*******Squaring the Circle of Our Rad Trad Catholic Girardian Conserberalism******* all 4 1 & 1 4 all
Sunday, August 26, 2007
You Can Call Me Al(lah)
From The American Thinker, Soeren Kern offers discernments regarding the origins of the image of deity worshiped by approximately one billion human beings world-wide (the other deity; the other billion) here.
This is informative and good enough as a response to the nutty Dutch bishop. HOWEVER, I wouldn't stretch it too much farther as a general critique of Islam, on the principle of "Do unto others . . ." To whit, I think our words for God (God, Deus) borrow names from European pagan dieties, and how many times have we had some fundamentalist tell us that Our Lady is a Babylonian goddess? (I've gotten that a lot.) Definitely refutable, sure, but in principle I wouldn't want to make too much of an issue of native ME religions, from the experience of being in a similar spot vis-a-vis European and Near Eastern paganism.
In the meantime, this seems as good a place as any to once again express my minority (?) viewpoint that we are not (contra Spencer and that school) in a battle with Islam but with a radical revolutionary ideology, much of it Europe-derived. I never saw, and still don't see, the relevance of textual comparisons of the primary religious texts in this struggle. For me it's like, what's that got to do with anything? (Suicide bombing's not in the Koran, but it is part of the "teaching" of early 20th century revolutionary nihilists.) {sorry to hijack the post topic, there.]
On related matters, interesting back and forth going on between Derbyshire and Spencer at Pajamas Media. With some qualifiers, I'd say I'm more with Derbyshire than Spencer on this one.
I kind of saw your response coming, Porthos, meaning, I had some qualms about posting this and gave some thought to how to address the concerns re: the image of the deity issue. That, IMO, is what the true depth issue, rather than the Spencer ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/ ) Derbyshire debate.
A fine piece of scholarship is Jon Levenson's The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son – The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (Yale, '93). Levenson explores the textual mutation of the names for God in OT scripture. Still extant there is 'EL' to whom children are sacrificed and who is apparently derived from Phoenician myth, and who in imitatio dei followers sacrifice their own children, since the deity did with his son, Baal (32). Again El is right there in Genesis 33,20, "El, God of Israel," and a murky relationship between El and the practice of Moloch sacrifice seems present. (Hence Girard's calling the Bible a "text in travail.")
Levenson argues that child sacrifice was never eradicated, but was transformed, from textual evidence -- for which he goes to great lengths and broad survey to supply (in the Notre Dame bookstore this summer, the book is obviously used in some OT course; so someone thinks it's a valid argument).
The point I'm trying to make is that it is the biblical spirit to make this transformation, and from the get-go in the so-called Hebrew Bible in progressive fashion through the prophets, until the NT explodes the image of a bloodthirsty deity in the vindication of God, the Father of Jesus Christ, in the cross and resurrection.
THIS is my point, and here, I think, I am at-one with Kern. His emphasis is in regard to a NON-transformation of the pagan elements of Allah, which in terms of Bailie's Christocentric anthropology or Girard's MT, would put this religion fairly smack dab in the realm of the sacred.
This isn't a judgment but an appraisal, or, as I said re: Kern, a "discernment", and an important one, again IMO. And I'm rather glad to be able to thematize it in these terms rather in the Spencer/Derbyshire ping pong match efforts, which don't seem to go anywhere.
Probably you will think that it doesn't with MT or CA either, but it seems more helpful to me for what that's worth!
Nice response. Very good and informative. (I did not know that about El.) And of course, I agree (about the transformative difference. Agreed also about the Derbyshire/Spencer match--though I strongly agree with Derbyshire in this sense: traditional and textual Islam is just not the point and will involve us in what will look like theological "hairsplitting" (rather than discernment proper).
(Again, the radical jihadists are not acting within the realm of traditional or foundational Islam but more like Pol Pot or late stage French Revolution types). Derbyshire is, of course, too glib about religion, but in a sense Spencer has it coming to him insofar as he takes his textual case against Islam too seriously--as if that mattered very much, and yet again, I really think it doesn't.
Plus, there's no point in insulting Islam as Islam. I'm not just saying that because I don't want to be blown up. I feel the same way about Mormonism. There is much to like and respect about Mormons. There is a place for critiqueing their doctrines, for sure, which are way off, but no need to go out of the way to insult them. And then the charity factor.
About the name of God, the facetious suggestion in the article (or was that somewhere else?) that everyone use "Yahweh" is actually the most logical (if we were going to properly eat humble pie in terms of pagan dieties/origins). But even then, look at the Jehova's Witnesses, who make such a big deal out of that, and are doctrinally way off the rails . . .
The way you lay out the discernment issue in your response here is good.
Meanwhile, the tide of "radical revolutionary ideology, much of it Europe-derived" seems to be gathering strength, picking off stragglers and innocents (read: scapegoats) when and as they find them.
And, those non-radical revolutionary Muslims find ways to placate their "more devout" brethren as in the following:
"I did not desert the force because I feared death, but I was not sure whether the fighting in tribal district Waziristan was Islamic or not." This is yet another indication of the fact that Al-Qaeda and other jihadists are not repudiated by all too many other Muslims. It also shows why the jihadist appeal to peaceful Muslims on the basis of Islamic purity meets with such success.
"Scores of Pak soldiers desert forces," from the Times of India ..." -- from none other than Spencer's Jihad Watch.
Even if one doesn't agree with his analysis, the reporting is important in its not denying what is occuring.
You guys, Athos & Porthos can combine for a great dialogue...I hope I do not take the wind out from your sails.
Athos, you wrote: “The point I'm trying to make is that it is the biblical spirit to make this transformation, and from the get-go in the so-called Hebrew Bible in progressive fashion through the prophets, until the NT explodes the image of a bloodthirsty deity in the vindication of God, the Father of Jesus Christ, in the cross and resurrection.”
Aramis here and I totally agree. We are dealing with a living, breathing Presence that is transforming the world -- you know… the liturgy, the Mass, the Eucharist, it’s the Real Thing, but unfortunately, not all are “there” yet.
This is where we start to get a little fuzzy, and I think you would agree, there are more than a few Christians out there that stand on nothing but a textual-ized, non-breathing version of the good news which allows them to continue justifying a practice of that good-old-time-religion as it has always been practiced. They may have Gospel teaching, but they get stuck in a world compartmentalized and are cut off from the full Presence.
These groups of Christians, holding fast to the religion of Christianity, I believe most of us are called to bring Christ to life, for them and in them – as MT teaches us, bring, through the ontological density of Christ in us, the Real Presence by serving and caring and witnessing Christ in all that we do.
Then there are those, including Muslims that really haven’t the foggiest notion of Life in the Real Presence and I would agree with Porthos that we do not want to get into a good-old-time-religious pissing match, as MT warns. Here, it seems to me, that we are dealing with 2 players: 1) those radical jihads who have as their models Pol Pot or late-stage-French Revolution types, and 2) the more traditional or foundational Islam.
I agree with Porthos on one hand, that we should not lump them all together in the same stew, however I am also not sure which of these groups is more dangerous?
Again, Aramis is spouting off here, as our forms of communications have opened up to the entire world, there is really no such thing as a strictly or closed Catholic-to-Catholic catechism. And as we need to be about shoring up, strengthening and deepening our catechetical instruction, with emphasis on the living and breathing Real Presence that stronger liturgies will shore up the Mass, Christ through the Holy Spirit will be radiating His Love and ontological density to others through the Eucharist. This will be contagious to many within the church as well as many outside onlookers or even those who simply find themselves nearby. The Emmaus Road Initiative will be a great vehicle and we can witness to positive mimesis.
However, I believe, to get caught up in negative mimesis is asking for trouble and playing with a time-bomb set to go off at the slightest twitch. Again, Girard has explained that in the current global community it won’t take much for the present crisis to explode.
Bro Aramis writes: "Here, it seems to me, that we are dealing with 2 players: 1) those radical jihads who have as their models Pol Pot or late-stage-French Revolution types, and 2) the more traditional or foundational Islam."
My original point was that Spencer's insistence that the root of the poisonous ideology is to be found in a meticulous exegesis of Koran passages and like analysis. My view in a nutshell: no, it's not. My point does not depend on there being two groups (rather than seven or eight or twenty) or being distinct in this particular way. (Incidentally, probably no one is consciously saying "I want to be like Pol Pot.") Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that the vast majority of Muslims were radicalized or had strong radical symphathies. I think my point would be the same. Where does that ideology come from? It doesn't come from the Koran (though radicals no doubt think it does, citing appropriate verses). It comes from revolutionary nihilistic resentment, or whatever we prefer to call it, mostly a European hybrid.
"I agree with Porthos on one hand, that we should not lump them all together in the same stew, however I am also not sure which of these groups is more dangerous?"
Well, I differ, Aramis. I think I am pretty darn sure which of the two groups are more dangerous. (Though I don't think there are "two" "groups" in this particular way.) It's the group that wants to blow up people and terrorize populations. I don't think that's a tough call.
Hummmm, so people aren't what they say they are? The radical jihads then are not followers of Islam so much as they are "...???..." that are caught up in revolutionary nihilistic resentment.
I guess one of my question is what is the "...???..."?
I do not want to compare, but could one say the same about the "Christians" who support (along with the non-Christians) the killing of 4000 babies a day in the US? They really aren't Christians - they are "...???..." caught up in some nihilistic hangover? Killing 4000 babies daily may not be the same as blowing up people and terrorize populations, but the results may be just as damaging, I don't know.
You end by saying, "I think I am pretty darn sure which of the two groups are more dangerous. (Though I don't think there are "two" "groups" in this particular way.) It's the group that wants to blow up people and terrorize populations. I don't think that's a tough call."
Well, where do they get their support and in the global mimetic whirlwind how is their resentment fostered and nurtured to the point of suicide bombers? Is their justification (if needed?) supported by religion? If so by any particular religions? By madness? By simple economics? Is it just a disease of humanity, like sh-t, it just happens?
I guess I need more info to grasp the separation of radical jihads from the religion that they claim.
I am also saying that there is a difference when we talk of the True Transcendent Christianity and the religion with the name of Christianity. So I am sure that I have set myself up for all kinds of wrath with this.
This is reinforcing all of my misgivings about comment box discourse--I never seem to get it right.
I'm really still trying to isolate a few distinct points, while you're getting into cultural issues where I am in broad agreement (Culture of Life and more).
Let me make an analogy. Let's say Naziism is raging back in the 1930s and we're critiqueing it. A Spencerian critique might go something like this: "We know that the Nazis appeal to Norse mythology and Teutonic legend, and certainly, when we examine these bloodthirsty texts, we can see where those Nazis got their ideas. And there's historical proof, too. Those Vikings! Hoo boy. Of course, there may be so-called moderate 'Aryan race' folks, but it really looks like the whole of Germany is buying into this. Which proves my point about the violence inherent in Nordic mythology and Teutonic legend--though some people will continue to stick their head in the sand and ignore it."
Do you see my point? Naziism does not establish the determinative hatefulness of Nordic myths and Teutonic legends, or even indicate very much usefully about them at all. Naziism is a modern fascist movement. I could repeat the analogy ad nauseum. Japanese State-Shintoism with the God Emperor establishes the inherent viciousness of Shinto mythology and the fierce Japanese emperor worship, right? No, it doesn't. Shinto was almost always a pretty low key animism, and the Emperor was reinstated (after being a shadow presence for probably more than a thousand years) in the mid 19th century, and Japanese modern fascist extrapolation patched together a few decades into the 20th century.
I'm not saying Spencer doesn't do some useful stuff--I'm just finding Koranic interpretation, as always, mostly irrelevant, though it is important for interfaith dialogue--another subject (I don't imagine Spencer thinks interfaith dialogue is even possible here). (Maybe he would be right, but the Holy Father has different ideas.)
And isn't Spencer on the Koran a bit like Richard Dawkins on the OT (much more informed, but in the same general vein). Dawkins is pretty sure the viciousness in the OT establishes the bloodthirstiness of religion, specifically monotheism--something I heard a lot in my liberal upbringing in a liberal milieu.
9 comments:
This is informative and good enough as a response to the nutty Dutch bishop. HOWEVER, I wouldn't stretch it too much farther as a general critique of Islam, on the principle of "Do unto others . . ." To whit, I think our words for God (God, Deus) borrow names from European pagan dieties, and how many times have we had some fundamentalist tell us that Our Lady is a Babylonian goddess? (I've gotten that a lot.) Definitely refutable, sure, but in principle I wouldn't want to make too much of an issue of native ME religions, from the experience of being in a similar spot vis-a-vis European and Near Eastern paganism.
In the meantime, this seems as good a place as any to once again express my minority (?) viewpoint that we are not (contra Spencer and that school) in a battle with Islam but with a radical revolutionary ideology, much of it Europe-derived. I never saw, and still don't see, the relevance of textual comparisons of the primary religious texts in this struggle. For me it's like, what's that got to do with anything? (Suicide bombing's not in the Koran, but it is part of the "teaching" of early 20th century revolutionary nihilists.) {sorry to hijack the post topic, there.]
On related matters, interesting back and forth going on between Derbyshire and Spencer at Pajamas Media. With some qualifiers, I'd say I'm more with Derbyshire than Spencer on this one.
I kind of saw your response coming, Porthos, meaning, I had some qualms about posting this and gave some thought to how to address the concerns re: the image of the deity issue. That, IMO, is what the true depth issue, rather than the Spencer ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/ ) Derbyshire debate.
A fine piece of scholarship is Jon Levenson's The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son – The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (Yale, '93). Levenson explores the textual mutation of the names for God in OT scripture. Still extant there is 'EL' to whom children are sacrificed and who is apparently derived from Phoenician myth, and who in imitatio dei followers sacrifice their own children, since the deity did with his son, Baal (32). Again El is right there in Genesis 33,20, "El, God of Israel," and a murky relationship between El and the practice of Moloch sacrifice seems present. (Hence Girard's calling the Bible a "text in travail.")
Levenson argues that child sacrifice was never eradicated, but was transformed, from textual evidence -- for which he goes to great lengths and broad survey to supply (in the Notre Dame bookstore this summer, the book is obviously used in some OT course; so someone thinks it's a valid argument).
The point I'm trying to make is that it is the biblical spirit to make this transformation, and from the get-go in the so-called Hebrew Bible in progressive fashion through the prophets, until the NT explodes the image of a bloodthirsty deity in the vindication of God, the Father of Jesus Christ, in the cross and resurrection.
THIS is my point, and here, I think, I am at-one with Kern. His emphasis is in regard to a NON-transformation of the pagan elements of Allah, which in terms of Bailie's Christocentric anthropology or Girard's MT, would put this religion fairly smack dab in the realm of the sacred.
This isn't a judgment but an appraisal, or, as I said re: Kern, a "discernment", and an important one, again IMO. And I'm rather glad to be able to thematize it in these terms rather in the Spencer/Derbyshire ping pong match efforts, which don't seem to go anywhere.
Probably you will think that it doesn't with MT or CA either, but it seems more helpful to me for what that's worth!
Nice response. Very good and informative. (I did not know that about El.) And of course, I agree (about the transformative difference. Agreed also about the Derbyshire/Spencer match--though I strongly agree with Derbyshire in this sense: traditional and textual Islam is just not the point and will involve us in what will look like theological "hairsplitting" (rather than discernment proper).
(Again, the radical jihadists are not acting within the realm of traditional or foundational Islam but more like Pol Pot or late stage French Revolution types). Derbyshire is, of course, too glib about religion, but in a sense Spencer has it coming to him insofar as he takes his textual case against Islam too seriously--as if that mattered very much, and yet again, I really think it doesn't.
Plus, there's no point in insulting Islam as Islam. I'm not just saying that because I don't want to be blown up. I feel the same way about Mormonism. There is much to like and respect about Mormons. There is a place for critiqueing their doctrines, for sure, which are way off, but no need to go out of the way to insult them. And then the charity factor.
About the name of God, the facetious suggestion in the article (or was that somewhere else?) that everyone use "Yahweh" is actually the most logical (if we were going to properly eat humble pie in terms of pagan dieties/origins). But even then, look at the Jehova's Witnesses, who make such a big deal out of that, and are doctrinally way off the rails . . .
The way you lay out the discernment issue in your response here is good.
Meanwhile, the tide of "radical revolutionary ideology, much of it Europe-derived" seems to be gathering strength, picking off stragglers and innocents (read: scapegoats) when and as they find them.
And, those non-radical revolutionary Muslims find ways to placate their "more devout" brethren as in the following:
"I did not desert the force because I feared death, but I was not sure whether the fighting in tribal district Waziristan was Islamic or not." This is yet another indication of the fact that Al-Qaeda and other jihadists are not repudiated by all too many other Muslims. It also shows why the jihadist appeal to peaceful Muslims on the basis of Islamic purity meets with such success.
"Scores of Pak soldiers desert forces," from the Times of India ..." -- from none other than Spencer's Jihad Watch.
Even if one doesn't agree with his analysis, the reporting is important in its not denying what is occuring.
Anonymous posts a pro-Spencer comment with links to lots of sites, several of them familiar to us.
Sorry, anon. We decided several months ago, in our evolving comment moderating protocol, not to publish anonymous comments.
You guys, Athos & Porthos can combine for a great dialogue...I hope I do not take the wind out from your sails.
Athos, you wrote: “The point I'm trying to make is that it is the biblical spirit to make this transformation, and from the get-go in the so-called Hebrew Bible in progressive fashion through the prophets, until the NT explodes the image of a bloodthirsty deity in the vindication of God, the Father of Jesus Christ, in the cross and resurrection.”
Aramis here and I totally agree. We are dealing with a living, breathing Presence that is transforming the world -- you know… the liturgy, the Mass, the Eucharist, it’s the Real Thing, but unfortunately, not all are “there” yet.
This is where we start to get a little fuzzy, and I think you would agree, there are more than a few Christians out there that stand on nothing but a textual-ized, non-breathing version of the good news which allows them to continue justifying a practice of that good-old-time-religion as it has always been practiced. They may have Gospel teaching, but they get stuck in a world compartmentalized and are cut off from the full Presence.
These groups of Christians, holding fast to the religion of Christianity, I believe most of us are called to bring Christ to life, for them and in them – as MT teaches us, bring, through the ontological density of Christ in us, the Real Presence by serving and caring and witnessing Christ in all that we do.
Then there are those, including Muslims that really haven’t the foggiest notion of Life in the Real Presence and I would agree with Porthos that we do not want to get into a good-old-time-religious pissing match, as MT warns. Here, it seems to me, that we are dealing with 2 players: 1) those radical jihads who have as their models Pol Pot or late-stage-French Revolution types, and 2) the more traditional or foundational Islam.
I agree with Porthos on one hand, that we should not lump them all together in the same stew, however I am also not sure which of these groups is more dangerous?
Again, Aramis is spouting off here, as our forms of communications have opened up to the entire world, there is really no such thing as a strictly or closed Catholic-to-Catholic catechism. And as we need to be about shoring up, strengthening and deepening our catechetical instruction, with emphasis on the living and breathing Real Presence that stronger liturgies will shore up the Mass, Christ through the Holy Spirit will be radiating His Love and ontological density to others through the Eucharist. This will be contagious to many within the church as well as many outside onlookers or even those who simply find themselves nearby. The Emmaus Road Initiative will be a great vehicle and we can witness to positive mimesis.
However, I believe, to get caught up in negative mimesis is asking for trouble and playing with a time-bomb set to go off at the slightest twitch. Again, Girard has explained that in the current global community it won’t take much for the present crisis to explode.
Bro Aramis writes:
"Here, it seems to me, that we are dealing with 2 players: 1) those radical jihads who have as their models Pol Pot or late-stage-French Revolution types, and 2) the more traditional or foundational Islam."
My original point was that Spencer's insistence that the root of the poisonous ideology is to be found in a meticulous exegesis of Koran passages and like analysis. My view in a nutshell: no, it's not. My point does not depend on there being two groups (rather than seven or eight or twenty) or being distinct in this particular way. (Incidentally, probably no one is consciously saying "I want to be like Pol Pot.") Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that the vast majority of Muslims were radicalized or had strong radical symphathies. I think my point would be the same. Where does that ideology come from? It doesn't come from the Koran (though radicals no doubt think it does, citing appropriate verses). It comes from revolutionary nihilistic resentment, or whatever we prefer to call it, mostly a European hybrid.
"I agree with Porthos on one hand, that we should not lump them all together in the same stew, however I am also not sure which of these groups is more dangerous?"
Well, I differ, Aramis. I think I am pretty darn sure which of the two groups are more dangerous. (Though I don't think there are "two" "groups" in this particular way.) It's the group that wants to blow up people and terrorize populations. I don't think that's a tough call.
Dear Porthos,
Hummmm, so people aren't what they say they are? The radical jihads then are not followers of Islam so much as they are "...???..." that are caught up in revolutionary nihilistic resentment.
I guess one of my question is what is the "...???..."?
I do not want to compare, but could one say the same about the "Christians" who support (along with the non-Christians) the killing of 4000 babies a day in the US? They really aren't Christians - they are "...???..." caught up in some nihilistic hangover? Killing 4000 babies daily may not be the same as blowing up people and terrorize populations, but the results may be just as damaging, I don't know.
You end by saying, "I think I am pretty darn sure which of the two groups are more dangerous. (Though I don't think there are "two" "groups" in this particular way.) It's the group that wants to blow up people and terrorize populations. I don't think that's a tough call."
Well, where do they get their support and in the global mimetic whirlwind how is their resentment fostered and nurtured to the point of suicide bombers? Is their justification (if needed?) supported by religion? If so by any particular religions? By madness? By simple economics? Is it just a disease of humanity, like sh-t, it just happens?
I guess I need more info to grasp the separation of radical jihads from the religion that they claim.
I am also saying that there is a difference when we talk of the True Transcendent Christianity and the religion with the name of Christianity. So I am sure that I have set myself up for all kinds of wrath with this.
This is reinforcing all of my misgivings about comment box discourse--I never seem to get it right.
I'm really still trying to isolate a few distinct points, while you're getting into cultural issues where I am in broad agreement (Culture of Life and more).
Let me make an analogy. Let's say Naziism is raging back in the 1930s and we're critiqueing it. A Spencerian critique might go something like this: "We know that the Nazis appeal to Norse mythology and Teutonic legend, and certainly, when we examine these bloodthirsty texts, we can see where those Nazis got their ideas. And there's historical proof, too. Those Vikings! Hoo boy. Of course, there may be so-called moderate 'Aryan race' folks, but it really looks like the whole of Germany is buying into this. Which proves my point about the violence inherent in Nordic mythology and Teutonic legend--though some people will continue to stick their head in the sand and ignore it."
Do you see my point? Naziism does not establish the determinative hatefulness of Nordic myths and Teutonic legends, or even indicate very much usefully about them at all. Naziism is a modern fascist movement. I could repeat the analogy ad nauseum. Japanese State-Shintoism with the God Emperor establishes the inherent viciousness of Shinto mythology and the fierce Japanese emperor worship, right? No, it doesn't. Shinto was almost always a pretty low key animism, and the Emperor was reinstated (after being a shadow presence for probably more than a thousand years) in the mid 19th century, and Japanese modern fascist extrapolation patched together a few decades into the 20th century.
I'm not saying Spencer doesn't do some useful stuff--I'm just finding Koranic interpretation, as always, mostly irrelevant, though it is important for interfaith dialogue--another subject (I don't imagine Spencer thinks interfaith dialogue is even possible here). (Maybe he would be right, but the Holy Father has different ideas.)
And isn't Spencer on the Koran a bit like Richard Dawkins on the OT (much more informed, but in the same general vein). Dawkins is pretty sure the viciousness in the OT establishes the bloodthirstiness of religion, specifically monotheism--something I heard a lot in my liberal upbringing in a liberal milieu.
Post a Comment