US Engagement with Religion in Conflict-Prone Settings

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Sorry, but I don't see this as that insightful, or even that hopeful. It's Israeli/Arab culture 101.

I don't think I characterized it as either "insightful" or hopeful" . And, yes I agree, it is a 101 class. What I was hoping to find, and it doesn't really show up in the main article Rex linked to unfortunately, was if they had expanded it significantly beyond the Israeli-Palestinian group. Anyway, I've emailed Scott to see if they have done any more elaboration on it.

The bizarre and patronising western attitude that the "Laws of Souk" apply to negotiating your peoples future, is well known and has always been useless. Look at the failure of the British and French peace and partition plans in 1929 and 1948.

Really good points, as is Rex's on not being able to come up with an agreeable narrative.

As an historical note, there are some interesting examples of this type of negotiation apparent in the Treaty of Westphalia (which is where I was hoping they had taken it) and other treaties (e.g. Quebec, 1760).

[Ken White]

LINK

Not to point fingers at Canada, just to interject that religion, politics and community intertwine -- and that in my observation, community outweighs both the other considerations as a lever to force action; the other two are often used overtly to justify the action which is covertly about advancing the community (or the dedicated and bitter part of it...).

Sometimes these things linger for a GREAT many years, so quick solutions are rarely going to succeed. It would seem to make more sense to me to stop trying to change behavior -- which is egocentric, foolish and rarely really succeeds -- and adapt to reality...

[marct]

Not to point fingers at Canada,

Oi vey! I wonder what twit came up with that! Thanks for the link, Ken, I hadn't seen it before.

just to interject that religion, politics and community intertwine -- and that in my observation, community outweighs both the other considerations as a lever to force action; the other two are often used overtly to justify the action which is covertly about advancing the community (or the dedicated and bitter part of it...).

Or some kinship group inside the community . No, I totally agree that that is very often the case.

[jmm99]

Ste.-Foy (and the Windmill) 2010 - so that Marc and I can go to St.-Augustin, have a beer and toast our ancestors - But also,

Of the two battles, Ste.-Foy was more important to the future of modern Canada because it created something of a balance between the Brits and the Frogs. Both could and can say - "we won that one".

Which brings me to the point that the Brit occupation and "pacification" of Canada is a case study in avoiding an insurgency - and, in fact, bringing potential insurgents into the counter-insurgency camp. What the Brits did and did not do to accomplish that - in the face of divergent political and religious institutions - is worth some consideration.

I think that they did it right - not perfectly, but right. Marc can expound on this (we have in an older thread) from a Brit viewpoint - after all, you guys "won". But, as it developed, we can say "Colonialement" to our Scots adversaries. In Ken's terms, the two communities found it better to set aside their political and religious differences.

I (like the Société généalogique canadienne-française (SGCF) in its Projet Montcalm) clearly have a different view of these battles than Mr. Wooten.

En effet, sur ce lieu se sont déroulés, il y a tout près de 250 ans, deux affrontements importants de la guerre de Sept Ans, soit la bataille des plaines d’Abraham, le 13 septembre 1759, opposant l’armée française - dirigée par le marquis de Montcalm – et l’armée britannique – menée par le général James Wolfe ainsi que la bataille de Sainte-Foy, le 28 avril 1760, opposant les deux mêmes armées, cette fois dirigées par le chevalier de Lévis et le général James Murray.
....
C’est pourquoi, elle entend organiser, le dimanche 13 septembre 2009, sur les plaines d’Abraham, un rassemblement des descendants patronymiques des militaires qui composaient alors les armées française et britannique ainsi que des descendants des miliciens et amérindiens ayant combattu, en alliés, aux côtés de ces armées.

[marct]

Ste.-Foy (and the Windmill) 2010 - so that Marc and I can go to St.-Augustin, have a beer and toast our ancestors - But also,

Of the two battles, Ste.-Foy was more important to the future of modern Canada because it created something of a balance between the Brits and the Frogs. Both could and can say - "we won that one".

Definitely important . One of the students I'm supervising had an ancestor at the Windmill and one of my ancestors was there as well. We were out after class one night hoisting a few with some other students, and the look of incredulity when we both started talking about it on the face of one student from the Middle East was really hilarious . He just couldn't understand why we were drinking and joking together.

Which brings me to the point that the Brit occupation and "pacification" of Canada is a case study in avoiding an insurgency - and, in fact, bringing potential insurgents into the counter-insurgency camp. What the Brits did and did not do to accomplish that - in the face of divergent political and religious institutions - is worth some consideration.

Agreed. That "pacification", and I'm STILL wondering who just who got "pacified", laid the basis for one of the core components of Canadian culture that is still a focal point today. What always amazed me about it was that the Catholics (and Catholic Church) in Quebec had exactly the same rights as everyone else - a situation unique in the British Imperium at the time.

I think that they did it right - not perfectly, but right. Marc can expound on this (we have in an older thread) from a Brit viewpoint - after all, you guys "won". But, as it developed, we can say "Colonialement" to our Scots adversaries. In Ken's terms, the two communities found it better to set aside their political and religious differences.

We could just link through to it, rather than rewriting it . Yeah, I think we did a lot pretty well. And, when you get right down to it, the gender imbalance didn't hurt either .

[Ken White]

...Which brings me to the point that the Brit occupation and "pacification" of Canada is a case study in avoiding an insurgency - and, in fact, bringing potential insurgents into the counter-insurgency camp. What the Brits did and did not do to accomplish that - in the face of divergent political and religious institutions - is worth some consideration.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It was admittedly an excellent -- and quite innovative for the period -- short term solution. Long term? As Chou En Lai said of the French Revolution "It is too soon to tell."

Recall also that the nominal British rule of Canada began in 1763 and the initial rules directed at the French were sort of restrictive -- it was not until 1774 that Simcoe and others got a turn around to begin "...bringing potential insurgents into the counter-insurgency camp." Still, it was quickly effective and seemed right at the time...

None of that rejects your excellent point that it merits study. That is quite correct, I think.

...as it developed, we can say "Colonialement" to our Scots adversaries.

Speaking of communities with long memories.

In Ken's terms, the two communities found it better to set aside their political and religious differences.

My terms would add "for the time being" in a disapproving tone. I'm strongly opposed to bandaid solutions and am a devotee of the "get 'er done" school of social work. "You can pay now or pay later" has a lot of merit as cliches go and I've sadly noted that most of the world would rather pay later -- when it's always more expensive, usually much more so.

Much better, almost always, to do it right the first time. Even if it hurts a bit.

[jmm99]

again leaving the detail work to the CFM-Canada staff - eh !

We could just link through to it, rather than rewriting it

The thread is here, with the relevant posts being posts ## 6 & 7 & 13-15.

Given my very mixed paternal ancestry, there must have been "gender imbalance" in a number of places.

Ken - various of your points are covered in the links in the posts linked. I think they may address some points made by you. I think 1760 started on the right path, which was walked in the next 15 years by Guy Carleton and others. The bringing of the "insurgents" into the counter-insurgent camp was not completed until the War of 1812. After that, there was a time of peace - which allowed some "adjustments" - the limits of which were determined in 1837 (here, here & here).

Yup, the story is far from ended - but Canada could not have developed as it has via a quick fix solution (IMO).

[Ken White]

Yup, the story is far from ended

This is very much true...

...but Canada could not have developed as it has via a quick fix solution (IMO).

I agree that Canada would have developed differently without the elected solution.

However, I must have a bad communication problem. I was opposing a quick fix as I oppose most all of them, they rarely work. IMO the occurrences in Canada of which we speak from 1760-1812 amounted to, in the grand scheme of things, a quick fix that haunts Canada -- and Quebec today. Thus my Chou En Lai quote. I thought I made it clear that I was strongly opposed to quick fixes and suggested that the British solution in Canada amounted to that IMO.

As we both agree the story is far from over. Pay now or pay later...

[jmm99]

is at this end of the line. I do not deal well with pithy aphorisms - and probably should not use them. As a listener, I tend to interpret them in my terms (which may or may not be what the pithy guy meant). As a babbler, I tend to think the listener will interpret them in my terms. Yes, I know - "ass u me".

I do better with concrete examples - which reduce the aphorism to practice.

Here are a couple of your quotes, with mine in between:

KW: I'm strongly opposed to bandaid solutions and am a devotee of the "get 'er done" school of social work.
....
JMM: Yup, the story is far from ended - but Canada could not have developed as it has via a quick fix solution (IMO).
....
KW: I was opposing a quick fix as I oppose most all of them, they rarely work.

To me, a "bandaid solution" is an inadequate solution motivated by a desire to do it on the cheap. Roughly what you mean ?

To me, "get 'er done" means pour on the coals, use all available assets, do it in a relatively short time (1 yr, 5 yrs, 10 yrs, in this context). So, to me that equates to a quick fix, which could be a bandaid or artificial life support, looking more at the timeframe than the extent of the treatment.

I understand the following,

IMO the occurrences in Canada of which we speak from 1760-1812 amounted to, in the grand scheme of things, a quick fix that haunts Canada -- and Quebec today.

but would not be likely to say it because 50+ years, to me, is not a quick fix.

I view Canada of the last 250 years (and for the first 50 years) as an evolutionary process (2 steps forward, one step back - as summed here), which seems to be heading in a positive direction (IMO). The views held by such as Marc and Rex would give a better pulse reading for the patient.

As to Chou:

As Chou En Lai said of the French Revolution "It is too soon to tell."

I'd ask him, "about what". As to Louis XVI, not too soon. As to his Bourbon relatives recreating the monarchy, too soon to tell since that is "possible" so long as one is alive. As to the evolutions of "liberty, equality and fraternity", always too soon to tell until there are no thinking beings to argue about those principles.

To paraphrase - the Internet is an imperfect means of communication.

If you are ever so inclined, you can send me a PM outlining your counterfactual history of what should have done to avoid "a quick fix that haunts Canada -- and Quebec today." Seriously, I'd be interested.

Frankly, my only reason for discussing Canada in this thread is that it is an example, to me, of just how difficult and time consuming "nation building" is - in the context of divergent ethnic, religious and political institutions.

[Ken White]

are twins...

To me, a "bandaid solution" is an inadequate solution motivated by a desire to do it on the cheap. Roughly what you mean ?

Close. I view it as a solution usually but not always seen as cheaper but most importantly, seen as doing something that will rapidly make the problem go away -- speed generally is more important than cost. It is in fact a technique often used by legislators in an attempt to forward a greater cost to someone else or a later politician to pay.

To me, "get 'er done" means pour on the coals, use all available assets, do it in a relatively short time (1 yr, 5 yrs, 10 yrs, in this context). So, to me that equates to a quick fix, which could be a bandaid or artificial life support, looking more at the timeframe than the extent of the treatment.

A perfectly valid assumption and my fault for a bad choice of words. I meant do it right the first time even if it costs and hurts more in the short term and that's what I should've said.

I understand the following,

"IMO the occurrences in Canada of which we speak from 1760-1812 amounted to, in the grand scheme of things, a quick fix that haunts Canada -- and Quebec today."

but would not be likely to say it because 50+ years, to me, is not a quick fix.

I view Canada of the last 250 years (and for the first 50 years) as an evolutionary process (2 steps forward, one step back...

I agree on the 250 years as an evolutionary process and disagree on the fifty years being quick. Fifty years is a drop in the historical bucket IMO. I understand many will not agree but I tend to agree with Mr. Chou and the period 1760-1812 is less than a microdot from the history of Canada the land and only about one ninth of that of Canada the nation.

The views held by such as Marc and Rex would give a better pulse reading for the patient.

They are Canadian, their views have validity about Canada. You partly are of French-Canadian descent and have read far more Canadian history than have I. Your views on Canada are more formed than mine and of greater relevance. I have no Canadian ties other than repect for them as a great nation that has done a lot of good things (and that trains their Troops better than we can manage...) However, none of the three of you can or are trying to define my way of viewing history; we can do that differently with no problems -- other than miscommunication -- I should think.

As to Chou:...I'd ask him, "about what". As to Louis XVI, not too soon. As to his Bourbon relatives recreating the monarchy, too soon to tell since that is "possible" so long as one is alive. As to the evolutions of "liberty, equality and fraternity", always too soon to tell until there are no thinking beings to argue about those principles.

Good for you, get him to clarify. I, OTOH, am comfortable that France has changed, is changing -- and will change more and that such future changes will impact others in ways we cannot know. I don't have a problem with that.

To paraphrase - the Internet is an imperfect means of communication.

What did Marc say the other day -- 400% chance of garble...

If you are ever so inclined, you can send me a PM outlining your counterfactual history of what should have done to avoid "a quick fix that haunts Canada -- and Quebec today." Seriously, I'd be interested.

No objection to a PM but no need either, can do it here briefly: Multiculturalism is a great ideal. In practice it tends to fragment nations. To pursue it or not is the decision of each nation. I have no basis for objecting or approving, it is none of my business and I have no real right to interject my personal opinion (not that anyone would much care if I did) but I can objectively say the practice sows dissension that will create long term problems for a nation and Canada is but one example. France is another. As is the US. That is not an advocacy to change any of those three, just noting that all have problems in that vein -- many due to their Politicians looking at quick fixes...

Frankly, my only reason for discussing Canada in this thread is that it is an example, to me, of just how difficult and time consuming "nation building" is - in the context of divergent ethnic, religious and political institutions.

On that we can totally agree...

[jmm99]

and Miss Congeniality certainly communicated her points (puns unintentional ?)

Multiculturalism is [JMM -may or may not be] a great ideal.

In the case of Canada, I think the Brits were stuck with it (I suppose transportation of the FCs, as was done with the Acadians, was an extreme option). They chose something of a work around solution. My imagination is inadequate to come up with a better one.

Now, if you want me to dream up a counterfactual history of how the FCs (based on CFM-Canada concepts) could have made the Conquest less likely - or more difficult, I'd be happy to oblige - but not here.

Stay safe from those incoming winter storms from the North - beautiful sunny day with no snow to add to the near 200" so far fallen.

[marct]

In the case of Canada, I think the Brits were stuck with it (I suppose transportation of the FCs, as was done with the Acadians, was an extreme option). They chose something of a work around solution. My imagination is inadequate to come up with a better one.

Way too expensive, and it didn't work with the Acadians .

I think you're right, we were stuck with it. At the same time, it did make a certain amount of sense if, for no other reason, as a bulwark against insurgents in the American colonies (the Quebec Act being a crucial part of that strategy).

Honestly, though, I think it was a case of having to deal with something that Whitehall didn't like, but that turned out to be a really good solution. In effect, Canada became a colonial dumping ground for Catholics in the UK without any stigma attached. Not too shaby a solution .

[jmm99]

In effect, Canada became a colonial dumping ground for Catholics in the UK without any stigma attached.

never thought of it in that light. And, as a dumping ground for potential Irish and Scots rebels, etc.

[George L. Singleton]

If the future is the youth of Islam in SW Asia and those overseas young Muslims in Europe, even the US, then we are still in deep trouble.

A few pointers from somewhat educated Pukhtuns who blast me for trying to constructively share what Judiasm, Christianiyt and Islam have in common:

1. Islam (they believe) is right, in part because it came last, and we are heretics and wrong.

2. Islam worships Allah, who these Oxford and Cambridge, in some cases, young Muslims believe is not the same God we worship.

3. While younger and more educated Muslims I have had dialogue with now for over 3 years, off and on, via e-mails on overseas websites such as Hujra Online in some cases will admit some degree of commonality on some points of our, my wording, in common religious heritage, they loose all objectivity and reason when the topic of Muhammud and his multiple wives comes up, including his 5th wife, who he married at age 9.

4. Yet, at the same time these same young Muslims attack Saudi Wahabbi Muslims for advocating marrying 10 year old girls.

5. Also, worthy of note are the few Muslimswho openly admit that their holy Qurran is and was written over time in different Arab dialects as that language has morphed into twenth something different versions of Arabic today...leaving confusion for their scholars in translations...which is what some young Muslims slam Christianity with/over, their allegations of translation errors they alledge.

6. Finally, to shut down an othewise never ending topic, when you share that different writers of different books in the Holy Bible give varied views on the same subjects, like different people looking at the piece of art with different interpretations, all complimentary and not conflicting, they deny this is so with Christianity, but claim it is so with Islam to justify inconsistencies, conflicts, and differing interpretations caused by Arabic words which can have 20 or more different meanings for the same word.

I prefer the practical, down to earth when discussing religion instead of the very high faluting abstract, which most young education Muslims today cannot follow at all, as they have enough trouble following simple, down to earth comparisons and discussions of religion.

Whereas a Muslims entire way of life and daily existance is bound up in Islam, literally, as are their various types of government(s), they just don't get basic democracy is they are "religious" Muslims vs. some who are moving away from Islam altogether toward a secular way of life and thinking.

Just George's two cents.

[jmm99]

seem to me to have a good practical grasp of their systematic theology (your points ## 1-2 & 5-6 - points ## 3-4 are issues of moral theology, on which I'll pass). On issues of systematic theology, there are real differences between Islam and Christianity. The latter, in its orthodox posture (e.g., Pope Benedict and John Ankerberg, to illustrate that that posture is not a monolith) is tied to Creed and Christ. Those two concepts cannot be reconciled with Islam or, for that matter, with Judaism.

Thus, on the level of systematic theology, engagement between orthodox Christianity and orthodox Islam is more likely to lead to flaming than anything else. What about engagement on a political level ?

Here, your last statement applies (I changed "is" to "if" since that seemed to be what you meant, not typed):

Whereas a Muslims entire way of life and daily existance is bound up in Islam, literally, as are their various types of government(s), they just don't get basic democracy [if] they are "religious" Muslims vs. some who are moving away from Islam altogether toward a secular way of life and thinking.

This is so true (I'm interpreting your use of "basic democracy" to equate to the Western constitutional theories of that concept).

The ideal political community for a religious Muslim (and I am not talking about extreme Salafists only) is what Paul Tillich termed a "theonomy". The particle "nomy" comes from "nomos" (law); so, theonomy is divine law. That was the religio-political state in Europe of the Middle Ages.

Maududi (just to use a Pakistani example) lays out the basics of an Islamic theonomous community - and in fact feels it would be a true democracy.

Our (US) concept of democracy is very much a product of the Enlightenment, and so much more autonomous (and separated from divine law). As the Preamble proves, our basic organic law comes from the People. In Islamic political thought (e.g., Maududi), autonomy still exists (the individual has free will and can reject God), but it is very much aware of its divine ground which is supreme. Again, in their thought, our recognition of political autonomy (but without accepting the supremacy of divine law) is a degeneration into mere humanism.

Wilf has made the point, over and over, that Middle Eastern politics are very much based on religion (at least in part theonomous communities). There are, however, as you point out, secularists and pragmatists.

The Bush administration (IMO) attempted to gloss over these fundamental religious and political differences. Perhaps, President Obama has a better grasp of Islam - and his administration will take a more pragmatic approach. We shall see.

[George L. Singleton]

analysis.

Trying to talk "politics" with university and high school age Pukhtuns invariably is to the majority them "talking religion."

Your implication is that we Westerners have the burden to bending over backwards to accommodate them and their unusual beliefs.

I have a problem with this personally, as it offends me in what I believe and practice, religiously, as a [Protestant} Christian. Most I correspond with via both their mainline website and via individual e-mails they sometimes send me on the side, outside their website [my e-mail address is readily avaiable in DAWN.com archives in many letters published there, as well as whenever a letter is published [occasionally even an article is published] in the Peshawar FRONTIER POST.

Mature website respondents/correspondents, as in adult members of Hujra Online.com, have no problem discussing different interpretations from Abraham to current times. But, many youths don't even know their own religious history and having built Islam from and on Judaism and Christianity...my opinion.

Have to admit that when you get into Tillitson et al you are the level of an old friend in Nashville who is a semi-retired egg headed Episcopalian Priest who once taught in seminary.

I am just a simple country Methodist, who was raised as a fundamentalist Southern Baptist in my youth...giving me a Calvanist outlook in a Wesley setting...pretty hairy!

Cheers, and I make so many typos feel free to correct me any time,
George

[jmm99]

from GLS
Your implication is that we Westerners have the burden to bending over backwards to accommodate them and their unusual beliefs.

definitely not my implication - in fact, quite the opposite, because bending over backwards (or forwards) would violate my concept of the separation of church and state.

1. Muslims (and Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists) should have freedom to practice their own religion so long as they do not injure others.

2. Special US laws for Muslims (or Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists) are unacceptable to me.

3. Sharia Law (in the US in any guise) is in its fundamental construct contrary to the US Constitution, which I'm thrice-sworn to support.

4. I will not accept dhimmitude imposed because of my religion (whether by Muslims or anyone else) - and would die first (relatively easy at my age ).

I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding of where I stand.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf has made the point, over and over, that Middle Eastern politics are very much based on religion (at least in part theonomous communities). There are, however, as you point out, secularists and pragmatists.

I have, but I should also add the dimension that religion in the Middle East is why you believe something, not how you believe it. Very, very little conflict actually comes from interference in religious practice. It is mostly about land and blood, and they inform belief, in the context of religion, - which is why you see Hezbollah victimising Druze and Sunni families in the Lebanon.

Now you don't need an HTT to understand this. It's all pretty simple, once you get that, and it's what makes the Israelis so difficult to second guess, as they have lots of competing sets of beliefs, as they are more politically and ethnically diverse.

[Bob's World]

Not specifically about any of this, but indirectly about all of it; if you get the chance read or listen to "Children of Jihad" by Jared Cohen. Great insights from the recent solo travels of a young American jewish man to meet and learn about young Muslims in several of the most heated areas of the Middle East.

Will agree with WILF that it is not about religion. He boils it down to "blood and land," and certainly that is always involved. I boil it down to one word: Respect.

Respect is a complicated emotion, toward the top of Maslow's heirarchy, but it is the one I believe that is most likely to drive men to a very committed form of conflict. From individual duals, to the American Revolution, to much of the Muslim strife in the world today. We may not know ####-all about Islam, but we all understand respect. Focusing on understanding the respect-based issues of the region and attempting to address them first would in my mind be a wise strategic sea change of approach.