RELS-327 (Rein, Religion and Violence)

Interesting recent finds from around the web

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:50:43 GMT

Interesting links from around the web

All uploaded course documents

Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:42:39 GMT

Uploaded files for the course

Emails to the class (last 7 days)

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:31:43 GMT

Emails to the class (last 7 days)

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:48:55 GMT

Week 2: Juergensmeyer, through chapter 6 (Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Islam, and Aum Shinrikyo)

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:18:54 GMT

Focus papers

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:49:41 GMT

Kate Blair

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:54:48 GMT

Juergensmeyer concentrates on two specific subjects in this excerpt, the Sikh Indian conflict and the release of nerve gas in the subway tunnels of Tokyo by Aum Shinrikyo; however I would like to focus specifically on the latter. Even more specifically, I would like to focus on Takeshi Nakamura, a former member of Aum Shinrikyo, and his testimony regarding this religious group.

Takeshi Nakamura describes his attraction to Aum Shinrikyo as a search for something more in his life, as, he says, did many others who became members. As Nakamura explains it, he felt as though he was living a society without God; a society that used religion only in death or in mindless rituals and lacked a certain spirit or soul. In response to this emotion, he found Aum Shinrikyo and went through initial steps, and finally initiation to become a member.

The initiation Nakamura depicts in his recollections is reminiscent of a story of bad fraternity hazing. He and other initiates were forced to sit on the floor in a room with nothing but a robe and diaper on, meditating, and only eating, sleeping, or using the restroom when told. They later shared a drink with the movements leader, Shoko Asahara, that, unbeknownst to them, contained some sort of psychedelic drug that lulled them into a hallucinogenic state. In this state, they were frightened and comforted by members simultaneously to build loyalty and trust. Before this entire process, the initiates had to sign a release saying that they would neither reveal the events of the initiation, nor complain about them.

When asked why he wanted to join the movement and why he had so much faith in it Nakamura answered that he wanted to feel like a part of something important, and that much of his motivation was brought on by the charismatic Asahara. After the attack on the subway tunnels, Nakamura, along with the majority of other Aum Shinrikyo members did not believe that it had anything to do with their movement; in fact they believed that “Armageddon” had begun, and only Asahara would save them and Japan.

I found this section not only particularly interesting but particularly disturbing. Aum Shinrikyo does not seem to me to be a religion at all, and this section definitely challenges the definition of religion that has been defining our discussion and defining the themes of this book insofar. Every religion that has been spoken about so far has been, if not widely accepted, widely known and a mix of ideology and existing religion. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all widely accepted religions and although Juergensmeyer writes about radical factions that mix those religions with other ideologies. Sikhism is, although not widely known, accepted as a legitimate religion and the fight that he is speaking about with Sikhism, I feel, encompasses many other things. Aum Shinrikyo is in a category all its own.

I feel that Aum Shinrikyo, as Jeurgensmeyer describes it, is really just a cult of personality with religion as an excuse. I found no dire religious struggle in the reasoning of the Aum members and to be honest, very little remnants of real religion. The entire movement is centered on Shoko Ashara who simply pulled together chunks of different religions that he felt went together well and demanded that his followers worship him and only him.

I think that this section disturbed me more than the others because of the seeming randomness of the attack and the pure, to me, mental instability of the leader of this movement. I don’t consider this a religious attack in the sense that I consider the other attacks mentioned so far in the text religious acts. This was the action of a man who wanted control and used religion to get it, and this is evidenced by the movement’s failure the moment that Asahara is out of the picture. If it were truly a religious ideological and motivated movement, then it would have gone on after him. This desire for control by Asahara and his manipulation of thousands of people is also evidenced by the rules of the religion; ignorance of the outside world, loyalty only to him and Aum Shinrikyo and the utmost trust till death and beyond, of the “master”. To be honest, the description of Asahara in this text reminds me of Hitler; a charismatic man who desires power discovers and/or creates an ideology, gathers followers, and generates fear to consolidate power. I found this section particularly perplexing and out of place in the text, and feel that the author could have tied it into the topic more effectively.

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:10:00 GMT

(download original)

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:55:03 GMT

Ted Hooven

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:56:03 GMT

Does Christianity Sanction Violence?

The element that I found most interesting from this weeks readings is the controversy over whether in fact Christianity sanctions violence or not. The text offers several examples of Jesus selfless love of others but on the contrary it also offers symbols of his violent side. Jesus was quoted in Mt. 10:34 as saying “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have come not to bring peace but a sword”. But he is also quoted in the same book as saying “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt. 5:44). Jurgensmeyer does a very effective job in this segment of the book not showing his opinion on the idea. He presents the material and allows the reader to form his own, uninfluenced belief. This is a very effective and impressive style of writing especially in these days with people constantly telling others what and how to think.

If in fact Christianity does sanction violence then I have basically been told a lie my entire life. I was always taught to believe that Christianity was an entirely peaceful religion where we pray for our enemies and love them as we would our family. I was educated that violence is okay when used only in just war. But in thinking back, war contradicts everything God said when he said “pray for our enemies”. If in fact Jesus did say he comes not with peace but with a sword then in going by the text Christianity does sanction violence.

The belief that violence is okay when only used in a just war applies to many religions. But where it becomes blurry for outsiders is when we look at what constitutes a just war. For the followers of Islam the terror that occurred on 9/11 is in fact necessary violence because in their minds it was a just war. To followers of Christianity that idea may seem outrageous but to the followers of Islam the attacks may make perfect sense. When it comes down to whether or not Christianity does sanction violence I believe it is one persons opinion versus another. We could argue from the text of the bible for days but in the end what we believe will stand strong.

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:11:40 GMT

(download original)

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:01:13 GMT

Lindsey Kunkel

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:01:52 GMT

In today's reading I have found that there is a repeated contradiction, it seems, within the Sikhs and their explanation for violence. On page 96 it says how, "In Sikh history…young men go away in battle and do not return. They are out martyrs." Also, Bhindranwale who had been monitoring all of this for years said that, "for a Sikh it is a great sin to keep weapons and kill anyone." He also justified an occasional violent act by saying, "it is an even greater sin to have weapons and not to seek justice." This all does not tie together with the "deeply rooted" religion behind the Sikhs. Even the Bhagavad Gita justifies violent acts by saying, "he who slays, slays not; he who is slain, is not slain." I guess one could say that if the religious text supports these acts then why do militant movers and shakers in the movement need to constantly justify their violent actions.

Sohan Singh one of the main leaders in the movement said, "not killing for killing's sake." I think this is a excellent quote because I think it summarizes the idea behind not just the Sikhs violent acts but possibly all the religious regimes. As the title of the book, "in the mind of God," puts it, it is apparent that the mind sets and actions can always be justified by the religion itself, which is the very same thing that contradicts it. How can this be? How can a religion be fundamentally peaceful and violent (vengeful) at the same time? And if this question is justified then why is terrorism so shocking?

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:11:16 GMT

(download original)

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:03:49 GMT

Lauren Schaeffer

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:04:01 GMT

In the section about Sikhism, one thing I found significant was the difference in justification for violence between Sikhs, and wondered if those differences were based on proximity to actual danger. Mann is described as having an upper-middle class house and happy family. He opposes the Indian government and thinks it is “bent upon committing the genocide of the Sikhs.” Morally, he supports the use of violence, but that is not the deciding factor for him. Instead, he says violence was counterproductive because it gave the government a reason to get rid of his movement, and the deciding factor for when violence should be used is strategy. On the other hand, Harjap Singh lived in a village where an entire generation was killed, including his brother. He supports violence morally as well, but does not have a specific purpose or strategy in mind for it. His justification for the killings is that young Sikhs have died in battle historically. Juergensmeyer goes on to suggest that warfare is part of Sikhism because not only is it historically present, but in its iconography as well. Also, Sikhs have historically been violent due to oppression and fear of losing identity or control. Since both Mann and Harjap would probably agree that defense of the community is a justification for violence, it seems like Juergensmeyer is trying to find similarities between them. At the same time, it seems like there are two completely different things going on, which Juergensmeyer’s interviews suggest. On the one hand, Mann is looking at violence from a political perspective. The survival of his group takes precedence over everything; it seems like ultimately actions are being taken as if in personal self defense. Courses of action are then evaluated based on the worldly political scene. Yet for Harjap, the actual survival of his group does not seem to matter. It seems to me like he is acting (or supporting actions) out of a feeling of duty to his group. These actions are based on tradition, and ultimately the continued existence or annihilation of Harjap’s group is all part of a larger cosmic war that does not have much to do with politics.

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:10:49 GMT

(download original)

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:05:25 GMT

Tori Wynne

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:05:55 GMT

Simranjit Singh Mann and India's Assassinations

I think that the way that this particular section is a very clear example of Juergensmeyer's objective of gaining a deeper understanding of what feelings (no matter how extraordinary they seem) were really behind the unbelievable actions.

Mann referred to the executions of Indira Ghandi and Chief Minister Beant Singh as "acts of punishement" comparable to people's attempts at killing Hitler. And he further deemed the chief minister's death "an act of punishment." The actions were supposed to demonstrate the power that the "national ethnic minority" Sikhs were capable of asserting on the Indian government. However, Mann admitted that he did not actually expect the assassination to make any kind of far-reaching changes. When it comes to such drastic actions, what can only be considered a symbolic victory seems rather futile. A demonstration that "the struggle will continue" and living with the constant possibility of being jailed does not strike me as particularly assertive or "potent" as Mann regarded the movement. Furthermore, the suffering that Mann shared openly with Juergensmeyer seemed to be an attempt at gaining compassion and perhaps a deeper understanding of their disdain for the Indian government's behavior…Behavior that was apparently a very typical response to Sikh militancy. If this was such a well known order of events, how is being brutally tortured and being kept in years of solitary confinement "protecting the Sikh community from secular influences"? I would be more inclined to think that it worsened the situation by making such violent waves in order to simply "punish." The seduction and instant excitement of the Sikh movement can (somewhat) understandably be viewed as potentially appealing. And the idea of being at war against the Indian government, not India itself is a rather romantic notion that leads followers to believe that their fight is not against the innocent. Which solidifies Mann's watery proclamation that his justification of violence was not "a moral decision" but a strategic one." And, after all, Mann would have preferred a "peaceful solution," but it would seem that strategy just would not permit such a moral notion.

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:11:38 GMT

(download original)

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:14:39 GMT

Week 3: Juergensmeyer, entire (second part: interpretation and analysis)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:29:59 GMT

Focus papers

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:30:42 GMT

Alina Bishop

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:30:50 GMT

In the final pages of his book, Juergensmeyer discusses the various possible outcomes that may occur with religious terrorism as a component of the cosmic war. The first possible outcome he discusses is that of “destroying violence.” Here, he states that there are two ultimate circumstances – either the terrorists have “literally been killed off” or have been controlled by force, and includes such an example of the United States’ response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Although the US response was not entirely successful, it is also possible to pursue various attacks such as on the social and economic statuses of a terrorist group. In addition, in some instances, a “war-against-terrorism strategy” can result in danger in that it evokes a representation of a war in the world between religious and secular forces, and further attacks may take place. Juergensmeyer also discusses the possibility for destruction of violence to be completed by the terrorist groups themselves, which sometimes “self-destruct” and become too weak to defend their cause.

A second possibility which Juergensmeyer introduces is “terrifying terrorists.” In this case, a different approach is taken in that instead of killing off the “religious activists,” they are threatened with possible imprisonment or violent actions of revenge, which ultimately scare them enough to keep them from continuing pursuing their causes. However, it does not appear that such action would have positive results against larger terrorist groups, as they would have the abilities to continue to fight back and may even be encouraged to do so. Additionally, in rarer cases, the groups may even scare themselves and quell their actions – they realize the extent of harm that they are capable of and it causes them to back off.

The third scenario is that of when “violence wins.” In this instance, terrorism “wins” because its violent actions are used as leverage in political negotiations to ensure that the intended causes of the actions are, in fact, met. This is the ultimate outcome of desire for every religious activist. However, it does have some difficulties that prevent it from always working.

The fourth possible scenario is “separating religion from politics,” in which religion is taken entirely out of the political scene and attempted to be set back to the moral and metaphysical levels. However, not too many religious activists would willingly accept such a proposition, and it is not entirely likely to occur. Furthermore, some even believe that religion in politics assuages it towards a more moralistic level.

The fifth and final scenario which Juergensmeyer offers is that of “healing politics with religion.” When authorities of the government appear to have a moral integrity and hold morality at value, the religious activists are more likely to be willing to participate in a solution of compromise. To this, there are also opposing cases in which the government disregards any moral values and takes actions such as violent pursuits against terrorism; however, in doing so, the government is confirming the religious activists’ thoughts – that politics lack morality and are corrupt.

After reading Juergensmeyer’s predictions of the various scenarios which may result as a response to the conflicts between religious activists and governments/society, I am not entirely sure which scenario is most likely to happen. At hand, the current approach to religious terrorism seems to be the attempt to “destroy violence” and actively pursue religious activists to fight against them in attempt to destroy and eliminate. However, seeing as this has been the United States’ response to the 9/11 terrorism and the issue at large has still not seen much resolvement, I am not sure that this is the most effective motive. Rather, the instances in which religion and politics are able to work together may be a more effective solution, although they may take more time to find a just solution. It makes the most sense for the government to do what the religious activists seek from them, but not so much in a way that the government and society as a whole is compensated and diminished. The religious activists groups should not be appeased so much that they seem to gain the upper hand, but they should have their demands/requests at least considered by the government (in certain situations, not necessarily all demands) so that it appears the government is willing to cooperate and help them pursue and achieve their goals.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:31:15 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:32:32 GMT

Kate Blair

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:32:51 GMT

In this reading Juergensmeyer talks about a variety of ideas ranging from religious violence in relation to militant mindsets, to religious violence as a response to secularism. I would like to discuss, however, his several page discourse about men and religious violence. I found this section particularly interesting and slightly out of place, but true nonetheless.
In the section about men and religious violence, the author discusses why it seems to be primarily men that perpetrate violent acts. He asserts that it is more in the nature of men to become easily offended and feel that their identities or characters are under attack. He says that men will more often feel as though the government has done something to wrong them or that their way of life is being degraded. He also puts the idea out there that men feel as though it is their responsibility to defend that way of life, if need be through violence.

However, Juergensmeyer then, by some odd connection, goes into a discourse about the tendency of men who are attracted to religious violence to be vehemently anti-gay and sexist in their beliefs. He even says that often this is why the men join the radical religious groups, because they feel as though our society is being so degraded by gays and strong women that it is necessary to turn to religion (and to violence) to reassert the power and supremacy of men. He then uses several examples, such as the Christian Identity movement that is no less than explicit in their condemnation of homosexuality and the “correct place” for women in society. He also uses the example of Hindus in India and of their reaction to the suggestion that Ramakrishna was gay. He suggests that the reason the Indians reacted in such a hyper-masculine way was because they had been so emasculated by the British’s assertion that Indian men seemed effeminate.

Then, by yet another strange transition, Juergensmeyer suggests that this homophobic view that many all male religious groups hold is hypocritical in the light of their extreme male bonding experiences. He uses examples of all male religious groups becoming so close that their wives were becoming jealous, and that in India they even have special words for same-sex friends that often become closer than sexual partners.

This section just seemed very odd and slightly out of place to me. It explained a lot of what I already knew about radical religious movements and their outlooks on women and gays and lesbians. However, at the end of the section, I didn’t really get the point of what I had just read even though the author made an attempt to explain it. I don’t understand what he was trying to say about religion and violence and their seeming attraction and clear coexistence and connections.

When he was discussing these men’s fear of gays yet pointing out their unusually close relationships with each other, I wasn’t exactly sure what he was getting at. I felt as though this was just something that he felt was wrong so he decided to write about it though it had no real and direct relation to why religion stimulates violence. I felt the same way when he was talking about these all male groups being afraid of losing power to gays or women. I feel as though this is no phenomenon, rather something that has clearly been going on for quite some time and not necessarily only in radical religious groups that perpetrate violence. It is true, but nonetheless, what does it say about the connection between religion and violence, especially given the idea that if this is what is truly bothering these men then religion itself is not to blame for all their actions because they were homophobic and sexist before they joined their movements hence their attraction to that particular movement.

I just feel as though this section was very fragmented and did not fit in with the rest of the book. I put the book down after reading it and was just kind of like, “that’s interesting but what the hell is he trying to say to me?” I would like to hear other people’s perspectives on it; maybe they got something out of it that I didn’t, but overall I felt that though true and an interesting sociological study of radical religious men, this had really nothing to do with why religion is so often linked with violence and what it means.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:33:23 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:34:37 GMT

Nina Graham

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:35:30 GMT

Soldiers in terrorist organizations generally tend to be young, male members of financially and socially marginal groups. In these groups a feeling of status and empowerment is desired because of a lack of one. The Sikh movement was made up of mainly men from a privileged class. The Jats on the other hand, felt as though their social and economic status was their inherent birthright and that it was slipping from their grasp. Juergensmeyer believes that what has set these groups apart was not their age or socioeconomic status, but was the marginality of the national identities of these groups.
According to Juergensmeyer, there is a connection between the marginality of national identities and violent tendencies. Not every instance of despair leads to violence, he admits, since having an experience of social or economic hardship is an incredibly common episode for nearly all people. Humiliation and the degree which it is regarded “as a threat to one’s personal honor and respectability” is often the cause of a violent outbreak. This outbreak of violence is, from what I understood, an attempt at reclaiming a sense of self and of pride, which could be on the verge of being taken away from a person or group. Juergensmeyer claims that when there are no other options, this need for empowerment manifests into violence.

While I agree with Juergensmeyer for the most part, I’m hesitant to make the jump that he has in saying that having frustrations’ with one’s social class automatically leads to violence. I feel as though there needs to be something more than simply anger or frustration with a social or economic situation, or a lack of outlet in which to express ones self. While the point is made that not every person’s episode in financial instability will result in a mass bombing of a government building; I still wonder what the difference is between people who do choose take that next step. What drives them to feel so strongly about a potential loss of stability that leads them to take action? This is what forces me to believe that there has to be something besides societal pressures makes terrorists do what they do, because if it were societal and financial pressures alone, it just seems to me that acts of violence would be even more common.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:34:58 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:36:12 GMT

Melody Gray

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:36:59 GMT

The majority of the religious communities in the world (Muslim, Jewish, Arab, Christian Identity, etc.) view America as their enemy. Osama bin Laden claimed his hatred was caused by the various transgressions against Muslims including, “occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples (179).” Juergensmeyer offers a multitude of explanations and examples of what causes the hatred of religious communities worldwide for America and its people. The first is America as a secondary enemy. As a secular state involved in international trade and political relations with many countries, America often finds itself defending the secular states of these other countries around the globe. This defense of secularism and American involvement angers those who wish to see religion in the power position. A second reason is America’s role in promoting a modern lifestyle. Both Jews and Arabs alike disapprove of the “American-style traits of individualism, the abuse of alcohol and sexy movies… (180).” Many leaders of these religious groups see America’s control of global media as a direct threat, spreading “the immoral values of secular society (180).” A third important reason is economics. Most international companies are either based in or are associated with America. Religious communities dislike big business because it has no religious affiliation but has global connections, furthering the secular power of the United States. This economic prosperity is linked to a fourth and final reason – fear of globalization. Many groups around the world fear that America plans to take over the world and repress all individual liberties (181).

This hatred of America by religious communities is frightening because the reasons provided by Juergensmeyer seem valid, especially today. America is a secular state and even though it provides for freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, religion is regarded as a personal undertaking on an individual basis. Most Americans can’t fathom a religious belief so deep that one is not only willing to sacrifice their life for it, but in that sacrifice take the lives of one, hundreds or even thousands of “innocent people”. (Innocent in quotes because the killers do not see these victims as innocent.)

Also, in today’s society, the fear of American globalization appears a very real worry. After September 11, the United States waged a “war on terror” – but terror is a pretty faceless and general foe, leading the war first to Afghanistan, then Iraq, with rumors of Iran in the future. In the wake of this war, thousands are left dead, wounded, and traumatized (both Muslims and Americans). The United States has developed (or attempted) new democratic governments in these countries, which the people seem to have a hard time embracing. The hardest part is trying to justify this war that most of the world didn’t support. The United Nations didn’t approve, and today many Americans have become cynical and want to end the fighting before more lives are lost.

Looking at the hatred for America in the light that Juergensmeyer has shed, it becomes easier to see what these religious communities fear – a takeover of their culture by another that is so radically different from their own. If the situation were reversed and the Middle East and these religious groups had the economic and political power that America possessed today, most Americans would feel the same fear – the loss of freedom and beliefs that have been held for so long in one’s own culture.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:36:41 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:37:51 GMT

Ted Hooven

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:38:25 GMT

The constant theme which I found every fascinating from this weeks reading was Juergensmeyers’ descriptions of the different varieties of religious violence. In the past I had always thought violence could be described in one way: hate. But Juergansmeyer does a fine job of giving different examples of when these different types of violence have occurred in the past as well as what they entail. The first type that he describes is strategic violence. Strategic violence often has political goals in mind and often results from feelings of oppression. Those individuals or groups who carry out forms of strategic violence are often in search of immediate change and their goals are quite obvious describes Juergansmeyer. For example the bombing of an abortion clinic is a type of strategic violence. This is accurate because the bombing occurs because that person wants an immediate change in the abortion laws. The bomber’s goals are very clear. He wants to kill those who kill. Strategic violence is almost always done with an immediate goal in mind.

Another type of violence is that kind which Juergansmyer calls symbolic violence. This is described as violence which occurs usually with a very large, almost unattainable goal in mind. Also in many cases the true goal may never be known. A great example of this is the attacks which occurred on September 11. The government as well as we the people can assume why this violence occurred but in reality it is all not that clear. Did it occur to attack our economy or to attack our modern lifestyle in general? With symbolic violence the true motive is often very unclear.

Yet another type of religious violence is called performance violence. Juergansmeyer states that the goal of performance violence is to grab the attention of the people, make them scared and send a clear message. Performance violence often occurs in places like malls, on buses or in very large public places. This occurs because many people witness the violence firsthand and therefore the terrorists have instilled a sense of fear into the victims.
I believe Juergansymer is very accurate in all of his descriptions of the types of violence. His examples clearly illustrate the different types. It is important to understand what kind of violence has occurred whether it is performance, strategic or symbolic because it will help us to hopefully get a better understanding of why violence linked to religion seems to occur so often. If we, the students can get into the mind of the terrorists then we will better be able to understand why they are commiting these violent acts. Jueransymer is trying to illustrate to us the idea that violence does not occur for just one reason. Different people have different reasons for violence. And whether we agree with it or not we must do our best to try and understand why.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:38:06 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:39:00 GMT

Frank Martin

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:39:13 GMT

The section that particularly stood out to me is the section “Why Guys Throw Bombs.” The section started out talking about how terrorism could be related to the sexual tension of men, but the switches over to giving accounts of women involved in terrorist groups. The line that stood out to me the most was when Juergensmeyer says, “the groups of which the young terrorist women were a part were motivated by secular political ideologies or ethnic separatism; they were not religious.” The main example Juergensmeyer uses are the female terrorists of the Palestinian independence movement. These women were a group from a secular branch and not from the Islamic branch. Other examples Juergensmeyer uses are women in Ireland and India. These women however never really fought but instead brought guns to the men.

This section was particularly interesting in its own right but that one line I quoted above really stood out to me. That line says a lot about women’s needs opposed to men’s. If anything I thought women would be more religious because I see women as more devoted to a higher calling. But I guess when the call to arms is attached to religion; men are a lot quicker to fight because I guess on some instinctual level men look for a reason to fight. Which is similar to conclusions Juergensmeyer draws, but he focuses more on sexual frustrations and not differences between men and women.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:39:35 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:40:42 GMT

Ian O'Neill

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:41:27 GMT

Juergensmeyer wrote about the social abhorrence of American extremists within the Christian Identity movement and amongst Christian militia groups throughout his documented studies. Their Aryan superiority complex and conspiracy theory paranoia justifies their need to separate themselves from society by entrenching themselves on Christian compounds in such scenic and lifelessly desolate locals as Oklahoma (Elohim City), Idaho (The Aryan Nations Compound on Hayden Lake), and the Arkansas-Missouri border (Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord). They hate [an understatement] Jews for their role as parasitic bankers, imposters, and global conspirators of Mephistophelian mischief. These righteous white men hate anyone not white (whom they euphemistically called ‘mudpeople’) because these undeserving sub-humans take jobs from superior white men. And these bothers in arms, faith, and skin pigmentation hate many of their fellow Americans for their abject modernizing, decadent lifestyles, and defecting of Christian morality. Above all though, they hate the American government- Satanic aggregation of all these people along with freemasons and possibly extraterrestrial beings. They hate the corruption and immorality rampant within America, they see the government as being responsible, and they feel no one else has had the divine epiphany necessary to reveal the wolves beneath the pinstripes, wolves which want to seize their guns and leave them defenseless to the gnashing jaws of tyranny.

Yet they still have their guns; their manuals on bomb creation; the brainwashed loyalty of their Christian soldiers.

So in chapter 11 when Juergensmeyer writes of resentment between the militant Identity movements and the right winged conservative Christians I had an epiphany. In the Turner Diaries conservative Christians are called ‘the world’s greatest cowards’, and the Turner Diaries is somewhat of an Identity manifesto (pg.222). The Catholics had the Catechism, the Protestants ‘Sola Scriptura’; Christian Identity turns to the Diaries. Identity followers also oppose secular authority. And this is where my epiphany comes in.

Most violent religious groups accept that cosmic war doesn’t fit a timeline and that they are content sacrificing and dying for their cause knowing they probably won’t see the final days when their assured victory occurs. But militant Christians, while accepting that secular repression of American citizens may not be on the imminent horizon, seem t show a greater insistence for changes in today’s social culture. If they wanted quicker results, they should skip the abortionists, minorities, and homosexuals. Instead they need to strike at the devil itself- the government. And in wounding their enemy, they will simultaneously cut out a cancer in the Christian community. The Christian militias should focus their attacks on the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. 700 lbs. of combustible manure mixed with kerosene (or whatever they make bombs out of nowadays) detonated mid-sermon during a nationally televised showing of the 700 Club. It’s twisted but it makes more sense for militant Christians. The GOP receives millions of dollars from the conservative Christian right. And while both movements share some ideological viewpoints (anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-same sex marriage, etc.) the conservatives continue to line the pockets of the devil, they’re one of largest providers for the government, and they have yet to see one reform in society that they are paying for. But they’ll still raise the money (do you know how expensive the electricity bill is for a megachurch?), and with they’ll skim some of the cream from the top of their coffers for the secular powers. The remainder goes into expansions on the church to accommodate another 10,000 church brethren with checkbooks. This is avarice within the upper echelon; it is sinful behavior to the rigidly righteous dwellers on Midwestern compounds. And also, turn on channel 30, and you see televangelists predicting a new apocalyptic vision every few weeks, you see Christians weeping incessantly, crying out renewed hopelessness they seem to experience all over again come Sunday, and for you see them blessed and cured and their faith’s on the mend- all from a pastors sanctification (and a generous donation to god- payable in money order, check, no bills smaller than 20s…). The Christian Identity movement could get better success setting their crosshairs on the sellouts delivering prophecy in HD.

That’s what I figured they could possibly have done. It cuts governmental funding. It cuts out the anemically pious. Two birds. One fell swoop. And undoubtedly they’d feel justified.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:41:02 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:41:58 GMT

Katie Ringler

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:42:49 GMT

The last two chapters had a lot of content to focus on. I would like to focus on the plight of the religious militants to gain power through violent acts. In response to a world of seemingly great disorder and collapsing moral authority, these acts are done to give them individual and group a sense of dignity and power. While they feel powerless within their secular governments, by using religious violence they gain recognition and attention toward their cause. One of the points that Juergensmeyer makes is since one of the goals of this action is to establish a religious state, do these groups have any plans for a religious state? It seems that they have entered into this war with no hopes of winning. Without an established plan for if they ever do what they want: a religiously based public and political order, it seems that they do not see this goal achievable, at least at this time. Is there really any end in sight then? If they do not see an end to this cosmic war, can we stop these actions from happening? It seems a bit of a hopeless situation.

Another interesting point brought up is violence as a way to empower religion. We talked about this in class a little last time, about which came first, the religious motivation/justification or the violence. It seems that it can definitely go both ways. In some of these cases violence is used as a means to bring more attention to this particular religious sect and their oppression. Other marginalized groups can then empathize with the group that committed the violent act based on their own feelings of oppression or violation from the majority. Violence thus puts a group on the same level (ideally) to the state power based on their demonstrated potency and legitimizes their group as competent and as a force to be reckoned with.

This brings us to the final part about possible solutions. Ultimately, Juergensmeyer is putting forward a compromise between secularism and religion. But is this really possible? It seems that terrorists would not be satisfied with certain parts of society being religious or a more moral character of authorities, whatever that would entail. I think it is important to recognize the legitimacy of religion as something valuable to society, but we have to think about what that entails for secular society with a diverse range of religious groups. Ideally, cooling religious passions while recognizing religious value seems to be a good solution, but it is hard to imagine how this could be accomplished. Are we then recognizing terrorist groups and their legitimacy? Does this present a problem? While it may not have been appropriate for Juergensmeyer to lay out a detailed plan of how this negotiation could occur, it would be helpful to have some examples or a little more information for this final solution.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:42:26 GMT

(download original)

Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:36:08 GMT

Lauren Schaeffer

Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:36:33 GMT

One thing that particularly interested me was Juergensmeyer’s claim that terrorist acts are forms of symbolic empowerment for men whose manhood is challenged due to conditions that create sexual frustration. This seems accurate given the examples he chose to discuss (particularly about young men who cannot marry and therefore cannot have sex due to economic conditions). However, when the cases of terrorists that do not fit that description are addressed, particularly with women, Juergensmeyer says there are secular political or ethnic separatist motivations, not religious. Thinking back to what I discussed my last focus paper, I wonder if this is really the case. For example, Mann does not fit Juergensmeyer’s sexually frustrated young man, and I’m sure many of the leaders do not either. It seems to me that perhaps the distinction should be something about strategic violence and symbolic violence with symbolic violence being generally due to sexual frustration and strategic violence (in the cases of Mann and women) to something else instead of calling them not religious. This seems to make sense, even in the case of women. Although those other motivations may play and important role, I think it is hard to say when any action is not religious because other things are the real cause. Perhaps there are mixed motivations, but since the violence is strategic, there is no need for the explanation involving sexual reasons because there is a tangible goal although the action is still religious.

Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:37:42 GMT

(view original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:43:07 GMT

Zac Tompkins

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:43:30 GMT

I wonder about whether Jurgensmeyer is overlooking a significant distinction in the nature of the violence that he is talking about in his book. I brought this point up in class, and I wanted to look at it further as I think it gives some clues as to what makes religious violence so unique. I want to clear up what I think should be meant by religious violence and the difference I see between religious violence and religious terrorism.

The source of religious violence, I would argue, is characterized not by the mere invoking of God’s name in conflicts, such as in the example with Cain and Abel, but rather by the violence stemming from some urge to defend God or a divinely mandated idea of good. The reason I define it as such is because when we generally speak of religious violence, we’re talking about a kind of violence that is outside of the norm. To return to the Cain and Abel story, Cain killed Abel out of jealousy over God’s favoring him. In this story, God is replaceable with another kind of authority figure, for example their father.

An objection to this distinction might state that the God part of the newly defined religious violence is replaceable with another motivation. If that’s the case, then the basis on which I rejected the original version wouldn’t work. However, in this case replacing God with some other motive wouldn’t obtain the same levels of violence and the same mindset. The only example of this I can think of that would produce a similar reaction would be political fanaticism.

Religious violence differs from religious terrorism primarily in the strategic/symbolic area. In Kate’s handy diagram, she split types of violence into two categories, stating that religious violence possesses a symbolic value. I would argue that it is religious terrorism in which the act itself is symbolic. For example, when a bomb blows up in a marketplace, it is the detonation of that bomb that is the symbolic act. In contrast, it seems that religious violence has both strategic and symbolic aspects. For example, when the Sikhs killed the Indian government official, the act of killing was strategically important to their resistance and played an instrumental role in their cause. It may have also been a symbolic victory but it was not primarily symbolic. Nevertheless, they do share certain aspects, such as the clash of good and evil forces and the Satanization of the enemy.
What I’m not sure about is whether this distinction I’m making is actually describing two different kinds of violence, or if one fades into the other and it’s simply a matter of the amount of force that each of the religious organizations has at its disposal. It’s possible that if Al-Qaeda and the US military were evenly matched, they wouldn’t engage in terrorist acts but would use more conventional means to fight. I hope this makes some kind of sense because I’m making a lot of connections as I’m writing this and it’s not coming out as clearly as I hoped, partly because I’m less clear on what I think than when I started. I also want to point out that I might just be making the mistake of placing too much emphasis on belief and motivation when I talk about symbolism and what does and doesn’t count as religious violence.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:43:19 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:44:37 GMT

Tori Wynne

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:45:01 GMT

The political head of the Hamas movement—“dishonoring someone is the worst act that one can do, and the only thing that can counter it is dignity: the honor provided by religion and the courage of being a defender of the faith. In a curious way, the, both religion and violence are seen as antidotes to humiliation” (190)

Since so many of the members of the Hamas movement experience various forms of humiliation—whether it is based in career, social location, or sexual relationships, they are made incredibly vulnerable through the publication of their insecurities. A strong voice of leadership that urges them to come forth and be strong like them (strength in this case expressed through violence) and be “men” is understandably hard to ignore. The personal redemption alone is extremely powerful. However, the connection here between religion and violence is very potent. Not only do young men get to express their anger and frustration in a physical and destructive manner, it is deemed perfectly acceptable by… someone (could it be just anyone?). Specifically, someone that they quickly learn to look up to, the leaders of a religious movement who convince them beyond all doubts that this is where their religion is truly supposed to be headed. Since the members’ lives are not seemingly headed anywhere that they are socially meant to (marriage), becoming involved in the Hamas movement gives them a sharp direction.

I think that this is fairly standard human nature. Almost every fight or socially destructive act, even on this campus—is based on someone’s innate insecurity about themselves. Proving one’s inner strength, proving masculinity, proving intelligence, proving a position of power, all of these can lead to aggressiveness. Or, alternatively, they can lead to the simple the act of joining a group that alleviates a personal fear… and doing whatever it takes to become a part of that group, regardless of any feeling of personal doubt about the acts that they are forced by leaders to do—they do it to be a part of something bigger than what they are alone. Obviously this is on an extremely small scale in comparison, but the overall instinct to assert one’s need to be approved of, even in a “crazy” way, is a pretty general one. Also, the idea that the Hamas movement not only supplies a family but an overall ideology could be incredibly appealing. Since the majority of the member are the young men whose lives are not headed in the expected direction, most of them likely lack confidence in their own ideals and opinions since, thus far, they have not managed to “properly” forward their lives. A group with clear objectives and plans to follow through simply takes the dirty work out of life mapping. On top of which, the passion that the leaders possess is enviable (to anyone), regardless how backward the nature. Juergensmeyer later points out common ground for all young men who join movements like this one, a fear of social marginality. Joining a group like this takes the insecurity and replaces it with clear goals and agendas. I just think this particular section really showed a relatable side of otherwise inconceivable actions.

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:44:44 GMT

(download original)

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:08:06 GMT

Kate Blair presentation, Tues. 1/30

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:27:06 GMT

Presentation handout

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:24:46 GMT

(view handout)

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:46:27 GMT

Katie Ringler presentation, Thurs. 2/1

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:54:33 GMT

Presentation handout

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:47:45 GMT

(view handout)

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:26:38 GMT

Reading questions for the first Appleby assignment (chapter 1, through p. 56)

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:53:03 GMT

(Download and print this reading guide in MS Word format)

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:32:41 GMT

What does Appleby claim he plans to investigate in this book (see esp. p. 27)?

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:33:43 GMT

How does Appleby understand “the sacred”? Summarize his brief but important exploration of the topic. Why does he call it first “ambiguous and then “ambivalent” (see pp. 28-30)?

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:34:05 GMT

What is the “argument” contained within every religious tradition, according to Appleby? Does his reading ring true to you?
- What “trajectory” does he claim these traditions typically follow (p. 31)?
- What is his point in introducing the short vignettes about birth control (pp. 32f.)?

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:34:21 GMT

Summarize the problem that developed for the liberal South African churches under apartheid, and the solution that gradually evolved.
- When Catholic priest Buti Tlhagale argued that “a choice has to be made” between supporting oppressive violence and supporting the revolutionary violence directed against that oppression, do you think he was drawing on an idea similar to Juergensmeyer’s “cosmic war” (see p. 36)?
- “Christian leaders in South Africa thus confronted moral and pragmatic circumstances in their society that led them to endorse violence” (p. 40). Link this statement to Appleby’s overall thesis and agenda.

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:34:51 GMT

Throughout the reading for today, take special note of the role of concepts like “multiple interpretations,” “choice,” “contradictions,” “internal pluralism,” and other similar ideas. Why are these so important for Appleby?

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:35:04 GMT

What are the main points or milestones in the evolution of Roman Catholicism over the last two centuries as sketched in the book?
- Summarize the contribution of John Courtney Murray.
- What, according to Appleby, is the great significance of Vatican II?

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:35:24 GMT

How does Appleby connect the story of twentieth-century Catholicism with his views on “the sacred”?

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:35:33 GMT

Paraphrase, in a single sentence, his argument in this chapter.

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:35:58 GMT

Terms to look for and define:

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:39:28 GMT

the sacred

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:40:01 GMT

internal pluralism

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:40:08 GMT

“prophetic” religion

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:40:17 GMT

“the growing end” of the tradition

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:40:31 GMT

ressourcement

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:42:01 GMT

Reading questions for second Appleby assignment, through p. 121 (end of chapter 3)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:43:27 GMT

Questions for chapter 2

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:47:09 GMT

Faced with shocking violence between ethnic or communal groups around the world that displays a religious dimension, observers will often remark that “religion has nothing to do with [the violence.]” Much of this chapter is devoted to refuting this idea.

Questions to consider:

On what basis might one argue that the “ethnonationtionalist” conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and similar conflicts, are unrelated to religion (i.e., the position that Appleby is arguing against)?

Conversely: Appleby says that “[r]eligion invariably plays a role or roles in these conflicts” (p. 60). What evidence does Appleby bring for this view?

What, in Appleby’s view, is the relationship between ethnic and religious identity?
- “Rather than break down ethnic barriers, … religion often fortifies them” (p. 62). Why?
- What is the “badge” that Appleby refers to on p. 68?

Throughout the chapter, Appleby refers to various kinds of religion: “folk” versus “official” religion; “strong” versus “weak” religion; etc. What is the difference between these types? Why are they important?
- Does Appleby think that “folk” religion is intrinsically bad? See p. 77.
- What is “the best way to counter religious extremism” (p. 76)? Do you agree?

What kind of contribution, ultimately, does Appleby think that religion can and/or should make in conflict situations? Why does it sometimes fail to make that contribution?

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:46:13 GMT

Questions for chapter 3

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:48:39 GMT

In this chapter, Appleby begins explicitly to address some of the same themes that appear in Juergensmeyer. Consider possible points of comparison between the two writers.

Questions to consider:

What ideas does Juergensmeyer refer to that might be compared to the concept of pikuach nefesh?

Outline, in three or four very concise steps, the events that made the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir into a religiously viable course of action. Does Appleby’s discussion imply a very different interpretation from Juergensmeyer’s? (See Juergensmeyer, pp. 45-49.)

Appleby’s central question for this chapter: “Does fundamentalism necessarily lead to extremism? … [W]as the move to extremist violence necessarily the result of the Union rabbis’ ‘fundamentalist’ interpretation of what they called ‘our sacred obligation to strengthen and deepen our peole’s connection to the Torah and to Jewish tradition…?’” (p. 85) What is Appleby’s answer? Do you agree?

Note that Appleby’s brief discussion of the Sikh leader, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, draws upon some of the same information that Juergensmeyer uses to make to make his points. (Examples: the mention of miri-piri, the statement that “to have arms and not seek justice” is a “great sin.”) Compare the quotations from Bhindranwale: Appleby, p. 89 and Juergensmeyer, p. 99. Do Appleby and Juergensmeyer fundamentally agree or disagree?

Appleby argues that religious violence draw on traditional religious practices but give them a new meaning. Explain the following quotation. Focus on the idea of ritual and how it relates to Appleby’s definition of the sacred (p. 27).
“By redirecting the youth’s gaze from the daunting objective facts of his immediate environment to the transcendent kingdom of divine justice, the extremist empowers the new ‘Lion of Hamas’ to confront the seemingly insurmountable obstacles to religious heroism represented by, say, the state security force policing the area, the scorn of neighbors, or the fear of impending loss of life, limb, or loved ones. This ability of religion to inspire ecstasy—literally, to lift the believer psychologically out of a mundane environment—stands behind the distinctive logic of religious violence.” (p. 91)

Appleby makes a distinction between “extremists” or “fundamentalists” on the one hand and “liberationists” on the other (pp. 114-117), but note that he acknowledges the difficulty of making this difference clear. Do you think he succeeds? Why or why not? If not, how could he have made his case more strongly?

Appleby notes that:
“It is the so-called Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist movements … that seek to essentialize Islam.” (p. 105)
“Like ‘Hinduism’ itself, Hindu nationalism is clearly a construct.” (p. 112)
What does he mean by “a construct”? by “essentialize”? Why is this important to his point?

Summarize the argument of this chapter in a single sentence.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:43:44 GMT

Download questions for both chapters as a Word document

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:13:54 GMT

Paper assignment: op-ed on Bush speech

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:14:27 GMT

Included below are the first paragraphs from each paper. To download the paper as a Word document, click "download original." To view the paper online and make comments, click "view original." If your web browser tells you a pop-up has been blocked, try disabling pop-up blocking.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:46:15 GMT

Delivering a Message to the Audience

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:19:53 GMT

In a speech delivered on September 20th, 2001, before members of Congress and billions of viewers across the globe, President George W. Bush expounded upon the largest attack against the United States in the history of our country.

The President claimed the perpetrators were members of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, a group of militant Islamic extremists. He declared the attack an act of war. The President declared the terrorists were driven by hatred- a hatred for America’s democratic government; for Christians and Jews; for religious freedom; for the American way of life; for our ‘freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other’.

President Bush’s statements were made merely nine days after terrorist attacks claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent American civilians and which showed the world the destabilization and collapse of twin pillars which symbolized American efficacy and imperium.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:47:05 GMT

(download original)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:18:42 GMT

(view original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:15:51 GMT

American Apples Fight Foreign Oranges (one response)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:20:14 GMT

What is respect? Is it something that can be constructed without adequate understanding of that which is being respected? Our country is experiencing what is for most people a rude awakening concerning other powers in the world and how they intend to assert their aggression toward America. The idea that our personal rights are in jeopardy is hard-hitting for everyone. Americans feel disrespected and misunderstood. How could it be possible that a group of people is so motivated to carry out these shocking objectives, killing everyone who stands in the way? This tunnel vision belief system distresses us because we realize that this foreign goal is by no means fulfilled. In his address, President Bush's heavy and very intentional usage of the potent word freedom -- made it seem more difficult to imagine this world led by manipulators who find themselves deemed outcasts even by the standards of their fellow faith-sharers.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:20:39 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:51:14 GMT

(view original)

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:20:23 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:21:06 GMT

The catchy title of this piece may catch the eyes of many, but the content in it, though expressive and observant, explains little in the way of understanding. Take the author's statement that "Al Qaeda's pursuit of a new world is shaping up to be a violent journey with no regard for the difference between innocent civilians and the military." This is certainly true and applicable to the current situation and sentiment in the United States. I take issue, however, with the author's analysis of President Bush's use of the word "freedom". I agree that the use of the word does make it, "seem more difficult to imagine this world led by manipulators who find themselves deemed outcasts even by the standards of their fellow faith-sharers". However, I don't think that this is at all why the President used the word freedom. I believe he used it, rather, to influence the tone of the speech and frame the issue as good versus evil and freedom versus captivity. I don't believe that the terrorist's intentions are to eliminate freedom. Instead, I think that their intentions are to spread what they believe to be freedom; devotion to Islam and spiritual excellence.

As for the statement that Bush's stance on the September 11 attacks is "no-nonsense," this could not be clearer given his speech. I am more than well aware that Bush is taking a hard line against what he proclaims to be "enemies of freedom" and I am sure that other Americans are aware of this as well. Bush's interpretation of these attacks, however, should not overly influence what the public needs to know about the reasoning behind the attacks. Even if the author believes the President's analysis of the attacks to be in keeping with scholarly opinions on religious violence, this needs to be explained rather than simple repetition of the ideas expressed in this speech.

In addition, the author mentions that there are other factors that affect religious violence and spur it on. I would like to know exactly what those conditions could have been that caused these attacks rather than a simple statement of those erroneous factors's involvement.

I think that this periodical should attempt to comprehensively face the issues and provide out-of-the-box answers to the public. The article should articulate the potential reasons behind these attacks and evaluate the correctness of the President's speech rather than simply stating his stance.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:18:59 GMT

Op-Ed: The Quest for Spirituality in a World at War

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:22:26 GMT

When Americans watched the assaults on New York City's World Trade Center, many experienced a loss of innocence. Some turned to President Bush's speech before Congress for answers: why were Americans targeted? While I believe President Bush makes some important points in his speech, my exploration of religious violence and the worldviews that justify such actions have led me to some very different explanations. I will begin by discussing Bush's points that I agree with and explain why.First, while I reject the characterization of al Qaeda as "extremism," I agree firstly that it is a marginalized group without the support of most Muslims, and secondly that there is a major tension between militant and mainstream religion.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:22:52 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:56:27 GMT

(view original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:19:11 GMT

Op-Ed: Bush's target of terrorist ideology misses the mark (one response)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:23:41 GMT

In Bush's speech regarding the terrorist attacks of 9/11 he attempts to outline the motivations and goals of those who committed these atrocious acts of violence, but misses some important elements of religious violence. As a scholar of religious violence with extensive research in this field, I would like to delve deeper into the meaning behind 9/11 from the perspective of those who caused this fear and destruction. While Bush contends that a key element of these acts of hatred is directed at our country's freedom, he has overlooked an important basis of these attacks. However, he does hit on an important point when he tells of the terrorists' goal to overthrow government and put in effect a way of life consistent with their own beliefs. Another common theme that Bush speaks of is the way that these acts committed in the name of religion are a corruption of that religion. Instead of an attack motivated by religion, he insists, the events of 9/11 should be considered along the lines of mass murder by oppressive and authoritative dictatorships. Overall, it seems that Bush is trying to deny a crucial element of these attacks. There is a clear religious tie to these violent acts which seek to empower and legitimate the views of an Islamic terrorist group. It is crucial that the true motivations of this group are understood so that we know how best to respond and stop these violent acts from happening.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:25:37 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:01:52 GMT

(view original)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:31:01 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:31:14 GMT

To the Editor: I am writing to express my strong support of your op-ed from several days ago entitled "Bush's Target of terrorist ideologically misses the mark". This article is extremely on target in my view. It does a fine job of breaking down the goals of the terrorist's attacks of 9/11 as well as correcting President Bush and adding to his statement regarding the attacks.

To call the president very narrow minded in his ideas of terrorist acts may appear a bit challenging but it is indeed correct. To quote this article: "This group does not hate our freedom; rather they are fighting against a dominance which is seen as oppressive to them, limiting their own freedom". I strongly relate to this statement. President Bush failed to include in his speech the true motives behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. He used words which he thought would motivate and unite the American people. And in a sense his method did work. But people can only go on hearing lies for so long and shortly after I began studying the association between religion and violence. Violence associated with religion occurs for many reasons, not just a fight against Americas' freedom. This article does a powerful job of backing up that statement.

I am sure that the President prepared his speech with good intentions; he wanted to assure the American people that we will not stand for any behavior like this. But in the process of doing so he missed out on many key aspects of the attacks. This article has done a fine job of covering those other aspects and motives. It also explains them in a way that is easy for all people comprehend. Way to right on target with this one, something President Bush failed to do!

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:19:22 GMT

Separating Government and Religious Terrorism: A Reflection on President Bush's Speech

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:26:35 GMT

After listening to President Bush's speech I personally felt uplifted, inspired and somewhat moved as I'm sure most Americans did as well as many other people around the world. After all, it did come only nine days after one of darkest days in American history. The speech was filled with passion, emotion and a plan of action for the future. But within the speech was a lot of information that President Bush presented from a very narrow minded perspective and I'm not surprised he did so. After all he is trying to rally a country behind a plan to take action against the perpetrators of this terrible act. I'm not saying that President Bush is trying to manipulate the American people with lies, but the information he presented was aimed more at a country when the main points should have been on al Queda itself. But I believe that there is a good reason for that. Al Queda represents something that has yet to be faced by a government's military: the physical manifestation of religious violence. Throughout history religion has been filled with violence, war and violent acts. But very rarely, if ever, has a religious group waged war on a country for religious reasons. The concepts of religion and government are supposed to be separate in American ideology, so it is strange to think that a terrorist group would attack America because of Islamic principles. So President Bush aimed his speech and plan of action more towards Afghanistan and the Taliban. That way it gives the plan of action an enemy to fight rather than an abstract idea. The changes that I personally would have made to President Bush's speech would be to not shy away from directing the course of action towards al Queda and extreme Islamic radicals but instead confront the violent tendencies of Muslim extremists according to their view of Islam.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:27:01 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:04:46 GMT

(view original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:19:37 GMT

Bushwhacked: The truth on terrorism (one response)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:27:50 GMT

Defining the word terrorist is a serious problem, mainly because one group's idea of a terrorist is another group's idea of a person or country fighting for peace. Being an American I am still a bit perplexed about the true meaning of the word. But from my studies over the years I believe that I have gained a decent understanding. As we have all heard in President Bush's speech to us he uses the word terrorism with a very negative implication. Because terrorism usually involves the killing of innocent men, women, and children no person or country openly supports it. The United States of America, "The Land of the Free", would never want to be accused of supporting this idea.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:28:08 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:06:46 GMT

(view original)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:22:07 GMT

Letter to the Editor in Response

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:22:16 GMT

To the Editor:

I'm writing in response to the Op-Ed published in last week's paper entitled "Bushwacked: The Truth on Terrorism". I think the fact that religious terrorism is not strictly a Middle Eastern phenomenon is terribly important for Americans to realize. President Bush has claimed that we are under attack because "they" hate our freedoms. However, as the author of the op-ed has brought to our attention, "they" live within our borders, not just in distant countries (they being religious terrorists). If we do follow President Bush's plan, which is to eradicate all the terrorists, I think we will find the war on terror will eventually end up closer to home than most Americans realize. Prior to September 11, the most devastating act of terrorism on American soil -- the bombing of the federal building in Oklahome City -- was not committed by Islamic extremists that hated our democratically elected government or our personal freedoms. It was perpetrated by a white American male (living in this country) who was associated with the Christian Identity movement (which is located in America), a religious group with extremist views.

As an American, I'm worried that President Bush's war on terror will grow until America is fighting against every country associated with religious violence, including our own country. Maybe the better choice, rather than a war against all these religious terrorists, would be to try to listen to some of their complaints against us. As the author of the op-ed pointed out, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. While we see these violent acts as horrifying and unimaginable in the name of religion and President Bush labels the perpetrators as terrorists, they themselves don't view themselves as terrorists. Rather, they see their acts as a strike against the oppression of American society on their own cultures. In response to their violent attack on secular oppression, we are going to violently enter their countries, defeat their religious political leaders and further oppress their religious cultures, angering them further and maybe causing more terrorist attacks. It seems redundant to me. And returning to my point about religious terrorists in America, would we eventually mobilize troops within our borders to fight against the religious extremists (and potential terrorists) of America in our quest to eradicate all religious terrorists? That seems to go against the very freedoms President Bush claims this war would be defending.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:19:44 GMT

Morals of a Terrorist: Do We Really Understand?

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:29:09 GMT

President Bush's speech to congress in relation to the events happening on September 11th was both valid and lacking in understanding at the same time. Our president appears to have less than an extensive knowledge of various elements of religious groups who have been involved in terrorism, particularly Muslims. It seems as though there is a lack of understanding of the mindset which these terrorist groups hold, which is a belief that they are called by divine instruction to carry out acts of destruction. President Bush has not taken into consideration that these groups generally do not act with intentions of greed, nor are these acts a personal decision, but one of cosmic proportion (Juergensmeyer, 153).

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:29:28 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:07:51 GMT

(view original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:19:58 GMT

Op-Ed: Violence vs. Religious Violence

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:30:06 GMT

Being a loyal United States citizen as well as a graduate student with a master's degree in the field of religious studies, I feel that it is my duty to respond to President Bush's speech from this past Thursday. While much of what Bush spoke of was direct and on target, I feel that some of his points need to be clarified, as they were not entirely up to par with current views on religious violence. What Bush had presented was an accurate, though somewhat naive and limited, perspective on the events of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is not that I do not agree with the statements of the President, but rather that I believe his points need to be further discussed and analyzed. The content of President Bush's speech focused more on the prospect of violence against the United States, while the true issue at hand is that of religious violence.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:30:26 GMT

(download original)

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:45:31 GMT

(view original)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:13:08 GMT

Why Are We Afraid of Big Bad Islam? (Or Are They Afraid of Us?) (two responses)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:13:24 GMT

All of us know there are two sides to every story. Americans are stunned, confused and terrified. While many people around the globe are sharing these feelings and sympathize with our losses, there are also many people that are celebrating the attack on American soil and the loss of American life and confidence. President Bush labels the perpetrators of these attacks as terrorists. I do not disagree with the use of this term since Americans are terrified and the attackers caused it; and I agree that these attacks are meant to terrify. Unfortunately, the reason as to why Americans need to be terrified by those committing these acts is complicated and multi-layered. While most Americans toss around the word terrorist freely, the perpetrators themselves would never describe themselves that way. President Bush explained the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were religiously motivated. “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism…a fringe movement that perverts the teachings of Islam.” The situation is not that simple. If there were a religious balance of beliefs, then those of the so-called terrorists would fall to the extreme side. However, in no way can they be referred to as a fringe movement rejected by scholars and clerics. A good amount of Muslims who do not actively participate in the terrorist activities agree with their views, including many people of highly educated backgrounds including Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman a former professor of theology at the highly reputed Al Ahzar University in Cairo and Dr. Abdul Aziz Rantisi, a professor and medical doctor (66-84).

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:14:38 GMT

(download original)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:15:01 GMT

(view original)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:20:39 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response (1)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:21:01 GMT

Re: "Why Are We Afraid of Big Bad Islam? (Or Are They Afraid of Us?)"

I agree with the claims of the editorial ["Why Are We Afraid of Big Bad Islam?"] that the President does not fully explain the intricate reasons of the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on September 11th.

The editorial does an adequate job of fleshing out many of the religious details of the perpetrators. Acknowledging the daily observance of Muslims to their religion and the important infusion Islam has in all matters of their lifestyles was a pertinent fact which the President failed to acknowledge in his speech. The important role of Islam within their daily dealings solidifies the (also correct) estimation of Islamist fundamentalist's reasons for attacking America in response to the threat it poses towards Islamic values. By declaring that American personal freedoms are viewed as immorality I felt the editorial correctly added perspective to a major underlying reason behind terrorist motivations.

The claims about Islamist extremist's anti-secular antipathy and views that American interference in the Middle East is seen as supporting secular powers (which pits the U.S. against the secular governments religiously driven adversaries) and threatening fundamentalist's interests were also on point and provided a deeper glimpse of terrorist's motives.

While I agree with much of what the editorial stated there were a few bones within it which I would like to pick.

The claim that the terrorists are not a fringe movement and are not rejected by scholars and clerics within the Islamic world makes the actions of the terrorists appear as having the support of a wide base of Muslims about the world. This is not the case. While many Muslims do share the view that the U.S. may overstep its sphere of influence and assert itself in others business too to large an extent, the terrorists response through violence and view of America being the equivalent to the root of all evil are views neither supported nor shared by Muslims in a broad generality. The reason more Muslims are not involved in terrorist actions is because the views of the terrorist are extreme. Te terrorists are a fringe group.

To support the claims that terrorists are justified by a wide base of scholars and clerics around the globe, as the editorial does, the truth of the reality is obscured. The call to arms is justified by a few extremely conservative mullahs whose personal aims coincide with the terrorist groups.

The support of highly educated men such as Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and Dr. Abdul Aziz Rantisi does not substanitiate the argument, and ignores the truth that educated jurists and learned men on Islam are necessary to add verification to extremist movements. And likewise, it should be mentioned that Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman has been linked with one of Egypt's most militant Islamic movements, implicated in numerous assassination attempts, including the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sedat, and was implicated in being the leader of the Islamist extremists responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Centers in 1993. Dr. Abdul Aziz Rantisi similarly has a past deeply immersed in terrorist movements including being one of the founders of Hamas and as having personally green-lighted countless terrorist strikes along the Gaza strip. Ultimately using the opinions of these two men to verify the stance that educated Muslims agree with terrorist group's actions doesn't serve to justify this argument.

Overall though, I felt the editorial provided a clearer understanding of the religiously motivated intentions of the perpetrators and while a few points of the argument were murky, the position and clarification in its entirety were well put forward.

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:33:27 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response (2)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:33:50 GMT

To the Editor:

I am writing to respond to the op-ed article printed a week ago, "Why Are We Afraid of Big Bad Islam? (Or Are They Afraid of Us?)," which responded to and clarified aspects of President Bush's speech to Congress about the attacks of 9/11. As a scholar in religious violence I would like to express disagreement with some of the points the author made, which could lead the American public to base their fear and rage on false points.

First of all, the author agrees with President Bush in that these religious extremists, Al Qaeda, hate our democratically elected government. However, when the author goes on to explain this better; she instead talks about our secular government and our principle of separating church and state which is seen as offensive to these groups. It is not that we democratically elect our government that causes these groups to dislike us, but rather the second point about the secularization of our government and society. Our secular form of authority and rule can be seen as repressive to their religious views, which includes a form of government that is closely tied to religion. While the author hits on an important point about our secularism seen as a threat to these groups, it is important to separate this from the guise of democracy.

Another point Bush made that the author of this piece agrees with, is that these terrorists hate our freedom. This is unfounded and misleading. The author then continues to make some valid points about the American lifestyle and its projection through media, which can be seen as threatening to these religious extremist groups. This is not the same as freedom. America and the Western world have an incredible hold on mass media, the international economy, and even world politics to some extent. We are able to project our lifestyle on others in many different ways. What the terrorists want is freedom from this which can be seen as challenging to their lifestyle. They hate our unprecedented control in this world. They seek to have some of the power which we have and the freedom to live their lives according to how they see fit. It is not freedom that they hate, but the overwhelming power and control we have, from which they seek to have a little of their own freedom.

The last point I would like to discuss is the apparent discord between some of the statements that the author makes. First, the author says that these terrorists have a directive to kill as part of a cosmic war between good and evil. However, she makes the point that their first priority is to be heard, not to kill people. It is important to recognize that while mass killing is often employed by these terrorists, it is not an end in itself. It is a tactic used to gain more attention toward their group and cause.

While I think it was important for someone to respond to Bush's speech, this author did a mediocre job in explaining some of the real issues behind the terrorist actions.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:28:20 GMT

What America Should Know About Religious Violence

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:29:43 GMT

After the events of September 11, 2001, the American public was shocked and overwhelmed at the atrocity that had been committed. Most of all, however, they were bewildered and unsure as to the motivations and the reasoning behind these attacks. Nine days later, in response to the attack on the World Trade Centers, President Bush gave a speech to the nation, not only laying out a response plan, but attempting to explain to the American people the nature of the perpetrators and what he took to be an explanation for their actions. Although President Bush’s attempts to explain the attacks were interesting and at times correct, he made some common mistakes and assumptions. He also left some ends untied and some gray areas that I feel the American public needs clarified.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:27:22 GMT

(view original)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:27:44 GMT

(download original)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:33:39 GMT

Terrorists = Nazis? This Scholar Doesn’t Buy It (one response)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:34:17 GMT

In President Bush’s recent speech following the devastating attacks on September 11th, several claims were made about the terrorist motivations and eventual goals in committing these appalling acts of religious terrorism. After examining the speech closely, several flaws in the Administration’s understanding of religious violence can be detected. As a scholar of religious violence, I feel it is my obligation to highlight some important oversights and misunderstandings about the motives and eventual desired outcome of the terrorist organizations. I argue that terrorist associations such as Al-Qaeda are not heirs of old 20th century ideas related to Nazism and fascism as President Bush claims. They differ because the motivations for action against the United States are not simply ploys to selfishly gain power, and the eventual outcome desired by these organizations are not to overthrow our government but to symbolically struggle against it without a clear and defined goal.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:34:37 GMT

(view original)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:34:52 GMT

(download original)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:24:10 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:24:21 GMT

To the Editor:

The op-ed of last week entitled "Terrorists = Nazi's? This Scholar Doesn't Buy It" brought up some interesting points. While I don't disagree that the acts of September 11 were symbolic to the religious terrorists committing them, I find it hard to believe that they are not also strategic. There are plenty of American symbols around the country. I'm fairly certain that if asked what represented America to them, most Americans wouldn't have chosen the World Trade Center. Two popular choices would probably have been the Liberty Bell or the Statue of Liberty. If President Bush is right and they hate our freedoms so much, wouldn't either of these have been a better choice to symbolically strike out against the American way of life ? both have the word "liberty" in their name, which is a big part of American freedoms. Instead, the terrorists chose the World Trade Center, an economic center. If they wanted to attack American economy, they could have attacked Wall Street in general, but they chose the World Trade Center -- which undermines our economic connections around the globe. Their second choice of attack was the Pentagon -- a building associated with our military. So I understand that they could be symbolically striking out against our economic and military power around the world, but this is also strategic to me in that these attacks could have crippled our economy and military bases at home, leaving us vulnerable to further attack -- a kind of two birds with one stone.
Also, I think that the idea of a cosmic war and the terrorists' beliefs about it needs to be clarified. While it is probably true that the terrorists' don't believe the war will be easily won or won soon, I find it hard to believe they don't think that religion (as the good side) will be triumphant over evil secularism at all. The author makes it sound like they will keep on fighting indefinitely even though there is no hope they will win. But even if they accept the fact that their cosmic war won't be successful in the near (or even distant) future, their continued string of singular successful attacks on secularism (such as September 11) sustain their hope that their cause (and religion) will eventually be victorious. I agree that the war on terror probably won't intimidate the religious terrorists as President Bush thinks it will. They seem very set in their ways and more used to violent struggle than we are. In fact, it seems that the war on terror will only validate their beliefs that we are the evil forces repressing their religious goodness.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:40:52 GMT

Op-Ed: “War on terror” must be fought ideologically (four responses)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:42:22 GMT

Last Thursday, President Bush gave a speech in which he outlined his views on what religiously-motivated terrorism is. He gave us a name to attach to the attacks at the World Trade Center two weeks ago, and an organization to blame. He also declared the beginning of a “war on terror” – a battle that, it seems, Mr. Bush believes can be won through force of arms.

President Bush intends to go to war to end what is, ultimately, an ideology. This ideology cannot be defeated simply by killing those who fight in its name – for every death, two more warriors will join the cause. It must be defeated, if it is to be defeated, by confrontation on ideological grounds.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:41:00 GMT

(download original)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:41:27 GMT

(view original)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:27:22 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response (1)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:28:33 GMT

Fighting ideology with psychology: Letter to the editor about "War on Terror must be fought ideologically" Op-Ed.

I am writing in regard to an Op-Ed posted in your journal several days ago. The Op-Ed commented on President Bush's speech regarding the war on terror and our plan of action in retaliation to the attacks on 9/11. Now the writer of the article seems educated but he/she trying to answer a question that Bush subtly posed in his speech: how do you fight a war on an ideology?

According to the author of the Op-Ed you published, Bush's response is a physical, aggressive and one that involves a "force of arms." Now I am not denying that might possibly be President Bush's main course of action considering the terminology and tone of President Bush's speech, but I do believe there is more to Bush's plan of action than that.

An ideological belief is something that stems from several factors in a person's life. One of these factors is psychology. Based on how a person's brain works given their personality and upbringing, they are going to have certain beliefs to match that. Psychology is a huge part when someone is deciding what the ideals of their life should be. And using force to attack someone's ideals can have certain psychological effects.

For instance: if American armed forces take down a terrorist training camp fairly quickly and efficiently, that could send a psychological message of fear and worry to the rest of the training camps and in turn effect their ideological beliefs. So all I'm suggesting is that brute force might not be the only weapon in President Bush's plans.

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:28:19 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response (2)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:27:34 GMT

To quote the author of the recently-published Op-Ed titled, "'War on terror' must be fought ideologically": "[w]e cannot win if we don't know what we're fighting." I think this was an excellent point to be made in response to President Bush's speech in regards to the September 11th attacks and the United States' subsequent declaration of a "War on Terror," and cannot help but to agree with much of what this author says.

The point which was made regarding how this War on Terror is actually a War on an Ideology is quite an interesting one and one that I had not previously considered. At the surface level, this War on Terror exists because there are other people out in the world that are committing horrible and evil acts, such as those which took place on September 11th, and it only makes sense to "fight fire with fire" to get the desired results of an end to the warring.

However, when looking at this issue more extensively, one is able to realize that by fighting this fire with our own and only reciprocating such actions, we are not taking the right action to get things done. As stated by the author, "we must end the circumstances that give them a justification for the violence." I agree with the concept of this statement, but how is one able to actually go about doing this?

This is where I find the fault which lies in this author's work. Yes, it is true that we are fighting a "mindset," a "belief," an "ideology" -- but what can we do to win the fight? It is true that the circumstances that give terrorist groups just cause for violence must be ended, as is true that we need to understand their ideology in order to fight against it. Yet these are just concepts and words, not actions that can be actively pursued -- "understanding" a problem does not give immediate ability to solve the problem. I don't believe that a violent terrorist group is going to be overly eager to sit down and communicate their needs and desires within society. Because this is what it seems it may take to actually be able to "understand" the problem, I'd say that we have a complex situation on our hands -- we know the way to stop the War, but we do not know how to find the path that will take us there.

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:29:50 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response (3)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:29:59 GMT

"'War on terror' must be fought ideologically" is inconceivable

I did not vote for President Bush. Nor do I agree with many of his actions, including those he has taken thus far in response to the September 11 attacks. Generally speaking, I am not a huge fan of our country's current administration. However, I find myself in an increasingly awkward position when it comes to criticizing our president. While I recognize and agree with the flaws that this scholar pointed out within the President's speech, I find that his suggestions are somewhat inconceivable. Bush's address blanketed a lot of grey areas with black and white statements that seemed to be simplified for the public's sake. In reality, he did more harm than betterment because now the people of this country believe that they see things clearly within a very blurry realm. The two options that the writer points out and the description of our national objectives seem so practical, "In order to create the end result we desire -- namely, an end to the religiously-motivated violence -- we must, then, focus on the first; in order to end the cosmic war that these men see themselves as fighting, we must end the circumstances that give them a justification for the violence." The religious extremism that is described in the article is not difficult to understand. Everyone has encountered or heard of groups that live and die for their faith; that fully believe that their form of religion is the only true one in existence. However, the idea that we, as a country, are responsible for ending the circumstances that make their violent assertions of their faith just... is rather impossible. And I, myself, completely agree with him. That would be great! But I have to take notice that the writer did not actually supply an approach of his own on how this goal could be accomplished. His argument is well written (with the exception of a few dangling modifiers) and idealistic and I would love nothing more than to see exactly what he described actually occur in this "war on terror." But I do not have the plan to tackle this problem of violence and misunderstanding. And, clearly, he does not, either.

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:32:10 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response (4)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:32:18 GMT

To the Editor: I am writing to express my views on "hatred of freedom" as discussed in your op-ed of several days ago, titled '"War on terror" must be fought ideologically'

I was pleased to see an article giving attention to reasons America has been targeted by al Qaeda. I think it is clear by this point that the "hate our freedoms" explanation alone is insufficient. At the same time, it seems possible that al Qaeda could in fact hate "American freedoms", but in reaction to other, more significant, causes. All these verbal assertions of freedom exist in a nation that currently does not appear to promote freedom at all. The US imprisons "unlawful enemy combatants" without charges. They also promote secular governments for economic interests, disregarding the option of living under a religious government, if desired by the people. So it could understandably be the case that in reaction to the observation that a secular government who talks so much about "freedoms" can act so hypocritically and as an oppressive force, that the principle of such a government is rejected as a tolerable possibility and instead demonized. Overall, I agree with what the article is saying. I just think it is not inconceivable that reactionary militant groups actually hate things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I don't think they find anything innately wrong with freedoms, but due to the record of states where their profession exists, it seems like "freedom" could conceivably be demonized in response to oppression. If freedom is in fact hated, it is likely that it is combined with a broader idea of Americanism than individual Americans, like Juergensmeyer himself discussed regarding his conversation with Rantisi in Terror in the Mind of God.

Additionally, I think Juergensmeyer presents a more interesting explanation for the killing of Americans in this book instead of the claim that the lives of westerners are obstacles to religious militants that must be destroyed. The explanation involves symbolism and theater; the deaths of Americans to strategically eliminate them is not the goal. Instead, American people constitute a part of normal societal function that can be killed as a symbol of America's actual vulnerability. Additionally, al Qaeda was able to manipulate the American media, which they view as an oppressive force, to circulate their message to a global audience.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:36:49 GMT

"The President’s speech of 20 September 2001 was particularly clear with regard to the fact that the Muslim community is not the enemy of the United States of America...." (no title) (one response)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:37:56 GMT

The President’s speech of 20 September 2001 was particularly clear with regard to the fact that the Muslim community is not the enemy of the United States of America. He throughout the address however did repeatedly make the claim that those who did attack us were not really Muslims but instead satanic usurpers of that faith. And whilst neither I nor the President is making the claim that all Muslims everywhere are violent “extremists” I would hesitate to satanize them (our enemies) too quickly. I am convinced that neither the President nor anyone else can licitly claim that Islamic “extremists” and terrorists are not true Muslims. The fact of the matter is that they’re truer Muslims than any non-Muslim. But here I digress, and we should from here on out look to other factors involved.

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:47:27 GMT

(download original)

Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:47:15 GMT

(view original)

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:18:42 GMT

Letter to the Editor in response