Robert Reich's Religion Problem
Ramesh Ponnuru writes today about Robert Reich's latest column in The American Prospect. I would link to Reich's article, but they want $14.95 to read it in toto, so instead I'll give you their email address so you can tell them what they can do with whatever is it that they do it with. Instead you'll have to read Ponurro's article on NRO. Ponurru elucidates Reich's "liberal religion-bashing" -
He [Reich] says that "the problem" with "religious zealots" is that "they confuse politics with private morality."
The problem is really the reverse. Liberals, in an effort to take God out of every aspect of public life and stigmatize those who practice it zealously, even if only in "private" life, want to make moral issues simply issues of political opinion. Hillary Clinton speaking about the "common good" is just as obtuse.
Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Apparently income redistribution serves the common good but passing just laws that keep four thousand babies from being killed each day does not. More from Reich's article -
The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.
Apart from advances in medicine and technology. what has modernity really given us? Do we have a more perfect ethics than the previous centuries, a greater and more widespread understanding of natural law, a more civil society, or more peace? I hate to break it to him, but we're back fighting a similar fight to that of Socrates who stood up to the Sophists. We live in an age, as Socrates did, where knowledge has only utility, truth is relative, and the only thing that matters is success and fame. Call me an anti-modernist any day. Incidently, Reich proves the old adage, "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist." Perhaps he should know about Pascal's wager as well. Or the logical proofs for the existence of God even. How would he explain the finitude of things or persons? Ultimately they can only be explained by the existence of an infinite being. Don't buy what the neo-Sophists are selling, Mr. Reich. And don't pull the un-PC PC routine on people of faith. The rotten fruits of the Enlightenment are communism, nazism, facism, aetheism, secularism, abortion-on-demand, and what else? Modern liberalism. The so-called "Dark Ages" were the height of Medieval philosophy and Christian evangelization. That's not something you hear from Reich-types who think all people did for centuries was boil stones for soup.
Well said, Sal!
Right on. One has to wonder whether it is possible to conceive of a true dialogue with Radical Islam. Yes, they don't see eye-to-eye with the West on many issues - one of which is morality, which they fear will spread to Islamic societies.
Maybe it's overly simplistic, but we have to start somewhere. If America was an international champion of personal and social morality and fear of God, there would at least be a common basis on which to discuss differences.
For example, we criticize Islamic societies as being oppressive toward women, regarding dress, instead of praising them for their value of the virtue of modesty. Until we get our own moral house in order, there is little chance of authentic dialogue. As it stands, we're not even in the same ballpark. The closest we come to an appreciation of what radical Islamists hold dear is in the beliefs of the orthodox Catholic or evangelical protestant.
Paul, I see much to admire in Muslim societies, in several respects. Dress is not *necessarily* one of them. Just about every Iraqi woman dresses modestly; however, go to the Gulf states, and you'll see the full abayas, often concealing everything about a woman except her eyes (and sometimes they are partially covered, too). I don't think that is misogyny, at least in most cases; many Muslim women prefer it that way. I would say it is a case of religious one-upsmanship -- because there is no formal clergy in Islam, no one can definitively say, "You've gone far enough, and God didn't intend the female body to be utterly concealed."
Sal, to play devil's advocate, I would say that like Muslim cultures, modernity is superior in several respects, other than technologically. Racial justice is certainly one of (if not the only) positive modern social developments. Men are also economically linked more than in past centuries, even across countries and continents. If I sit here and think some more, maybe I can think of a third thing.
Eric, you make several good points, however, I think you missed mine. That is, even though we might not agree on Islamic interpretation or practice of morality, for example with women's dress, we ought to be able to use our commonly held good of the virtue of modesty as a starting point for discussion.
You see, most modern Catholics do not even value modesty, which explains why they will continue to be enemies with radical Islam; whereas traditional Catholics at least appreciate the common understanding of the necessity for modesty, so there is a starting point for discussion.
Once radical Islamists can see we have common goals, even if they are arrived at differently, we can learn to appreciate each other's points of view. The alternative is to admit they are so different from us, that we have no way to address their anger toward the West, and so the only solution to their terror is to fight back. There's got to be a better way.
Paul, I appreciate your clarification -- although I would point out that I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just adding some nuance.
In your original comment, you refer to "Radical Islam" in the first paragraph and "Islamic societies" later on. Surely the two things are very different. Islamic societies exist on a fairly wide spectrum, and those societies are rarely uniform even within themselves. Many of them contain radical elements, the most extreme of which are impervious to dialogue, and it's hopeless to try -- they proceed from the premise that anything non-Islamic is evil because only following the dictates of Islam can make one holy (think of the Pharisees). They can admit of no good outside the House of Islam, so they say to non-Muslims: accept the word of the Prophet and we can talk.
Eric, you are right. Radical Islamists are called radical for a reason - because their beliefs are an open and shut case, as you indicated. However, since we know the Church is committed to inter-religious dialogue, even with Islam, it would be interesting to know what stage that dialogue is at.
Surely, there are some Muslims that are open to reasoned dialogue. Hopefully, positive results from such dialogue could eventually spill over to the radical sects. The alternative is to do nothing, which is contrary to Our Lord's explicit command.
I once had an experience in an academic setting where a group of my peers would discuss faith and morals. I was surprised to find that I had much more in common with my Muslim friend than another who professed to be Christian. I suppose my optimism was formed by that experience.
"between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed"
How about us Catholics who believe in science, reason, logic, and revelation? (Fides et Ratio anyone? Aquinas?)
I recently finished reading an excellent book that deals with these issues. I highly recommend it.
Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politics in the Fallen World. By Robert P. Kraynak. University of Notre Dame Press. 320 pp. $24.95 paper.
Here is a review of the book.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/reviews/linker.html
All the best,
Michael Trueman (good friend of Pete Vere)
At times like this I believe it is necessary to that one individual never stands for the whole of a group. Robert Reich in now way shows how the majority or even a large portion of liberals feel about god, christians and religion. It would be as wrong to take his intolerant, and simply put inane words as the words of the liberal community at large, as it is for him to take the words of a few crazies, who happen to be religious and right-wing, as the words of the community as a whole.
Paul--one problem in regard to discussion with Muslims about religion is their view of God that is so radically different from ours. I've discussed this in other threads here, and ask others' pardon while I briefly describe the issue for you.
The Judeo-Christian God vests the human being with his image--the rational soul as a participation in God's nature. The Imago Dei is the basis for the personal relationship with God through Christ by the Spirit we can enjoy in this life, and the spiritual Heaven of Beatific Vision we can enjoy in the next. God is also a Father who makes us His children, not slaves or servants.
However, the Islamic view of God rejects both of these Biblical doctrines. As Muslims are the first to assert, he makes us his slaves, and the Imago Dei and Fatherhood are in their view anthropomorphic blasphemy. Thus, Heaven is for them an eternal whorehouse of 72 compliant virgin-beings, not an eternal spiritual marriage to God Himself in glory.
This idea of God has consquences, as Richard Weaver might say. The Imago Dei is the basis for the Western view that it is always evil to directly kill an innocent human being. Islam cannot *theologically* make this argument, and their societies show it.
A God who does not vest us with His image and does not call us to a spiritual Heaven is a hateful tyrant and a threat to humanity. So when the Catechism says we worship the same God, its carefully written text only means the what, not the who. The who is radically and frighteningly different.
While Islamic concern with modesty is commendable, the idea that any human being's face should be covered by burlap and seen only by her husband, is heinous. It reduces women to objects of their husbands. Every human being's face is a sign of his or her humanity and of our personal interactions. Half the human race should not be told to cover their faces as a matter of day to day life.
I'm not saying that these facts should all be brought up in meetings with individual Muslims or groups. But they are realities that the West must grapple with as we figure out how to relate to the Islamic world in coming years.
Mr. Beregond, thank you for your insight and detailed explanation. You are right, dialogue with Muslims is an uphill struggle for a number of fundamental reasons.
Further, as you concede, I don't think the mention of heaven as an "eternal whorehouse" or Allah as a "hateful tyrant" would score too many points in terms of building trust. But if we really believe all men are made in the "Imago Dei", then Muslims are as well. And so, we ought to be able to find a common understanding of hopes and desires on which authentic dialogue can be built. It is certainly necessary to understand Muslim beliefs before such dialogue can be attempted, but the points you make are no excuse to prohibit any attempt.
I will echo the sentiments of Archbishop Fulton Sheen who, reminding us that Muslims recognize the Blessed Virgin as the most exalted woman in heaven, firmly believed that reconciliation between the two faiths would eventually come through her intercession.
between those who believe in science, reason, and logic
This is pitifully hilarious coming from someone who, as an advocate of abortion, has to completely ignore science, reason and logic to justify that horrendous practice.