The Ju Ju of War

[marct]

Hi Tom,

The more I think about it, the more I'm sold on this civil religion thing. Christianity (which I'm assuming is prevalent), or Wicca (what have you), can be something running private and independently of whatever other related sensibilities a warfighter carries with them.

I think the last figures I saw for the US placed Christianity (very broadly construed) at about 85-86% of the population with Judaism, Islam and Hinduism making up the bulk of the remainder. The last figures I saw on neo-Paganism (including Wicca in all its forms) put it at around 3-400,000 in the US, or about 0.1% of the population (there are all sorts of problems with that figure).

Ritual expressions of patriotism can be religious in this sense, but I'm worried about the effects of cognitive dissonance. I've often thought that the jihadists have an advantage over us because the socio-political expressions of their religious mantle are more consonant; i.e., their God is more warrior-like.

In the interests of accuracy, I think it would be better to say that their Prophet was more warrior-like, although I think that distinction is lost on too many people on all sides <sigh>. I think you are right about the potential for cognitive dissonance as well, but I think that can be fairly easily countered in the US case.

I would imagine transmutations of that sort take place among Christian warfighters, but don't know for sure. I would say there's a drive towards ju-ju (there, I used the word), a need for something magical, if you will, something that connects or integrates all the reasons together and seems cosmic at the time. Such "flashes" of insight could very well be the social cement that Rousseau and Durkheim were trying to get at. Perhaps there is some sense in keeping one's religion private.

My own guess is that it is a form of the panenhenic experience, which is the most common, and universal, form of mystical experience. I think that the type Durkheim was alluding to was a combination of that with some forms of the polytheistic variants (cf his introduction to the Division of Labour in Society, 2nd edition ref. the role of intermediary structures in modern societies and, especially, his discussion of the medieval guild structure).

This is one of the areas where I think the Regimental system is better than the current US system. It is a form of totemism focused on the Regiment in a manner similar to the Roman Legions focus on their Eagles or the Napoleonic Regiments focus on theirs. In Durkheiman terms, it is an intermediate structure that is intensely "civil" while, at the same time, being "religious".

[skiguy]

I've often thought that the jihadists have an advantage over us because the socio-political expressions of their religious mantle are more consonant; i.e., their God is more warrior-like.

Not according to the OT. This misguided theology that Jesus is (was) this noviolent pacifist is wrong. I've stated my beliefs here a few times, and another one is that God did not change from the OT to the new. (Christian pacifists really get on my nerves because they can't grasp this concept. We are to fight evil, not sit there and take it on the other cheek. Romans 13: "IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, live at peace with one another." I interpret that as "when it's not possible, fight back") Not getting into the theological reasons for his first coming (think sacrifice), but his second coming,according to some beliefs, is going to be quite a difference. (and a big shock to these pacifists)

The 'problem' with Christians is there are so many different interpretations out there. Muslims seem a little more united in their belief system, and I find that interesting. Marc says Christians make up 85-86% of the population. I don't doubt that, but how many are Catholics or JW's or Mormons, etc? I have vast differences with those three I mentioned.
JMO.

[tequila]

The 'problem' with Christians is there are so many different interpretations out there. Muslims seem a little more united in their belief system, and I find that interesting.

Hmmm ... are you really sure about this, given the fact that Sunnis and Shi'i are murdering each other by the dozen in Iraq every day, w/similar simmering sectarian conflict in Lebanon, Bahrain, Pakistan, etc.

[marct]

Hi Skiguy,

The 'problem' with Christians is there are so many different interpretations out there. Muslims seem a little more united in their belief system, and I find that interesting. Marc says Christians make up 85-86% of the population. I don't doubt that, but how many are Catholics or JW's or Mormons, etc? I have vast differences with those three I mentioned.
JMO.

That was why I used the phrase "Christianity (very broadly construed)" . I think you are correct in saying that Christianity is somewhat more divided that Islam but, then again, Christianity is a lot older than Islam and developed in a very different social environment. In particular, there was no equivalent of the expropriation of Christianity as a state religion during the Tetrarchy (Constantine and his buds), so you don't have the same history of state enforced definition of orthodoxy (and orthopraxy) in Islam that you do in Christianity.

One of the more fascinating things about Islam is its concentration on the "community" (as opposed to the state), and I believe that this is one of the mechanisms that has allowed Islam to develop conflicting interpretations without getting into the heresy model that plagued Christianity. It is quite possible for one Muslim to hold a position that is diametrically opposed to another Muslim without viewing the other as a heretic - a major strength IMO.

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

Hmmm ... are you really sure about this, given the fact that Sunnis and Shi'i are murdering each other by the dozen in Iraq every day, w/similar simmering sectarian conflict in Lebanon, Bahrain, Pakistan, etc.

It really isn't dissimilar to what Christians were doing in the 11th to 16th centuries. The fracture lines, at least amongst the Sunni, tend to be more on emphasis than basic beliefs. The Sunni-Shia split is, definitely, about a limited number of basic beliefs but, I would argue, is a less radical split than the Unitarian-Trinitarian split inside Christianity, let alone the Gnostic-Orthodox split.

[tequila]

The difference between orthopraxic and orthodoxic is key in the lack of sort of witch-hunt mentality in classical Islam. However there have been definite cases where there was out-and-out persecution based on matters of belief. The Kharijites and Azraqis are examples. The modern-day takfiris are another. Sufism danced close to the edge until al-Ghazali definitively integrated them into sharia. The Qizilbash movement that eventually purged Sunni Islam from Persia is perhaps the most consequential example.

Marct - I agree that overall the split is less radical in terms of belief, but it is more violent at the moment. Far less so than the religious wars of Europe, though. Ironic that Islam is about as old as Christianity was during the Reformation.

[skiguy]

Ironic that Islam is about as old as Christianity was during the Reformation.

Interesting. I never thought of that.

tequila, I wasn't saying there is no violence between them. Of course I'm aware of that. But from what I basically know of Islam, their belief system is more united than Christians. They all have the same view of the Qur'an, Allah, and, to some extent, Mohammed. If I'm not mistaken, and outside of the twelvers (?), they all share the same eschatological beliefs. (correct me if I'm wrong) Ask a Catholic what the end times will be like, then ask a fundamentalist...the answers won't even be close. Some Christians don't believe the Bible is innerant or that Christ is God, some do. (That's a quite an important theological difference, IMO)

[skiguy]

Here's where I'm trying to go with this. It's perhaps simple-minded and maybe even insane (but it's well thought out insanity).
What if I (who leans towards a fundamentalist belief) and a Catholic are on the same peacekeeping team who meet up with a Muslim religious leaders/spokespeople. We start an open dialogue and the Muslim may ask a question like, "But your Bible teaches xxxxx". One of us will say, "That's what he believes, but I don't, yet we still like, respect, and accept one another." The conversation alone may not solve the problems of the world, but it's still a good example of respect for one another. And the main thing is, it starts an open dialogue. People have done this before and it worked.
Does this make sense, or am I way out in left field/unreality land?

To comment on the original post: do not take any "side". This should not be a "my God is better than your God" conflict. Isn't that what the extremists want us to think? We are not at war with Islam.

[marct]

Marct - I agree that overall the split is less radical in terms of belief, but it is more violent at the moment. Far less so than the religious wars of Europe, though. Ironic that Islam is about as old as Christianity was during the Reformation.

Oh, I agree that it is more violent now and, yes, I had noted the relative times . Speaking of which, have you noticed that Al Ghazali, Maimonides and Aquinas all show up at roughly the same period?

tequila, I wasn't saying there is no violence between them. Of course I'm aware of that. But from what I basically know of Islam, their belief system is more united than Christians. They all have the same view of the Qur'an, Allah, and, to some extent, Mohammed. If I'm not mistaken, and outside of the twelvers (?), they all share the same eschatological beliefs. (correct me if I'm wrong) Ask a Catholic what the end times will be like, then ask a fundamentalist...the answers won't even be close. Some Christians don't believe the Bible is innerant or that Christ is God, some do. (That's a quite an important theological difference, IMO)

If by "view of the Qur'an" you mean the equivalent of the Christian concept of innerancy, then yes. If you mean interpretation, then no. Part of the key to that, however, is that the Qur'an is not the Qur'an if it is translated - something that has caused immense problems for Christians. Just to give one, Christian, example, the phrase "the Kingdom of God" shows up in a lot of English translations of the Gospel of John. The original koine word, however, is "imperium" which is better translated as "sphere of influence" as opposed to "basileon" or kingdom (sorry, I don't have a greek TT font here).

Another difference is that, by and large, Islam doesn't engage in theology. Theology, as a practice, is "heretical" to Islam in that it presumes that one can "know the mind of God". The vast majority of Islam engages in "law", not theology, which is attempts to interpret the Qur'an and Hadith in a logical manner, but always recognizes that such interpretations must, inevitably, be flawed since they are the work of mortals, not God.

This is distinctly different from the concept of "continuing revelation" that exists within Christianity. With a couple of very minor exceptions, and I believe the Hashashiyan was one, anyone who says "God has told me thus and so" would pretty much be killed outright - which certainly isn't the case in Christianity!

[marct]

Hi Skiguy,

Here's where I'm trying to go with this. It's perhaps simple-minded and maybe even insane (but it's well thought out insanity).
What if I (who leans towards a fundamentalist belief) and a Catholic are on the same peacekeeping team who meet up with a Muslim religious leaders/spokespeople. We start an open dialogue and the Muslim may ask a question like, "But your Bible teaches xxxxx". One of us will say, "That's what he believes, but I don't, yet we still like, respect, and accept one another." The conversation alone may not solve the problems of the world, but it's still a good example of respect for one another. And the main thing is, it starts an open dialogue. People have done this before and it worked.
Does this make sense, or am I way out in left field/unreality land?

Works for me . Then again, one of the corollaries of that is to keep missionaries out of the field since they will act as a poison against that very position. Furthermore, the very assurance that they need in order to be effective missionaries is the very same arrogance in the rectitude of their own beliefs that will sour most people who hear them.

To comment on the original post: do not take any "side". This should not be a "my God is better than your God" conflict. Isn't that what the extremists want us to think? We are not at war with Islam.

Agreed totally and,yes, that is exactly how the psychos in AQ want to construct this.

[Rex Brynen]

To comment on the original post: do not take any "side". This should not be a "my God is better than your God" conflict. Isn't that what the extremists want us to think? We are not at war with Islam.

I agree with you, skiguy.

There's an interesting paradox in here, actually: unless he's a hardline takfiri or some other manner of xenophobe, your Muslim interlocutor ought to accept your Christian belief, since after all Christians and Jews are ahl al-kitaab —"peoples of the book"—worshipping the same god. In his religious view (simply put), your heart is in the right place, but Christianity misunderstood the message of the prophets (including Jesus), hence the need for the Prophet Muhammad to provide a final, definite revelation of God's word as the "seal of the prophets."

On the other hand, Christianity—doctrinely—ought to have a harder time accepting Islam, since it rejects any notion of Muhammad as a prophet, or of Islam being a divinely revealed religion.

In practice, however, this isn't quite the situation you might find. He may (depending on where we're talking about, and the extent of his interaction with local and outside non-Muslims) harbour deep suspiccion about non-Muslim beliefs, even monotheistic ones. You, on the other hand, have likely been socialized into an environment in which religious pluralism, even multiculturalism, is a civic norm.

I suppose what I'm saying is that your example raises some interesting questions about the extent to which the dynamics of inter-religious dialogue are shaped by local societal and cultural context as much, or more, than it may be shaped by the core theological doctrines of religion.

[skiguy]

I don't think anyone, Christian, Jew, or Muslim, has to deny their beliefs. It's learning to accept. I will never accept what's in the Qu'ran, but there's no reason I can't be friends with a Muslim (or Jew). Similarly, there's no reason a Shia can't be friends with a Sunni (and it's not like that isn't happening anyway).

Marc...no missionaries!! Keep them away! No trying to convert others. I'm thinking of this solely in a COIN context. However, I think this should be primarily a civilian job.

[Rank amateur]

Not according to the OT. This misguided theology that Jesus is (was) this noviolent pacifist is wrong.

IMO, don't resist those who crucify you and you'll be reborn doesn't leave a lot of room for different interpretations, but I guess I'm probably wrong because there does appear to be many different interpretations.

[skiguy]

IMO, don't resist those who crucify you and you'll be reborn doesn't leave a lot of room for different interpretations.

You have to put that in context with the whole Bible. And does "love your enemy" mean blowing kisses at a suicide bomber as he's driving into the village where I'm working? I don't think so. My intent to want to shoot him is not hatred or murder, it's to protect myself and/or others. This is my problem with the no-kill-under-any-circunstances organizations like CPT. They "get in the way" of the American troop who is trying to stop the VIEB. I don't understand that type of thinking. To me it's immoral. Yet they say the troop is immoral for killing him. And I'm serious, they really do and think that. I've argued with a few of them about this. Welcome to la-la land.

[Rank amateur]

You have to put that in context with the whole Bible.

There's a reason they put a cross at the front of every church and good Friday is a holiday.

[Ken White]

seven churches -- I looked, only two had crosses visible.

Good Friday may be a holy day but I've never known it to be a holiday...

[marct]

One of the things I find so fascinating about Canada, and Ontario in particular (because I know it best), is how differently we handle the issue of religion from the US. First off, unlike he US, there is no central group/organization that recognizes religions. "Recognition" is handled in a very weird way via individual recognition by varying levels of government departments. The key ones are Corrections (both Provincial and Federal), marriage licensing (Provincial), and the Canada Revenue Agency (definer of non-profit status). It is actually quite possible that a religion is "recognized" in one province, unrecognized in another, and illegal in a third (it's happened ). BTW, only about 50% of Canadians self identify as "Christian" (loosely construed).

Holidays, at least in Ontario, are based on the Christian religious calender, but provisions are also made, and required by law, for holidays from any religion so long as the practitioner identifies them to the concerned party - say employer or university prof (e.g. I cannot schedule exams for a religious holiday if one of my students self declares as being a part of that religion).

This has created a very interesting cultural atmosphere surrounding "religion" in Canada; one that I suspect goes back to a) our frontier society roots and b) our extremely cold winters (before global warming ). On the whole, I would say that most Canadians are more likely to agree to compromise on symbol systems in any secular ritual (e.g. the opening of Parliament), to shy away from most confrontationalist types of public rituals and to have more ecumenical (very broadly defined) public rituals.

This has led to some very "odd" public rituals. I remember one from about 20 years ago, an Earth Day public ritual, that had components from every major Christian denomination, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Ba'Hai, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism - quite the event!

[Tom OC]

Been thinking about Ju-Ju lately, and the problems of mono-religious cultures versus multi-religious cultures, in the context of COIN, engaging the mosque, and all that. It seems quite the project to get religious tolerance and religious liberty in place when a conflict presents all sorts of obstacles, including foundational ones, in the way. I've thrown out my best Durkheimian solution, which would be to come up with something spectacular along the lines of a civil religion event. Now, I'd like to throw out a Weberian solution. It's precisely relevant because Weber saw an intimate connection between magic and religion, a parasitical connection if you will, that underscores some deep deficiencies with theocracy, or the irrational ways law can go wrong when controlled by religion. Now, my intent is not to trigger a church and state separation discussion, but if one ensues, so be it. My intent is to propose that the iron cage of rationalization can be used to some advantage. To do this might require a reversal of strategy. Instead of trying to find common ground and instead of trying to find any moderate core or mainstream, one could instead encourage specialization over very narrowly defined areas of theology (the sacred) and very narrowly defined areas of law (the profane). Weber said the first specialists were religious practitioners, and that these models of other-worldly spheres of competence would emit this-worldly specialists once the intellectual division of labor was exhausted with the former. The key to all this, of course, requires an exhaustion of the spiritual mind. When there's nothing more to think about spiritually, the mind turns to the secular.

[marct]

Hi Tom,

Now, I'd like to throw out a Weberian solution. It's precisely relevant because Weber saw an intimate connection between magic and religion, a parasitical connection if you will, that underscores some deep deficiencies with theocracy, or the irrational ways law can go wrong when controlled by religion.

Not sure I would have used the term "parasitical"; possibly "symbiotic" would be more apropos. Then again, that depends very heavily on how the terms "religion" and "magic" are defined. I tend to use Geertz's definition of religion as my "default":

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic

This definition is quite different from Durkheim's one:

a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, - beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them.

For the term "magic", I use Dion Fortune's definition of magic as

the Art and Science of causing changes in consciousness in accordance with will.

In part, I use this definition because it is one commonly accepted as at least moderately valid by most practitioners of Western Magic while, at te same time, it bears at least a passing resemblance to most non-Western magical and mystical traditions (including Sufism and Buddhism). Another reason I use it is because it meshes conceptually very well with Geertz's definition of religion and allows for the development of some pretty sophisticated analyses. The final reason for using it is that the two together actually mesh very well with recent findings in cognitive neural structures (a link brought out fairly early in Charlie Laughlin's theory of Biogenetic Structuralism).

Now, my intent is not to trigger a church and state separation discussion, but if one ensues, so be it.

Most discussions of religion seem to bring that out . Not really that much of an issue in Canada per se, but definitely a major one in the US.

My intent is to propose that the iron cage of rationalization can be used to some advantage. To do this might require a reversal of strategy. Instead of trying to find common ground and instead of trying to find any moderate core or mainstream, one could instead encourage specialization over very narrowly defined areas of theology (the sacred) and very narrowly defined areas of law (the profane).

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here, Tom. Could you expand on it?

Weber said the first specialists were religious practitioners, and that these models of other-worldly spheres of competence would emit this-worldly specialists once the intellectual division of labor was exhausted with the former. The key to all this, of course, requires an exhaustion of the spiritual mind. When there's nothing more to think about spiritually, the mind turns to the secular.

He also argued that there was a continuous flow from the sacred to the profane via prophets, as well as a continuous "secularization" or "hardening" of charisma into rational-legal authority. In which respect, it might be better to go back to his original, German term, stahlhartes Gehäuse and translate that as "steel hard shell" rather than "iron cage"; there are some implications on the relative adaptability of consciousness that are significantly different between the two translations.

Marc

[goesh]

" It seems quite the project to get religious tolerance and religious liberty in place when a conflict presents all sorts of obstacles, including foundational ones, in the way." (Tom OC)

I would add " and the ability to manipulate both " after the words "religious liberty" in the above quote. COIN attaches theory to the method at times ex post facto, born of necessity on the street. COIN advocates the mundane, that the interpretation of radical Islam is not the rationale and justification for insurgency and terrorism, but rather insurgency/terrorism is naught but a grab for power, wealth and social control. This exposes the likes of AQ as common thugs and criminals but in so doing, it makes the ju-ju mundane, not the go-between. The more COIN can apply 'Islam' in its tactics and strategy, the more successful they can be but that path is fraught with moral, political and spiritual implications and unanswered questions. The most successful COIN men in our history were the mountain men/trappers but they assumed in large part Indian identities and lived the lifestyle.

To end my rambling, I would say the spiritual mind will never exhaust itself given the abundance of variation and deviation in traditional and non-traditional approaches to spirituality and new sects and intpretations continue to crop up. Wicca and paganism for instance saw a whole plethora of intepretations once they became born again, no pun intended.