Myths, Religion, Politics, and Violence

I want to commend this essay at The Guardian by scholar Karen Armstrong. I found it very thought-provoking not the least for the implication that the Enlightenment, the separation of church and state, and the Westphalian state are a seamless garment. Here’s a snippet:

When secularisation was implemented in the developing world, it was experienced as a profound disruption – just as it had originally been in Europe. Because it usually came with colonial rule, it was seen as a foreign import and rejected as profoundly unnatural. In almost every region of the world where secular governments have been established with a goal of separating religion and politics, a counter-cultural movement has developed in response, determined to bring religion back into public life. What we call “fundamentalism” has always existed in a symbiotic relationship with a secularisation that is experienced as cruel, violent and invasive. All too often an aggressive secularism has pushed religion into a violent riposte. Every fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation, convinced that the liberal or secular establishment is determined to destroy their way of life. This has been tragically apparent in the Middle East.

6 comments… add one
  • Not “no democracy comes at the point of a gun,” but close.

  • I sincerely recommend finding a copy of Weston La Barre’s Ghost Dance: The Origins of Religion. The book is old and there’s a lot of Freudian analysis that can be skipped over, but he usefully points out the almost programmatic steps cultures go through when they’re stressed by outsiders.

    http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Dance-Weston-Barre/dp/0440528429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411947742&sr=8-1&keywords=de+la+barre+%22ghost+dance%22

  • Thank you, Mr. Burgess. It’s coming.

  • steve Link

    Not sure it fits with China, India, most of Africa or South America, but fits for Europe and ME. Something especially peculiar to religions of the Book?

    Steve

  • CStanley Link

    That is an excellent piece.

    “Conversion by the sword” is a human corruption of religion. Secularists are not immune to the same distortion of ideals, as should be obvious.

    And the author is also astute in recognizing that actions have opposite and equal reactions (often creating a feedback loop which intensifies over time, as each side tries to impose its will on the other.)

    Steve’s point is interesting, if true. I simply don’t know enough about the history, religions, and cultures to know if that’s so. If it is, then maybe it has to do with the communal nature of the religions of the Book, and/or the interface with the prevailing culture or nature of the political systems. IOW maybe there haven’t been conditions for the same kind of tension to develop in those other cultures.

  • TastyBits Link

    I am not sure where she gets the idea that secularism is new. The ancient Greeks at their height, the Roman Republic at its height, the Roman Empire, and the Italian Renaissance were all secular. These were wealthy societies, and religion had faded amongst the elites to mostly ceremonial.

    The Greek philosophers were basically atheists. The concept of the ideal was not based upon the gods.

Leave a Comment