Truth and Tolerance

Back in December, I put up a post entitled “Fools, Holy and Otherwise”, dealing with “true believers” and how they can be of any political stripe, as long as it's radical and revolutionary. In other words, “true believer” and “moderate” don't go together – any more than “true believer” and “silent majority”. True believers are activists, either in the physical sense (joining a crusade, proselytizing, blowing things up, etc.) or in the sense of expressing opinions, loudly and often, regardless of how counter-cultural or unpopular those opinions might be. So in our time, we can count, among true believers, libertarians and anarchists, the far left (or what's left of it, as opposed to garden-variety liberals and “progressives”), the far right (beyond mainstream “conservatism”, which doesn't differ significantly from Neoconservatism), and – obviously – adherents to Islamic fundamentalism and jihad. I should also include the more serious Christian Zionists, even though it's hard to draw the line between true belief and knee-jerk support.  (And when it comes to the Occupy crowd and the Tea Party, I think that's more about mob psychology than any coherent belief system.)

I guess what this amounts to is that true believers are a relative rarity on the current American political scene. What we have instead is any number of people, and organizations, who want to work “within the system”, and an isolated few who realize that the system is terminally corrupt and, basically, doomed (but not without many years, if not decades, of dying pains). Ron Paul supporters were, and continue to be, true believers, whereas political activity in Democrat and mainstream Republican circles is characterized by cynicism, resignation, and hunger for power – and little else. (Power without principles – ah yes, there's the ticket! Expect nothing but great and ennobling things to come out of that combination.)

In any case, in response to the blog post, a correspondent provided an excerpt having to do with the Jews, who were considered a bit of a pain (to the Romans, among others) because of their... we would say “dogmatic clinging”... to monotheism. The Roman emperor (a real person, but a fictitious letter in the novel) says, “In principle, Judaism has its place among the religions of the empire; in practice, Israel has refused for centuries to be one people among many others, with one god among the gods.” Sound familiar? In our time there are three “great” monotheistic religions, but are the Jews, as embodied in the State of Israel, any more willing than ever to be “one people among many others”? So it's about more than monotheism, clearly. And this was, of course, before the rise if Islam, so the quote “no other god has inspired his worshipers with disdain and hatred for those who pray at different altars” could apply, in our time, to radical Islam as well as to Christian Zionism (whose adherents are fully behind the war on Islam being waged by the U.S.).

So my reply to the response was as follows:

      Well, it does seem to be true that polytheistic religions are less "dogmatic", and inspire less fanaticism, than monotheistic ones.  (How do you talk about heresy if you have 1000 deities?)  On the other hand, there are plenty of religious wars and strife involving, e.g., Buddhists and Hindus -- although these may, in some cases, be political and economic struggles in disguise.  If you're contending for power, territory, resources, etc. you may have better luck appealing to articles of religious faith than simply to pragmatic ones; they are more inspiring (in the literal sense). 

      But there's another issue reflected in that passage, namely that of tolerance.  We assume that intolerance naturally goes along with dogmatism and fanaticism -- that they are basically the same thing.  And again, it's true that Buddhists are more likely to "live and let live".  But moderate monotheists tend to respect each others' religions, beliefs, and observances -- hence the term "people of the book", which the Moslems use.  I think the feeling here is that any monotheist is at least on the right track -- that they are closer to the truth than the polytheists, animists, etc. -- to say nothing of atheists.  And behind it may be the hope that a monotheist of another persuasion will eventually see the light and convert to your own.  (Christians -- Catholics at least -- have always prayed for the conversion of the Jews, up until recently when the practice was discouraged for political reasons.)  In any case, there is certainly plenty of "competition" among the monotheistic faiths, including persecution and shunning, e.g. when a Jew or Moslem converts to Christianity.  (When a Christian converts to Judaism, all we can do is pray for them to return to the fold -- that is, if we don't mind being politically incorrect.)  (You'll notice, BTW, that most of the Jews who object to Catholics praying for their conversion aren't particularly religious anyway -- so that gives it away as a political issue.)

      What is the basis for intolerance, by which I mean active discrimination against, or mistreatment of, people of another faith?  At best it can be seen as having their best interests -- e.g., salvation -- at heart.  If I refuse to rent a commercial space to a group of Satanists for their "church", it's not because I'm afraid of the competition; I really think that they are at grave risk if they persist in that way.  On the other hand, the Church has, not infrequently, said that God has a "plan" for the Jews -- tantalizingly referred to in Revelation, but not the one that the Evangelical "Christian Zionists" think, i.e. not that one involving the State of Israel.  (That state, as even some orthodox Jews point out, is a kind of red herring when it comes to salvation history, i.e. it's part of the problem.)  (The Church, as far as I know, has not said that God has a "plan" for the Moslems, any more than for the Protestants, since both can be considered heresies.  The "plan" would be to bring them back into the fold.) 

      What's more common, however, is for intolerance to have, again, a political or economic... or racial or ethnic... motive.  Again, you disguise something as something "higher", or more spiritual, and you get more support and more willingness to make sacrifices.  We tend to forget, in these times, that World War II was, among other things, thought of as a struggle of Christian civilization against the heathen.  (Even though the Germans weren't heathens, the Nazis were.)  And the whole history of colonization, westward expansion, foreign intervention, Manifest Destiny, etc. had this subtext.  It's wasn't only about "America" or about white people, in other words; it was about faith.  And I submit that one reason for our failure in Vietnam and our follies in the Middle East is that this element was missing [although the Christian Zionists certainly see the “War on Terror” as, basically, a war on Islam, and fully approve].

      So what we wind up with is a paradox of sorts -- getting back to the tolerance issue.  If we "tolerate" other religions on the basis of their right to exist and the rights of individual believers, then we are submitting to indifferentism, i.e. the idea that it doesn't really matter, ultimately, what religion people adhere to, or whether they adhere to any religion at all... that their fate is determined not by articles of faith but by (at best) the degree to which they live good lives, are "ethical", adhere to Natural Law, etc.  Or, in the climate of the present time, just being "nice" seems to suffice (and "niceness", of course, includes not being dogmatic, absolutist, sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. etc., and also being "tolerant" and some kind of socialist and/or liberal and/or Democrat).

      But what is indifferentism to the believer?  It would be a kind of exclusivity, like, my religion is essential for my salvation, and the rest of you can just go to hell.  (Does one detect a certain lack of charity there?)  Or, my religion is essential for my salvation, but the rest of you can believe anything you like and it won't matter.  (What sort of philosophical nonsense is that?)  So "tolerance" may have its limits, even for the most charitable believer.  On the other hand, I don't necessarily expect, but I would very much like, my own religion/belief system/observance to be tolerated by others -- by other monotheists, by polytheists, and, yes, by atheists and even liberals and socialists!  (This is a test that the Obama administration and the mainstream media fail time after time.)  So if I apply the Golden Rule, I'm going to give other faiths (or non-faiths) the benefit of the doubt even if I have doubts.  I'm going to trust that God has a plan, the way He had a plan for me when I was walking in darkness.  But for this, one has to balance charity (of the active, or even militant, sort) with patience.  God does not will that any be lost, but He also wills that we each make our own choices.  When one is standing on the sidelines of the great human drama, it's hard, at times, to not jump in and try to change history.  I guess we each have to make our own decision as to when, how, and how often to intervene. 

(end of reply)

It is always, it seems to me, about striking a balance between one's own beliefs – faithfully held – and the need to be patient with those who believe (or don't believe) otherwise. Better to set a good example than to appear “dogmatic”... attracting more flies with honey than with vinegar... meeting people at the point of their need... all notions that reflect this position. Using unmanned drones to bomb people who don't agree is certainly an aid to faith – of the directly opposing and radical sort. Rely on God to judge people according to their righteousness and adherence to Natural Law, but pray for their conversion as well. Even in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas advocated sitting down with the Jews and Muslims to debate issues of faith, rather than using the secular power as a weapon.

“For further reading” I can suggest no better source than “Truth and Tolerance” by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

Fools, Holy and Otherwise

They came from far and wide... by ship, train, automobile, on horseback... some even on foot. They were young, idealistic, and inspired by an idea... a movement... something that promised to change the world for the better. And when at last they arrived at their destination, they had guns thrust into their hands by the communists and Freemasons, and were sent out to fight Franco's army and the Catholic Church.

The event was the Spanish Civil War, and the individuals in question were part of a children's crusade – more-useful-than-average idiots who were seen, by the cynics rehearsing for World War II, as a propaganda medium as well as cannon fodder. And they had the enthusiastic support of the folks back home, wherever “home” happened to be. (Remember, this was in the 1930s when communism, especially of the Soviet variety, was seen by many in this country as the most promising model for the future of mankind. The New Deal was just the first step.)

But why bring up this dreary and depressing bit of history now? Because I was reminded of it by reading about the successful recruiting efforts of the Islamic State – soon to be known as ISISaFAWKUYB, or Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and For All We Know Under Your Bed – the latest bogeyman in what appears to be an unending parade of “terrorist” organizations. (Our propaganda apparatus seems to be able to pop these outfits out like litters of puppies every few months. No one has ever heard of them until they show up on the evening news.)

But here's the point. They are a military organization, for certain – although how “terrorist” they are depends on what side you're on and where your interests lie. They have apparently managed to grab on to vast stretches of territory that were supposedly defended by the crack troops trained, armed, and funded by our own military and the American taxpayer. (I guess it worked about as well as any other government program.) And they are also, apparently, engaged in just a little of what we used to call “hearts and minds” work (before that term became synonymous with massacres). And, of course, they are energetic, bright-eyed, and absolutely certain of their beliefs and of the ways in which they act upon them. And thus, in these respects at least, they resemble pretty much any revolutionary movement down through history. Those movements tend to attract the young, who are idealistic and tend to see things in absolute, black-and-white terms (substituting politics and “ethics” for religion, in most cases).

But for ISIS, religion is an absolute, so you can't expect their movement to attract too many poli-sci majors from large American universities. (They're too busy worrying about “sell-outs” -- first Russia, then China, and now Cuba. Thank goodness North Korea is hanging tough!) What they do attract, though, are Moslems or those with Moslem aspirations who are looking for.... let's call it “purity”. Purity, lack of compromise, and militancy – combined with that great connective tissue of all successful revolutions, cohesion (or fellowship, companionship, “comrades in arms”, however you want to think of it -- “Those were the days, my friend”, etc.). That is, they are looking for something that most modern armies of conscripts and/or mercenaries don't have – a raison d'etre, a cause, something to believe in, something to make sacrifices for.

And are these motives bad? They are certainly common enough – maybe essential – in the history of religion; how many saints can you name who were “moral relativists”? And at some point after the Reformation these motives were shifted over to politics – the new religion to replace the old. Enough has been said about the “religious” nature of political movements, starting with the French Revolution and going up through Communism and Fascism. And now we again see religion as a prime motivator, violating all standards of political correctness. True belief is a force to be reckoned with – a “force multiplier” in military terms. And it's great when you agree, but scary and bad when you don't. But in any case, it does tend to unite people, at least at the early stages of a movement, until the pragmatists take over, followed by the cynics. You see this basic trajectory in the Soviet case; the Third Reich didn't last long enough to run through the entire cycle – it was born fanatical and died fanatical. In our own case, the pragmatists were in charge from the beginning; when the cynics started to take over is a good question, but I would put it, at the very latest, at the start of the Vietnam War era. Everything from then on has been politics – skillfully disguised, at times, as patriotism to make it more palatable to the unwary, but pure politics nonetheless.

But there's another point to be made. What ultimately appeals to youth, and to older people of a certain disposition, is not deep philosophy, or even ideas – it's revolution per se. It's the process – the stimulation – the excitement – the savor of storming the battlements (literal or political). People have been known to radically change their ideas and political points of view, but remain revolutionaries; one can call them shallow, but that would be like calling someone who enjoys driving but doesn't much care where he winds up shallow. There are people who are built for this sort of thing, and, quite frankly, even the most half-baked ideas can stimulate them to action if they're presented in the right way (with, ideally, the proper iconography – think media, film, TV, radio, posters, etc.). The most skilled promotion of revolution can be entirely content-free – all process, no product (or as Mao put it, “continuous revolution”).

And this, as in so many other instances having to do with world affairs in our time, catches the international elite totally off-guard. They are, if anything, the ultimate pragmatists – it's all about the bottom line, and anyone who argues differently is some kind of dreamer. The bottom line may be money, or power, or some combination of the two, but it's always about the material and never about ideas – to say nothing of religious ideals. To give the best example in our own society, we have the Neocons, who are self-styled patriots and “conservatives”, but who relish power above all. Or, to put it another way, can we really call the people who are turning this country into a monstrosity patriots? Our home-grown liberals, on the other hand, have never been patriotic; they see themselves as “citizens of the world”... but when you closely examine their motives and actions, you see a lust for power and control over others as their prime motivation. I would say that the main difference between liberals and “conservatives” in our time is that the former use money to gain power, whereas the latter use power to gain money. And I don't call that a radical difference in world view.

So what does the Establishment – any establishment, any regime – do when confronted with belief? What does it do when confronted with “fanatics”, “absolutists”, “dogmatists”... or, in the current lexicon, “haters” (which is what you call someone who has strong opinions that differ from your own)? The tools are varied, and are wielded with great skill by the propaganda apparatus, AKA the mainstream media. First you ignore them -- “just a bunch of nuts”... “a fringe element”... “kooks”... and so on. Then when they seem to be acquiring some small measure of power and influence, you start with the hard-core labeling: “Fascists”... “Nazis”... “fundamentalists”... “ultra-(whatevers)”. That, and some form of impugning their mental health, patriotism, suitability for public office, suitability for possessing weapons, etc. Then you start to allow for “strong measures” -- regrettable, but these people are dangerous! And this is a crisis! -- on the part of the police, FBI, CIA, military, etc. (But never the Border Patrol for some reason.) Oh, and – lest we forget – they are always accused of oppressing women, gays, and “minorities” in general; turn that up a notch and you get slavery, child molestation, drug dealing... wow, these are real baddies, and anything we do to stop them has to be OK. (To hell with “just war” theory.)

And yet, on the other side of this great reality divide, there are people who truly believe that a new world is being created, and they want to be part of it. And we might understand, if we had any vestige of principles or belief, but since we are all pragmatists and cynics now, we don't, and so we wade into conflicts without having the vaguest idea of what we are doing battle with.