Today's media offerings include several examples in which a religion's teachings get into the wrong hands and become distorted into weapons to be employed against other religiions.
First, the case of five young American Muslims whose religious fervor seems to have lured them into a quest to become terrorists. I suppose we'll see more of this kind of thing. It's only natural when a religion defines itself, as Islamic extremism seems to these days, in terms of its opposition to another religion.
(A Side Thought: Maybe we should make sense of fervent proselytism in a different way. I've always considered that religions may have more or less similar life cycles as corporations and forests do. If so, perhaps they all go through a stage of adolescent hyperenthusiasm that makes their adherents want to go out and smack other people around until they adhere, too. Islam arose in the 7th century AD by our calendar, as I recall. So about now, it's roughly 1400 years old - the age at which Christianity was wrapping up its Crusade stage, [by some strange coincidence Crusaders also believed it was cool, and likely salvational, to die for their religion]. The Islamic version of the Spanish Inquisition is still about 50 years off, so there may be worse to come.)
Then, I read about Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat who, according to reliable reports, believes he can't support current efforts at health reform if they don't include strong anti-abortion language. It's unclear for now whether he wants language that would go so far over the top as to forbid people from using their own money for them. Nelson is quoted as saying that "there isn't any real way to move away from your principle on abortion." This is the Senator wishing to impose the dictates of his religion on those whose beliefs are different.
(Another Aside: It's said Nelson has a conservative electorate at home that would boot him out if he acted otherwise. So, the Senator is the tip of an iceberg of fervent advocates of forced conversion, which only reinforces my point. Those with rigid religious agendas ought to keep out of politics, where their duty (notwithstanding the aberrant example of George W. Bush) is to represent all those who elected them, and to reach compromises to that end.
Finally, the Courthouse in Leesburg, Virginia: This is just the latest of those skirmishes over religious displays on public property. Here, local authorities initially decided not to allow any religious displays; some citizens protested; the resulting decision is to allow space for as many as ten different displays by different groups.
(The Last Aside: It's not clear to me whether all those will have to be Christian, or Christmas-related. After all, there's Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah, too. Might Muslims be able to put up something even if there's nothing on their calendar right now? What kind of status do Wiccans get? What would an atheist display consist of? Will this multiple display turn out to be a garish eyesore, or just an eyesore? Interesting questions all, but my admittedly secular view is that government space shouldn't be used for any religious displays; crêches and the like can, and should, appear on church lawns. I personally would find a tree without religious imagery acceptable at a courthouse, because after all, the old pre-Christian decorated tree has been adopted by almost all Americans as a symbol of the onset of winter and/or the start of a new year; it's no longer totally, or even principally, religious in meaning. But I understand others may not see it that way so fine, let's omit it.)
The Leesburg Courthouse Affair is just plain silly, but the first two reports have serious consequences. Senator Nelson may see his own case as very different from that of the Muslim students, yet fundamentally they are similar and equally flawed. But let's keep in mind that in most religions, the vast majority of believers do not have an inflict-it-on-others mentality. and that fact, plus the trend toward increasing ecumenism, are sources of hope.
Comments