leaves behind a whiff of sweet smoke to permeate the garments of wise men through the ensuing ages.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

On the one hand, I agree with you and Chesterton, to a point. I really like the pub down the road too.

By which I mean, seriously: I have spent my whole life immersed in "my own" culture, both my local/personal/family culture and the culture of the West -- I love it/them, and I am often proud of it/them. As it happens, the French, British, and German Enlightenments were the literary period I studied longest.

Wars were and unfortunately still are the essential part of human existence. While progressives would build bridges of cooperation between cultures and work towards self liberation and that of society, the power thirsty, full of fear and greed bullies would rage wars and aggression thus dividing cultures and nations while promoting slavery, because themselves are slaves of their own unconscious being. Religion is just another noble excuse for a conflict, no more and no less then others. It’s like some alcoholics would look for a cause for drinking, and always find plenty at any time of day.

Self slavery, which is the default state of the physical human being, therefore leads to conflicts. This is why in ALL ancient teachings the first demand at the beginning of the way to liberation was: "know thyself”. Religion is how you living, and not thinking or whom following or what you believing in. All religions essentially speak of the way to live the everyday life and be conscious of the internal and external processes, forces and influences so we won’t be a sheep dragged around by selfish shepherds or our own unconscious actions and re-actions (translated as neuro-linguistic patterns, where content is irrelevant because they are rather automated). There is no individual here as a whole, and while one part at some moment may want to be a good Catholic for instance, another wants to attack the infidels, etc. Therefore any religious enterprises are meaningless since they don't encourage the individual liberty, the wholistic, all level approach. They just want you to be a sheep, that follows the Pasteur, an authority who is following another authority and so on. Same old. Dormir, dormir...

Socialism was a reaction to this meaningless process, by trying to place an individual at the centre of the social scheme. A healthy community comprised from healthy individuals. But authorities, who never accomplished self-mastery, took over with their ambitions and power strive, and things became as automated as Church is. Ah, the good old story-archetype of sheep and the shepherd. Says Christ in one of the parrables: "... and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd". One of the interpretation could be-The Shepherd is Christ that is in every individual, the I AM, the ultimate self so to speak, the one flock is the unity, unified (wholistic) and therefore conscious individuals and the community of such.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]

quote:

---

At the same time, I've always been aware that the pub down the road is as cosy and well lit and well supplied as it is because things are happening ... elsewhere. A lot of elsewheres. And maybe to the detriment of the people local to those elsewheres.

---

Indeed, Skdadl, indeed!

That's where Distributism comes in. Those "elsewheres" ought to be local "elsewheres". The beer should be home-brewed or local brewed (and not Corporation-made horse-piss that passes for beer in most places). The building should be made sustainably and the power locally generated. The folks in the pub should be wearing clothing made locally (not by 12 year olds in Indonesia at slave wages). They should mostly be small farmers and small-business owners themselves (not wage-slave cogs-in-the-machine to other Corporations), who eat locally grown produce, not styrofoam tomatoes shipped from who-knows-where in February. etc. etc. We should not be living our lifestyles on the backs of other people.

Or as Chesterton said "A gentleman lives by the sweat of his own brow, not of someone else's."

Chesterton was one of the founders of Distributist thought. See the Wikipedia article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

which was written by some from the Yahoo Distributist group, of which I am a member. (Frankly, I ain't no economist, nor a historian either, so I can't contribute much to that group since I'm still learning about it myself. But most of what I've read on Distributism "vibrates right" with me.)

Ah, nonesuch! There is so more to life than power. There is truth, beauty, and love. And they are much, much, more fun!

venus_man, a few comments on your post.

quote:

---

In Europe at those times these sciences and arts were almost prohibited by church as barbaric and pagan.

---

Being a Catholic, I take umbrage at that. Furthermore, its just plain wrong. Urban legends, if you will.

First, the arts flourished in the middle ages in Europe. I point you to something like:

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHmedieval.html

which discusses illuminated manuscripts, painting, frescoes, sculpture, architecture, stained glass, tapestries, icons, etc. and to:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/~cyrus/ORB/orbmusic.htm

which discusses the development of music in the middle ages, from plainchant to polyphony.

Second, the sciences were also represented well. Natural philosophy (science) was a key subject at medieval universities, and St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas (both considered "Doctors" of the Church) wrote on scientific subjects.

Here are some quotes from St. Albert the Great:

quote:

---

“The aim of natural science is not simply to accept the statements of others, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature”

---

quote:

---

“Experiment is the only safe guide in such investigations”

---

Those aren't exactly the words of a Church who was supressing scientific investigations.

quote:

---

The crusades ran in the direct correlation with the church views of Arab world as being barbaric and not worthy of Jerusalem.

---

There are a lot of opinions as to the "real" movitves behind the crusades. A lot of knights with nothing to do, just looking for a fight? Desire for booty? The Pope wanting to wrest control of all of Christianity from the Byzantine Christians and the Patriarch of Constantinople?

There are five extant versions of the speech Pope Urban gave to call the first crusade. See:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

There is also a "Letter of Instruction" Pope Urban II sent to knights in Flanders. In this note, he gives the formal reason for the crusade:

quote:

---

"...a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted and laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient. More than this, blasphemous to say, it has even grasped in intolerabe servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified be His passion and resurrection. Grieving with pious concern at this calamity, we visited the regions of Gaul and devoted ourselves largely to urging the princes of the land and their subjects to free the churches of the East."

---

Yes, the language includes calling the Muslims infidels, barbarians, and "enemies of the Lord." (Par for the course: that is what the Muslims called the Christians.)

But note that the goal was to allow access for Christians to continue visiting their Holy places. It was not to convert Muslims to Christianity. It was not to kick all Muslims out of Jerusalem. And it was not to go into Muslim lands and win territory for the Church.

If you wish to argue that the Crusader knights as a lot were undisciplined, rowdy, selfish, etc. you will certainly get no argument from me. But it is interesting, in light of the modern problem of freedom of religion in such places as Saudi Arabia and the concept of dhimmitude (cf. http://www.dhimmitude.org ), to consider the official goal of the crusade.

How close (or how far) the Crusaders came to that goal is another discussion altogether.

And then you say a couple of things I don't understand.

quote:

---

Religion is how you living, and not thinking or whom following or what you believing in. All religions essentially speak of the way to live the everyday life and be conscious of the internal and external processes, forces and influences so we won’t be a sheep dragged around by selfish shepherds or our own unconscious actions and re-actions (translated as neuro-linguistic patterns, where content is irrelevant because they are rather automated). There is no individual here as a whole, and while one part at some moment may want to be a good Catholic for instance, another wants to attack the infidels, etc. Therefore any religious enterprises are meaningless since they don't encourage the individual liberty, the wholistic, all level approach. They just want you to be a sheep, that follows the Pasteur, an authority who is following another authority and so on. Same old. Dormir, dormir...

---

I think you're saying that a person always has mixed motives, and can always succumb to selfishness. But that in terms of religion, "the proof is in the pudding." Believe whatever you like---believe in the Tooth Fairy if you find her compelling---so long as whatever you believe allows you to wrestle with your darker impulses and inspires you to act with more kindness to others. But that the beliefs themselves---in the Tooth Fairy or in anything else you take for a God or gods---is in itself meaningless. In fact, all gods---the Tooth Fairy included---have bands of priests attached whose only motive is to exercise power and control over people, like a shepherd over sheep. So beware!

Am I reading you right?

If so, I'm with you up until the point about "they just want you to be sheep ... an authority who is following another authority and so on."

No one other than the leaders of cults (Solar Temple, Jonestown, etc.) wants sheep for followers. Most don't even want followers for themselves---they are on fire with love of the God or gods they worship and want to share the excitement. Leaving aside the cynical manipulators of cults, I would say that most Rabbis, Immams, Priests, etc. of whatever religion are quite sincere and quite decent people and you'd have to come up with a lot of data to prove otherwise.

quote:

---

Socialism was a reaction to this meaningless process, by trying to place an individual at the centre of the social scheme.

---

I disagree. Socialism is/was about the group rather than the individual being placed at the centre of the social scheme. Group-ownership of the means of production, rather than one individual owner, as in capitalism. The individual subsumes him/herself in the group---you are just a worker no more and no less important than any other worker. And social control is to be by the group--the proletariat, the people--rather than by any one individual leader.

Feeling longwinded today,

(and suffering in the spelling department--edited for spelling)

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: Fed ]

Regarding religion.
Well, what I was saying is that religion is not in the following or believing or relying on the priest or anybody. Sure, there are plenty of good people in every religion…however religious wars that were happening a thousand years ago are still here and it seems that they are even intensifying. So, then being a simply good person is not all. The difference between the holistic approach and usual is that in the case of first you observe the whole person. Emotional intelligence, nervous system, though patterns (that are usually constantly going on without us being aware of them), physical awareness, the distinction between an emotional and mental perceptions and reactions etc. This way you living religion, and not simply following it on a mental level, or emotional, or just because your parents did so (that is mechanically) by repeating dogmas delivered by the local priests, who off course can be pretty harmless people, they just repeat whatever they been told to. Sleepy life, indeed.

quote:

---

Ah, nonesuch! There is so more to life than power. There is truth, beauty, and love. And they are much, much, more fun!

---

The Eastern Empire, centred in Constantinople (now Istanbul), was also Christian (eventually so-called Orthodox Christian) until it was finally conquered by the Ottomans in the fifteenth century (1453).