Islam, Catholisism, religion, and conflict

[Bill Moore]

Bingo!!!

That speaks to the question I have carried for a long time, which wonders whether we are investing enough resources to strengthen those moderate voices. If they are more important than a FID actor or a kinetic drone, what are we doing to demonstrate that importance?

I think this is the key to ultimately quelling the violence in these sectarian conflicts. However, I don't think "we" should or can empower them. How much money does it take? How much money did Martin Luther King need to start a movement? Different issue, but I don't think credible voices need a lot of money. We're not talking about buying air time and putting out propaganda that will fall flat to begin with, especially if the audience thinks we support it.

We can't resolve their religious conflict anymore than we can mandate a peace between Israel and Palestine. We may be able to help mitigate it, and we can certainly target the actors that threaten us, but I suspect this will be a long fight.

I recall someone else who shared Bob's secular view and that was Paul Wolfowitz (or witless). If you recall prior to invading Iraq he stated there was no ethnic conflict, so somehow this key advisor and architect of the war seemed to forget the recent history (post DESERT STORM) uprisings of the Kurds and Shia. What he saw in Baghdad is Saddam imposing a relative peace between the different ethnic/religious groups just like Tito maintained an imposed peace by recognizing the Muslims as a separate group, which incised the Serbs and they took revenge (religious conflict) when presented with the opportunity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...se-report.html

Religious conflict in global rise - report

Violence and discrimination against religious groups by governments and rival faiths have reached new highs in all regions of the world except the Americas, according to a new report by the Pew Research Centre.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Religiously-based civil unrest and warfare

The role of religion in civil unrest and war:

Often, the media does not identify the precise causes of some of the conflicts around the world. Clashes are frequently described as being ethnic in origin, even though religion may have been a main cause.

The true causes of unrest are sometimes difficult to determine. Frequently, there are a mixture of political alliances, economic differences, ethnic feuds, religious differences, and others:

I think they're right, most conflicts are due to a variety of issues, but the predominate issue/identity factor frequently is religion. This has nothing to do with steak and sizzle. That is simply an attempt to sound superior, the analogy is void of any intellectual rigor. You can't wish religion away by calling it sizzle.

Is governance/government going to be part of the solution ultimately? Most certainly, there won't be a solution without it, but good governance alone won't be enough, credible religious leaders will have to work with the government as part of civil-society to convince the different religious groups to stop fighting. Much easier said than done.

[Bill Moore]

Another site worth looking at for exploring the topic in further detail. I used the word explore instead of argue, because the bottom line is religion, identity politics, governance, and economics all play a role. The only outliers are those who are attempting to dismiss the power of religion altogether.

http://www.center2000.org/northern-ireland/

Northern Ireland

Roman Catholics versus Protestants

Though many allege that this conflict and ensuing violence may not be the result of any single cause, there appears to be little doubt that if the emphasis on the religious-based differences has not been the cause, it has certainly contributed to and exacerbated an already difficult situation.

Actually his was mostly about political power, but religion is being leveraged.

In spite of the 2007 peace agreement serious tension remains between the Catholics and the Protestants. In early 2013 the Protestants hung out the English flag in vast numbers, a move which offended the Catholics. Violent demonstrations erupted. This was not the first time, nor probably the last, that that such actions would be on display. As the French are fond of saying: “the more things change, the more they remain the same”.

http://www.center2000.org/indonesia/

Indonesia

Christians versus Moslems

Until his demise, Suharto, the former president, had been able by sheer force, to repress these differences in this and throughout this nation of 13,000 islands. Until now, that is.

Today, the fear is that the violence in places like Ambon will spread. Already, one sees similar clashes in the resort island of Lombok, attacks on churches in Jogjakarta and rallies in the capital of Jakarta itself, where tens of thousands of Moslems enraged by accounts of violence against them, shout their readiness to die in a Moslem holy war.

As Strategic Forecasting wrote in its February 13, 2002, intelligence briefing, the so-called Indonesia Island Agreement recently signed won’t halt religious clashes, stating the “Rival Christian and Moslem factions in Indonesia’s Molucca Islands signed a peace agreement Feb. 12, 2002. But given the highly volatile conditions, there is little reason to believe the violence will end any time soon.”

This gets to my previous point, ultimately the religious leaders have to agree to stop the fighting, and this creates an opportunity for the government to help ensure the peace through better governance.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

You are an ideolog. I won't cure that.

I give you rigor, and you dismiss it. I give you common sense, and you dismiss it.

This is why ideology works. It blinds one to the facts before their face.

If we focus on governance and oppression there are cures to conflicts that history bears out. If we focus on ideology there are no cures. Governments being challenged by popular uprising tend to disparage their challengers and to blame causation on anything other than their own governance. This is what politicians do.

I'll let you all enjoy your pity party on this thread. There is no profit to be made in jumping on the "ideology made them do it" band wagon - or in trying to steer that band wagon onto a path actually based on fact.

[carl]

I think this is the key to ultimately quelling the violence in these sectarian conflicts. However, I don't think "we" should or can empower them. How much money does it take? How much money did Martin Luther King need to start a movement? Different issue, but I don't think credible voices need a lot of money. We're not talking about buying air time and putting out propaganda that will fall flat to begin with, especially if the audience thinks we support it.

We can't resolve their religious conflict anymore than we can mandate a peace between Israel and Palestine. We may be able to help mitigate it, and we can certainly target the actors that threaten us, but I suspect this will be a long fight.

I think there are some things we can do, not big dramatic 'Operation Yanks to the Rescue' type things, but there are things. For example, if Mr. Obama or various governors to take note of Muslims who oppose the takfiiri killers and publicly honor them, that would be a good thing. Honorary degrees are good things. Things like that are useful. If a Hollywood producer took note of it, on his own without gov prompting, that would be a great thing. We should publicly recognize these people and their bravery. It is wrong that PC makes us afraid to do that. They are not afraid and their lives are actually at risk.

Also perhaps we could, on the qt, expand what we consider to be the 'us' that we will act to defend against threats. That might be helpful also. For example, if the people who shot Malala were to be found mysteriously dead in the street one day, I think bit by bit, that would be good.

Your ultimate point is good though, we can't do it, they will have to. But I think there are things we can do to help.

[J Singh]

When the 'oppressed' are demanding a state on theological formulations what secular grievance would one suggest government focus upon (outside the religiously motivated calls for its dismantling and replacement)?

[slapout9]

When the 'oppressed' are demanding a state on theological formulations what secular grievance would one suggest government focus upon (outside the religiously motivated calls for its dismantling and replacement)?

That is an excellent question!

[Red Rat]

Religion is often the primary identifier in conflict, but it is rarely the primary instigator. N Ireland exemplifies this. The drivers are Fear, Honour and Greed (welcome back my old friend Thucydides ), primarily power and resources. The Troubles are focused almost entirely in time and space on deprived urban ghettos on both sides of the sectarian divide. The middle classes in N Ireland may not talk to each other, but they certainly do not fight each other.

I believe that it is an accepted social trend that the more affluent and secure a society is the less religious fervor is apparent. This would seem to link with religion as an identifer and not necessarily an instigator.

The problem in the Middle East at the moment is that religion is seen not just as an identifier but as a solution, and under many of the brands of Islam being marketed, a solution that brooks no compromise (and compromise is the essence of politics).

[Bill Moore]

Religion is often the primary identifier in conflict, but it is rarely the primary instigator. N Ireland exemplifies this. The drivers are Fear, Honour and Greed (welcome back my old friend Thucydides ), primarily power and resources. The Troubles are focused almost entirely in time and space on deprived urban ghettos on both sides of the sectarian divide. The middle classes in N Ireland may not talk to each other, but they certainly do not fight each other.

I believe that it is an accepted social trend that the more affluent and secure a society is the less religious fervor is apparent. This would seem to link with religion as an identifer and not necessarily an instigator.

The problem in the Middle East at the moment is that religion is seen not just as an identifier but as a solution, and under many of the brands of Islam being marketed, a solution that brooks no compromise (and compromise is the essence of politics).

I think we risk misleading ourselves when we use Northern Ireland as a paradigm for what we're seeing in Muslim lands. This gets back to cherry picking an example of religious conflict (in this case it is actually is a political power conflict) to fit the proposal that governance is the fix.

If you look at other examples, oppressive governance has been effective in suppressing violence between sects (Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Yugoslavia, etc.), but when the oppressive government loses the means to oppress (by whatever means) we often see sectarian conflict. Other forms of governance that don't discriminate, provide opportunity for all, etc. also seem to work if they can get to the left of the problem. I'm not aware of any historical examples, where changes in government policy (other than oppressive) have resolved deep rooted religious conflicts without religious leaders (civil society) mutually agreeing to stop the violence.

Bob is calling the kettle black in my opinion, the ideologues in the U.S. were the neo-conservatives who pushed for regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, and hoped for more regime changes in the Middle East during the Arab Spring in the belief that if democratic governments were installed peace would break out throughout the land. Wolfowitz dismissed the potential for religious strife in Iraq, and the civil war that erupted between Sunnis and Shia has spread throughout the region. While I respect Bob's views, and I think they will ultimately play an important role in the ultimate solution, I don't think you focus on government while excluding the reality of religion's impact.

Yes Bob despite your excessive arrogance in tone, I actually agree with much of what you write. The problem is it is not complete.

[jcustis]

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...ion-void-.html

Radical cleric Abu Qatada, who is being tried on terror charges in Jordan, on Tuesday denounced as "void" the declaration of a caliphate by Sunni jihadists in Iraq and Syria.

"The announcement of a caliphate by the Islamic State (IS) is void and meaningless because it was not approved by jihadists in other parts of the world," Abu Qatada wrote in a 21-page document published on jihadist websites.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been fighting in neighbouring Syria and Iraq, on June 29 proclaimed a "caliphate" straddling both countries and headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who now calls himself Caliph Ibrahim.

"This group does not have the authority to rule all Muslims and their declaration applies to no-one but themselves," said Abu Qatada.

"Its threats to kill opponents, sidelining of other groups and violent way of fighting opponents constitute a great sin, reflecting the reality of the group," wrote the Palestinian-born preacher.

Abu Qatada, who has repeatedly criticised the Islamic State, urged other Muslims against joining the Sunni jihadist group.

"They are merciless in dealing with other jihadists. How would they deal with the poor, the weak and other people?"

Jordan's jihadist movement is generally dominated by anti-IS groups that support Al-Qaeda and its Syrian ally, Al-Nusra Front.

Abu Qatada's statement came after leading Jordanian jihadist ideologist Issam Barqawi, known as Abu Mohammed al-Maqdessi, denounced the declaration of the caliphate on July 2.

Once mentor to Iraq's now slain Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before the two fell out over ideological differences, Maqdessi told the IS to "reform yourselves, repent and stop killing Muslims and distorting religion."

Abu Qatada, who was deported from Britain in July 2013 after a 10-year legal battle, was acquitted last month of plotting a 1999 attack on the American school in Amman.

But he remained in prison, facing another terror charge of plotting to attack tourists in Jordan during millennium celebrations.

Agreed on the differences between N. Ireland and the current fractures in Islam. Two totally different times, places, circumstances, and underlying causes. Protestant or Catholic was just a bumper sticker.

[Red Rat]

I think we risk misleading ourselves when we use Northern Ireland as a paradigm for what we're seeing in Muslim lands. This gets back to cherry picking an example of religious conflict (in this case it is actually is a political power conflict) to fit the proposal that governance is the fix.

Sort of agree. N Ireland is not the Middle East and the dynamics are very different, but in both cases the dynamics are in my opinion primarily not religious.

If you look at other examples, oppressive governance has been effective in suppressing violence between sects (Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Yugoslavia, etc.), but when the oppressive government loses the means to oppress (by whatever means) we often see sectarian conflict. Other forms of governance that don't discriminate, provide opportunity for all, etc. also seem to work if they can get to the left of the problem. I'm not aware of any historical examples, where changes in government policy (other than oppressive) have resolved deep rooted religious conflicts without religious leaders (civil society) mutually agreeing to stop the violence.

In many sectarian conflicts the great sectarian identifier is religious - but does that make it a religious conflict or a sectarian conflict? I would describe a religious conflict as one being where the primary motivator is a religious requirement. It therefore follows that for some in the Middle East the conflict is religious - they see themselves as under a religious duty to act as they do, but these are the fringe irreconcilables. Most sectarian conflicts in my opinion are over power and resources.