Islam, Catholisism, religion, and conflict

[J Singh]

J Singh mentions the enlightenment and reformation.

Better he backs it up a bit and considers the Renaissance in the 1300s-1600; Mr. Guttenburg's printing press in 1445, the Reformation in the 1500s; and then the Enlightenment in 1600s/1700s.

One could back it up a bit beyond that and extend it to the time of the development of Greek (inclusive of Athenian) democracy. The reason for choosing the Enlightenment (Wikipedia being non-citable for published work but sufficient herein) was the following:

"The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th-century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition.[1] Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange (emphasis mine)."

The Reformation was specifically included secondary to its predicative basis for the oft violent and bloody sectarian struggles that followed from it. One may back 'it' up to the extent that one chooses without altering the resultant conclusion.

People of Western Europe long held under the ideological and political control of the Holy Roman Empire becoming informed and educated; the political hi-jacking of Martin Luther's religious counter to the Catholic Church by those who sought to overthrow the political control of the Roman Empire.

Those who wished to sustain the status quo remained Catholic; those who sought change became Protestants of that status quo.

Politics and power dressed up in the religious terms necessary to move people to violent and illegal action.

However one frames it, the resultant is unchanged. The sociohistorical paradigm operative in the West has been, for some time, the triumph of secularism over religion. The interesting conundrum in regards to how the West arrived 'here' from 'there' is that it included the use of violence and acts deemed illegal by the old order. It is not surprising that the new order would deem 'illegal' the mechanism by which it came to power.

What we see in the Middle East is little different. The keepers of the status quo love to blame some other ideology or religion for the challenges they face. Far easier to swallow than the recognition that the governance they provide is so sorely out of touch.

The secular grievance model is nice but misses the boat on why 'they' fight. The latter requires an objective understanding of their worldview (sans the mirror image logical fallacy).