Religions and peace

Why is it that every time (and these days there are lots of such times) some jihadists commit an act of heinous violence somewhere, we have to be told that Islam is a religion of peace?

Such ritualistic invocation raises the possibility of protesting too much, with an implicit assumption that without such sermons we dumb rubes might reach a different conclusion, perhaps even the one suggested by our eyes, ears, and the daily headlines.

One is reminded by these efforts of the line that the brainwashed soldiers had to repeat over and over again in The Manchurian Candidate-“Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I have ever known in my life.” “Islam is a religion of peace” is cued up and reflexively expressed in much the same brain-dead fashion.

Of course, to assert that Islam (or any other religion or belief system) is peaceful sort of begs the question: How do we know?

To assess such a claim you can,presumably, approach it from three directions.

First, you could look at the actual teachings/dogma itself, as in what does the Koran or the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita actually contain. Presumably, those contents will vary;otherwise we wouldn’t have need for different religions in the first place, would we? And if the contents vary, the level of violence encouraged or featured therein will also likely vary as well. Even if we assume, somewhat illogically, that all religions are by definition peaceful, some are still likely to be “more peaceful” in content than others, yes?

Further complication comes in, however, when noting that you can find just about anything you are looking for if you look hard enough in religious texts. Organized religions are in many respects “grab bags” out of which determined seekers can find whatever they wish, to the point where conclusions regarding their substance become increasingly subjective.

A similar substantive permissiveness or even elasticity afflicts ideological systems. Communist regimes in different parts of the world adopted all kinds of brutal practices throughout the 20th Century, all while still claiming to be loyal to Marx and Engels. Ironically, that same doctrinal slipperiness allows leftists even to this day to assert that communism hasn’t failed because it has “never really been tried.”

In other words, examination of dogma and doctrine is at best a starting point, but seldom determinative.

A second approach might be to judge based on the behavior of adherents, a consideration which doesn’t, at least recently, cast Islam in too positive a light, what with 9/11, Boston, the slaughter of British soldier Lee Rigby, etc. But even this becomes conditional, since just about every religion has its violent zealots (the Spanish Inquisition or John Brown anyone?) and periods of violent upheaval (the religious wars that destroyed so much of Europe come to mind on that score).

So, again, what conclusions across time and space do we draw from such a record? Other than that most religions are capable of nasty flare-ups of violence from time to time?

Third, and finally, we might take the “forest over the trees” approach and look at what, in a civilizational sense, different religions have wrought in terms of human rights, economic progress, and political structures. Christianity comes off pretty well in this regard, Islam not so much.

Just about every country in the world with a Christian majority is a multiparty democracy with reasonable respect for human rights; just about every country in the world with a Muslim majority features the opposite. Indeed, with the ongoing sweep and effects of the global democratic revolution, dictatorship has now been largely reduced to a Muslim political enterprise. Anyone who says that there isn’t a “Democracy-Islam problem” is therefore trying awfully hard not to look.

But trying hard not to look is, of course, the essential requirement of political correctness, defined as the concerted effort to superimpose upon reality and truth whatever we would instead like reality and truth to be, and to thereafter prevent others from disturbing those comforting shibboleths and platitudes, from challenging in any way the party line for those who are only comfortable when marching in lockstep with brains turned off.

At the least, there is something downright embarrassing when the likes of British Prime Minister David Cameron goes out of his way after the latest atrocity to remind us that those committing it “are not representative of Islam.”

As if he would know, and as if Winston Churchill during the blitz ever felt compelled to go on the radio and point out that the Luftwaffe really isn’t representative of the German people, most of whom are ordinary, peace-loving blokes (which they probably were, and likely still are, but is that really the point?).

The issue in all this isn’t so much the nature of Islam, about which we should be able to have honest discussion, as why so many among us feel such a desperate need to apologize on its behalf every time some jihadist beheads an infidel while shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

When our leaders cower and cringe and generally comport themselves like jellyfish, is it any wonder that our enemies view us with such contempt?

———◊———

Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.