"We cannot separate Islam from the government in Malaysia." (On Malaysia and the Myth of Moderate Islam)

This post contains a short list of links to articles that present the case for Malaysia as an example of moderate Islam. The last article linked to, based on a speech given by the Prime Minister of Malaysia while visiting Turkey in February of 2011, is also repeated here in full.

I am not linking to rabid right-wing denunciations of Islam. I am linking to things written by those who sincerely believe that there is a good Islam and a bad Islam, and that Malaysia represents a very positive example of good Islam.

The first article was written by Nazry Bahrawi, a Research Associate at the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore, who, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, cautions against too much of a good thing when it comes to moderate Islam.

The second article is by Jiesheng Li, a doctoral candidate at the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, who argues that in the wake of 9/11 "Malaysia’s actions were to change the international perception of Muslims worldwide and indirectly help to steer Muslims away from joining extremists or terrorist groups."

The third article is written by and Evangelical Christian who states with enthusiasm that " While Democracy and Islam do not usually go hand in hand, in Malaysia they co-exist with a surprising degree of harmony."

The final article is based, as already mentioned, on a speech given by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, from which the quote in the title of this post is taken.

The immediate inspiration for this post is the arrest in Malaysia this week of a young Saudi journalist, Hamza Kashgari, fleeing for his life, after he was officially declared, by the King of Saudi Arabia himself, to be an "infidel", for which only one penalty exists in Saudi Arabia: death. The "moderate" Malaysian police were waiting for Kashgari when he landed in Kuala Lumpur airport, where he had hoped to make a connecting flight to New Zealand. And the "moderate" Malaysian police immediately contacted the Saudi Arabian government and began making arrangements to turn Kashgari over to those who wish to put him to death for his blasphemies.

1. Moderate Islam in Southeast Asia and Egypt EastAsiaForum.org, Oct. 28, 2011
2. Moderate Islam as a base with pragmatism GlobalPost.co.uk, Jan., 2008
3. On Malaysia’s Moderate Muslims and why you should care The Evangelical Outpost, Oct. 14, 2010
4. "Moderate Islam is what Malaysia offers the world." MCOT.net (Bangkok based news site) Feb., 2008 [The full test of this article is given directly below.]
   

ISTANBUL, Feb 25 [2011] (Bernama) - Prime Minister Najib Razak said Malaysia has proven that its system of governance, based on moderate Islam, has worked and can be a good model for other countries in the world to emulate, especially Islamic countries.

He said in view of what was taking place in the world today, it was important to ensure that the system of administration adopted was working.

The key consideration, he said, was that "if you have a system, would it work to produce good and effective governance?" Najib said this as a panellist at the Global Movement for Justice, Peace and Dignity Conference, here, Wednesday.

The session was recorded by BBC World News to be aired by the channel at a later date. It was moderated by BBC journalist Zeinab Badawi.

The other panellists included Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan, Paramadina University of Indonesia president Dr Anies Baswedan and Arab Business Council co-founder/vice-chairman Khalid Abdulla-Janahi.

Najib said a good and effective governance could deliver the goods and services to the people.

"A good system allows the people to participate in the system, it empowers the people to decide their own destiny.

"In case of Malaysia, it is very much like Turkey. Without having to blow our own trumpet, we have a modern system, much like Turkey.

"Therefore, we can offer the Malaysian model because it has worked. From a relatively poor nation whose economy was based on agriculture, we have moved to industrialising the economy.

"Now, we have planned initiatives for the next phase. We have a very detailed roadmap of transformation. The next wave of transformation is to become a high-income nation," said Najib.

He said the success of a system was not just about numbers but also about whether it could improve the quality of life, and about good values, ensuring fairness, rule of law, being inclusive, having social safety net and caring for the poor.

"These are the things that we have put in place in Malaysia. So, in this regard, I believe we have something to offer to the world." Nevertheless, he said, every nation would have to look at its needs based on its own peculiarities and had to make adjustments to the values, to empower the people to a more prosperous and better future.

When asked by Zeinab Badawi whether the Malaysian model was a better model for an Islamic country than the Turkish, Najib's response which drew laughter from the audience was, "I have to be careful on this as I am in Turkey." The Malaysian prime minister said it was an important thing for Malaysia to choose its own destiny.

"And the way we have developed our political structure is that Islam plays an integral part in the country's policies and administration.

"We cannot separate Islam from the government in Malaysia. But having said that, it is also Islam that is moderate that we apply in Malaysia. For example, Islam in Malaysia is not associated with violence, Islam in Malaysia is benign and that is being practised by and large," he added.

The conference was jointly organised by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia and International Movement For A Just World (JUST) in conjunction with Najib's three-day official visit to Turkey from Feb 21-23. (Bernama)

"Wherever you find them, kill them." Part Two (On the arrest and impending death of Hamza Kashgari)

According to media reports (see links at bottom of post), 23 year old Saudi Arabian journalist Hamza Kashgari is in grave danger. There is a very real likelihood that he will be put to death for the crime of blasphemous tweeting.

On Saturday, the anniversary of the birth of Muhammad, Kashgari posted the following three tweets (text taken from the Global Post article linked to below):

• On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you've always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

• On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.

• On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.

As a result, according to Global Post, "a warrant was issued by kingdom authorities for his arrest and the Kingdom's religious Fatwa Council condemned him as an apostate and an infidel, crimes which are punishable by death."

Those who have been following this story know that Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia fearing for his life. He planned to request asylum in New Zealand, but only got as far as Kuala Lumpur airport in Malaysia, where he was arrested on Wednesday while waiting for a connecting flight. According to the New York Times, “The [Malaysian] police have contacted their counterpart in Saudi Arabia to determine the next course of action,” according to Hishammuddin Hussein, the Malaysian Minister of Home Affairs.

It is often claimed that Malaysia offers a good example of a "moderate" Muslim society. I believe that this is true, and that we are now seeing just what "moderate" Islam looks like in action.

Sources:

• Malaysia Detains Saudi Over Twitter Posts on Prophet New York Times
• Saudi writer Hamza Kashgari faces charge of blasphemy after tweets about Muhammad Washington Post
• Malaysia may repatriate Saudi who faces death penalty for tweets Global Post/Christian Science Monitor
• Saudi Tweeter Is Arrested in Malaysia Wall Street Journal

Further reading:

• "Wherever you find them, kill them." Murderous injunctions from the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī
• (In)Tolerance and Coercion in Islam
• "Two religions will not remain in the land of the Arabs."
  
• Sam Harris: Islam is Different. (duh)
• Do Muslims really bear no responsibility for 9/11?
• "The Islamic Exception"
• "most Americans do not buy the 19 fanatics story"
• "Islamism" widespread, deeply rooted among Muslims in Europe, according to Pew study
• What Does the Muslim Brotherhood think of the new Pew report?
• Who Supports Al Qaeda? Over 100 Million Muslims. That's Who.

2011: Year of the Mucker? (Morbid Musings On Mass Murder)

2011 was quite a year for high-profile instances of individuals running amok with the intent to kill.

The year began with Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree in Arizona in January and ended with three separate incidents in December that occurred in California, Belgium and Italy. In between the world witnessed several other mass killings, including the horrendous massacre carried out by Anders Breivik in Norway on July 22, which is considered to be the deadliest "killing spree" in history.

When I heard the news about the Norway massacre I immediately thought back to the shootings in Arizona earlier that year, and that led me to recall the phenomenon of "muckers" that played such a central role in John Brunner's dystopian (before dystopian was cool) novel, Stand On Zanzibar (first published in 1968), and as a result of those morbid musings I posted a few excerpts from that great work of literature.

I can't see a pattern in the motives or any other connecting thread in these acts of seemingly senseless violence. Many of them do fit a pattern of lone mentally ill individuals motivated by megalomania and delusional ideology. But some are obviously examples of severely psychologically damaged human beings who reached a breaking point without any "ideological" direction to their violence.

And it's not 100% clear that 2011 actually saw more of this kind of violence than other years, especially since definitions vary for such things as "spree killing", "rampage killing", "mass murder", etc. Here are four good discussions of some of the different definitions:

• The Definition of Serial Murder
  Behavioral Analysis Unit, FBI.Gov
• Researching Serial Murder: Methodologial and Definitional Problems
  Ronald Hinch, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph
• So what's the difference: Serial killer, spree killer, mass murderer?
  Richard Battin, Homicide.Com
• Multiple Murderers: Mass Murderers, Spree Killers, and Serial Killers
  Charles Montaldo, About.Com

Previous years have of course not been without their fair share of mass killings. In 2010 there was a truly Brunner-esque wave of violent attacks in China, including a wave of attacks on schoolchildren in which at least 21 children were killed, some as young as four years old (link). That same year a Chinese construction worker went on a drunken rampage with a shovel loader, killing 11 people (link). And early Spring of 2009 also saw an alarming string of mass murders committed in the United States (link). If we go back to 2007 there was the Virginia Tech massacre in which 32 people were gunned down in the 6th deadliest rampage killing by a lone perpetrator on record (well, at least according to this list, already linked to above). So maybe 2011 wasn't so bad after all? Hmmm, that doesn't really make me feel any better!

But maybe there is a pattern, or at least a trend, and not a good one. Mark Kopta, chair of the Department of Psychology at the University of Evansville in Indiana (link), has tabulated the rate at which mass killings occur in the U.S., going back to the 1930s. According to Kopta, the frequency of these events has been on the increase at least since 1970. Here are his numbers (according to media reports, such as this one from abc):

3 mass killings from 1930-1970 (.075 per year)
3 mass killings from 1970-1980 (0.3 per year)
10 mass killings from 1980-1990 (1.0 per year)
17 mass killings from 1990-2000 (1.7 per year)
25 mass killings from 2000-2008 (3.1 per year)

Of course numbers like these once again raise the question of how these events are counted, and especially what definitions and criteria are used. Consider, for example, the fact that the FBI actually changed their official definition of "serial murder" in 2008 (link). And, so far as I know, although he has been widely cited in the media, Kopta has not actually published his results, although he did present them in a paper to the Midwestern Psychological Association in Chicago in 2009.

And now here is a listing of the various acts of spree killing that I know of from the year that was 2011:

• January 8 Jared Lee Loughner opens fire in a supermarket parking lot in Tuscon Arizona, killing six and wounding 14.
• February 11-12 Maksim Gelman kills four and wounds at least five others in New York City.
• April 9 Tristan van der Vlis kills six and wounds seventeen in a shopping mall in the Dutch town of Alphen aan den Rijn.
• July 7 Rodrick Shonte Dantzler kills seven in a shooting spree in Grand Rapids Michigan.
• July 22 Anders Behring Breivik slaughters 69 people on the Norwegian island of Utøya after first killing 8 people in downtown Oslo with a car bomb.
• August 7 Michael E. Hance kills seven (and wounds one) in Summit County, Ohio.
• December 9 Tyler Brehm opens fire at the intersection of Sunset and Vine in Hollywood California, killing one and wounding at least two others.
• December 13 Nordine Amrani, armed with grenades and an automatic rifle, kills five and wounds 125 in the Belgian city of Liege.
• December 13 Gianluca Casseri kills two and wounds three in a shooting spree in the Italian city of Florence.

Hinduism, Paganism, & Polytheism

There has been a sudden flurry of interest in two very closely related questions about Hinduism:

1. What, if any, relationship exists between Hinduism and Paganism?
2. Is Hinduism polytheistic?

One of the main reasons for the current go-round on these two recurring topics is that the upcoming Pagan gathering, PantheaCon 2012, will feature a highly anticipated panel discusion entitled Hindus and Pagans Together: One Billion Strong (see the official schedule of events here). This panel will include two members of the Hindu American Foundation (link), Mihir Meghani and Raman Khanna, as well as Big Name Pagans Patrick McCollum and T. Thorn Coyle, and also Amadea, who has played a pivotal role in facilitating the newly blossoming relationship between Hindus and Pagans.

Another catalyst for the renewed discussion was an article by Huffington Post contributor Arvind Sharma with the provocative title Is Hinduism a Pagan Religion?, in which Sharma "defends" Hinduism against what he sees as the double slur that Hindus are both Pagans and polytheists. Sharma very nicely sums up his whole argument in a single sentence: "It is true that there are many gods in Hinduism and that it abounds in image worship, but while these various gods are considered different gods in paganism as traditionally represented, in Hinduism they represent the various forms of the one and same God."

Star Foster, a Pagan blogger at the religion megasite Patheos, took note of both the upcoming Pantheacon panel discussion and Arvind Sharma's article in her own contribution to the discussion: When Hinduism Confuses and Frustrates Me, which in turn sparked a lively and wide ranging exchange of views in the comments section.

What I would like to do now is to draw attention to some articles that I believe help to shed some light on these thorny issues. The first two of these are very recent and can be considered important contributions to the current round of discussion. The next four are less recent but still highly relevant. Following that there are some links to posts from this blog that also relate to the topic of Hinduism, Paganism, and Polytheism.

Vedic monotheism? 1. The dawn of monotheism
by Koenraad Elst, Feb. 7, 2012

[excerpt:]
Monotheism is not merely the cult of a single god, which would be called henotheism, but also implies the active rejection of all other gods. The recipient of monotheistic worship is not Heis Theos, “one god”, but Ho Monos Theos, “the only god”. Thus, Hindus worshipping an ishta devata, “chosen deity”, selected from among many, are henotheists but not monotheists. A Hindu who never worships any god except Shiva, but doesn’t object to his neighbour’s worshipping Krishna or Durga, fails the test of monotheism.

De-Monotheising the Human Mind the Hindu Way
by Ranbir Singh, Feb. 8, 2012

[excerpt:]
Almost a thousand years of cultural onslaught have left Hindus apologetic about their beliefs. They are keen to mould them into the framework dominated by a monotheistic mindset which holds sway even when it is mutated into terms such as rational, scientific and even atheist. Such is the power of monotheism that it infects even ideologies which purport to be antagonistic to any form of religious belief and it does so without most of us even realising.

Polytheism and Monotheism: A Hindu Perspective
Ramdas Lamb, Mar. 31, 2011

[excerpt:]
Today, the two most popular theological beliefs in the West are monotheism (the belief in a single all-powerful divinity) and atheism (the belief that there is no divine entity). The Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam preach the former, while those who base their world view exclusively on material or scientific rationality tend to adhere to the latter. Yet, in much of the rest of the world, polytheism, or a belief in multiple divinities, has been a long held and popular conviction. Atheists and Western monotheists together denigrate polytheists and their beliefs as either ignorant or pagan. The more conservative monotheists even equate them with evil and demonism. Such narrow minded views and biases have hampered many who adhere to western thinking from understanding the value and validity of polytheistic beliefs for the people who hold them.

Pagan Power in Modern Europe
by Hughes Henry & Ram Swarup (from Hinduism Today magazine, July, 1999)

[excerpt:]
"Pagan renaissance is overdue. It is necessary for Europe to heal its psyche. Under Christianity, Europe learned to reject its ancestors, its past, which cannot be good for its future also. Europe became sick because it tore apart from its own heritage, it had to deny its very roots. If Europe is to be healed spiritually, it must recover its spiritual past--at least, it should not hold it in such dishonor." [Ram Swarup]

Hindu Spirituality Versus Monotheism
by Sita Ram Goel, from his book Defense of Hindu Society (1983, revised 1987)

[excerpt:]
It is an intuition ingrained in the Hindu psyche to inhabit our entire environment - celestial, physical, vegetable, animal, and human - with innumerable Gods and Goddesses. Some of these divinities are installed in temples as icons, and worshipped with well-defined rituals. Some others are worshipped as and where they are invoked. Hindu shastras, saints and sages have paid homage to many Gods and Goddesses in many sublime hymns.

Hindus as “Indian Pagans”
by Koenraad Elst (from his book Who is a Hindu?, 2001)

[excerpt:]
All Indians who were not Parsis, Jews, Christians or Muslims, were automatically Hindus. So, the original definition of Hindu is: an Indian Pagan. Since the earliest use of the term Hindu in India, a clear definition has been given with it, and of every community it can easily be decided whether it fits that definition or not. It does not matter if you do not like the name-tag: if you fit the definition, you fall within the Hindu category. The Hindus have not chosen to be called Hindus: others have conceived the term and its definition, and Hindus simply found themselves carrying this label and gradually accepted it.

And here are a few things I have written in this blog on related topics (including a little something on Zoroastrianism, an appreciation of Arab polytheism, and my two recent posts of excerpts from Plotinus, among other things):

• Lies, Damned Lies, and Pagan Monotheism (4/20/09)
• Hic Sunt Dracones (6/9/09)
• Thomas Taylor on the Religion of Socrates (7/22/09)
• Hinduism is not monotheistic (9/21/09)
• The Essence of Religion: Four Theories (11/13/09)
  
• Hindus and Pagans: "A return to the time of the Gods" (11/16/09)
• Isn't it time to stop "flattering the bully"? (11/17/09)
• What is "Counterreligion"? (11/19/09)
• In Honor of Freddie Mercury: "We are Zoroastrians, My Friends ...." (11/20/09)
• The Price of Monotheism in a nutshell (1/24/10)
  
• "When you enter a village, swear by its Gods." (5/26/10)
• Pagan Cosmology: not quite random thoughts on Platonism, polytheism, monism, and so forth (9/7/10)
• "The totality of the Gods" (Lies, Damned Lies, & Pagan Monotheism, Part Deux) (1/2/11)
• "On the Gods and the Cosmos" (Peri Theon kai Kosmou) (2/9/11)
• "The Christian appropriation of Platonic philosophy and the Hellenic intellectual resistance" (4/27/11)
• Plotinus in Defense of Polytheism (2/6/2012)
  
• More on Plotinus on the Gods (2/7/2012)
  

More on Plotinus on the Gods

Fourth Ennead, Fourth Tractate, Section 45:

Thus this universe of ours is a wonder of power and wisdom, everything by a noiseless road coming to pass according to a law which none may elude– which the base man never conceives though it is leading him, all unknowingly, to that place in the All where his lot must be cast– which the just man knows, and, knowing, sets out to the place he must, understanding, even as he begins the journey, where he is to be housed at the end, and having the good hope that he will be with Gods.

Fifth Ennead, Eighth Tractate, Section 3:

For assuredly all the Gods are august and beautiful in a beauty beyond our speech. And what makes them so? Intellect; and especially Intellect operating within them [the divine sun and stars] to visibility. It is not through the loveliness of their corporeal forms: even those that have body are not Gods by that beauty; it is in virtue of Intellect that they, too, are Gods, and as Gods beautiful. They do not veer between wisdom and folly: in the immunity of Intellect unmoving and pure, they are wise always, all–knowing, taking cognisance not of the human but of their own being and of all that lies within the contemplation of Intellect. Those of them whose dwelling is in the heavens, are ever in this meditation– what task prevents them?– and from afar they look, too, into that further heaven by a lifting of the head. The Gods belonging to that higher Heaven itself, they whose station is upon it and in it, see and know in virtue of their omnipresence to it. For all There is heaven; earth is heaven, and sea heaven; and animal and plant and man; all is the heavenly content of that heaven: and the Gods in it, despising neither men nor anything else that is there where all is of the heavenly order, traverse all that country and all space in peace.

Sixth Ennead, Fourth Tractate, Section 14:

Before we had our becoming Here we existed There, men other than now, some of us Gods: we were pure souls, Intelligence inbound with the entire of reality, members of the Intellectual, not fenced off, not cut away, integral to that All.

Sixth Ennead, Seventh Tractate, Section 1:

God, or some one of the Gods, in sending the souls to their birth, placed eyes in the face to catch the light and allotted to each sense the appropriate organ, providing thus for the safety which comes by seeing and hearing in time and, seeking or avoiding under guidance of touch.

Sixth Ennead, Eighth Tractate

Section 1:
Can there be question as to whether the Gods have voluntary action? Or are we to take it that, while we may well enquire in the case of men with their combination of powerlessness and hesitating power, the Gods must be declared omnipotent, not merely some things but all lying at their nod? Or is power entire, freedom of action in all things, to be reserved to one alone, of the rest some being powerful, others powerless, others again a blend of power and impotence?

All this must come to the test: we must dare it even of the Firsts and of the All–Transcendent and, if we find omnipotence possible, work out how far freedom extends. The very notion of power must be scrutinized lest in this ascription we be really making power identical with Essential Act, and even with Act not yet achieved.

Section 3:

We have traced self–disposal to will, will to reasoning and, next step, to right reasoning; perhaps to right reasoning we must add knowledge, for however sound opinion and act may be they do not yield true freedom when the adoption of the right course is the result of hazard or of some presentment from the fancy with no knowledge of the foundations of that rightness.

Taking it that the presentment of fancy is not a matter of our will and choice, how can we think those acting at its dictation to be free agents? Fancy strictly, in our use, takes it rise from conditions of the body; lack of food and drink sets up presentments, and so does the meeting of these needs; similarly with seminal abundance and other humours of the body. We refuse to range under the principle of freedom those whose conduct is directed by such fancy: the baser sort, therefore, mainly so guided, cannot be credited with self–disposal or voluntary act. Self–disposal, to us, belongs to those who, through the activities of the Intellectual–Principle, live above the states of the body. The spring of freedom is the activity of Intellectual–Principle, the highest in our being; the proposals emanating thence are freedom; such desires as are formed in the exercise of the Intellectual act cannot be classed as involuntary; the Gods, therefore, that live in this state, living by Intellectual–Principle and by desire conformed to it, possess freedom.

Plotinus In Defense of Polytheism

An interesting discussion on monotheism and polytheism has been taking place over at Star Foster's Patheos blog under the heading: When Hinduism Confuses and Frustrates Me. As often happens in such discussions, the issue of whether or not ancient Platonism, and the philosophy of Plotinus in particular, is polytheistic or not.

The best thing, of course, is to let Plotinus speak for himself. All excerpts are taken from David McKay's very helpful online edition of the Enneads (link):

First Ennead, Fourth Tractate, Section 4:

If, then, the perfect life is within human reach, the man attaining it attains happiness: if not, happiness must be made over to the Gods, for the perfect life is for them alone.

But since we hold that happiness is for human beings too, we must consider what this perfect life is. The matter may be stated thus:

It has been shown elsewhere that man, when he commands not merely the life of sensation but also Reason and Authentic Intellection, has realised the perfect life.

But are we to picture this kind of life as something foreign imported into his nature?

No: there exists no single human being that does not either potentially or effectively possess this thing which we hold to constitute happiness.

But are we to think of man as including this form of life, the perfect, after the manner of a partial constituent of his entire nature?

We say, rather, that while in some men it is present as a mere portion of their total being– in those, namely, that have it potentially– there is, too, the man, already in possession of true felicity, who is this perfection realized, who has passed over into actual identification with it. All else is now mere clothing about the man, not to be called part of him since it lies about him unsought, not his because not appropriated to himself by any act of the will.

First Ennead, Seventh Tractate, Section 3

If it be taken into the All–Soul– what evil can reach it There? And as the Gods are possessed of Good and untouched by evil– so, certainly is the Soul that has preserved its essential character.

Second Ennead, Ninth Tractate:

Section 8:
This earth of ours is full of varied life–forms and of immortal beings; to the very heavens it is crowded. And the stars, those of the upper and the under spheres, moving in their ordered path, fellow–travellers with the universe, how can they be less than Gods? Surely they must be morally good: what could prevent them? All that occasions vice here below is unknown there evil of body, perturbed and perturbing.

Knowledge, too; in their unbroken peace, what hinders them from the intellectual grasp of the God–Head and the Intellectual Gods? What can be imagined to give us a wisdom higher than belongs to the Supernals? Could anyone, not fallen to utter folly, bear with such an idea?

Section 9:
Our adversaries do not deny that even here there is a system of law and penalty: and surely we cannot in justice blame a dominion which awards to every one his due, where virtue has its honour, and vice comes to its fitting shame, in which there are not merely representations of the Gods, but the Gods themselves, watchers from above, and– as we read– easily rebutting human reproaches, since they lead all things in order from a beginning to an end, allotting to each human being, as life follows life, a fortune shaped to all that has preceded– the destiny which, to those that do not penetrate it, becomes the matter of boorish insolence upon things divine.

A man’s one task is to strive towards making himself perfect– though not in the idea– really fatal to perfection– that to be perfect is possible to himself alone.

We must recognize that other men have attained the heights of goodness; we must admit the goodness of the celestial spirits, and above all of the Gods– those whose presence is here but their contemplation in the Supreme, and loftiest of them, the lord of this All, the most blessed Soul. Rising still higher, we hymn the divinities of the Intellectual Sphere, and, above all these, the mighty King of that dominion, whose majesty is made patent in the very multitude of the Gods.

It is not by crushing the divine unto a unity but by displaying its exuberance– as the Supreme himself has displayed it– that we show knowledge of the might of God, who, abidingly what He is, yet creates that multitude, all dependent on Him, existing by Him and from Him.

This Universe, too, exists by Him and looks to Him– the Universe as a whole and every God within it– and tells of Him to men, all alike revealing the plan and will of the Supreme.

These, in the nature of things, cannot be what He is, but that does not justify you in contempt of them, in pushing yourself forward as not inferior to them.

The more perfect the man, the more compliant he is, even towards his fellows; we must temper our importance, not thrusting insolently beyond what our nature warrants; we must allow other beings, also, their place in the presence of the Godhead; we may not set ourselves alone next after the First in a dream–flight which deprives us of our power of attaining identity with the Godhead in the measure possible to the human Soul, that is to say, to the point of likeness to which the Intellectual–Principle leads us; to exalt ourselves above the Intellectual–Principle is to fall from it.

Yet imbeciles are found to accept such teaching at the mere sound of the words “You, yourself, are to be nobler than all else, nobler than men, nobler than even Gods.” Human audacity is very great: a man once modest, restrained and simple hears, “You, yourself, are the child of God; those men whom you used to venerate, those beings whose worship they inherit from antiquity, none of these are His children; you without lifting a hand are nobler than the very heavens”; others take up the cry: the issue will be much as if in a crowd all equally ignorant of figures, one man were told that he stands a thousand cubic feet; he will naturally accept his thousand cubits even though the others present are said to measure only five cubits; he will merely tell himself that the thousand indicates a considerable figure.

Section 16:
[T]o despise this Sphere, and the Gods within it or anything else that is lovely, is not the way to goodness.

Every evil–doer began by despising the Gods; and one not previously corrupt, taking to this contempt, even though in other respects not wholly bad, becomes an evil–doer by the very fact.

Besides, in this slighting of the Mundane Gods and the world, the honour they profess for the Gods of the Intellectual Sphere becomes an inconsistency; Where we love, our hearts are warm also to the Kin of the beloved; we are not indifferent to the children of our friend. Now every Soul is a child of that Father; but in the heavenly bodies there are Souls, intellective, holy, much closer to the Supernal Beings than are ours; for how can this Kosmos be a thing cut off from That and how imagine the Gods in it to stand apart.

Third Ennead, Second Tractate, Section 8:

Now in every living being the upper parts– head, face– are the most beautiful, the mid and lower members inferior. In the Universe the middle and lower members are human beings; above them, the Heavens and the Gods that dwell there; these Gods with the entire circling expanse of the heavens constitute the greater part of the Kosmos: the earth is but a central point, and may be considered as simply one among the stars.

Third Ennead, Fifth Tractate:

Section 3:
The Eros that belongs to the supernal Soul must be of one temper with it; it must itself look aloft as being of the household of that Soul, dependent upon that Soul, its very offspring; and therefore caring for nothing but the contemplation of the Gods.

Section 6:
We must, therefore, lay down the grounds on which we distinguish the Gods from the Celestials– that is, when we emphasize the separate nature of the two orders and are not, as often in practice, including these Spirits under the common name of Gods.

It is our teaching and conviction that the Gods are immune to all passion while we attribute experience and emotion to the Celestials which, though eternal Beings and directly next to the Gods, are already a step towards ourselves and stand between the divine and the human.

"the hypnotic power of well executed cunnilingus"

If you are not already following Katy Anders' blog, "Lesbians In My Soup", you might want to seriously consider doing so right now. In her most recent post, she has promised to reveal the secret that has allowed her to master the Dark Art of playing, and winning, "out of her league". All we know so far is that Katy assures us it has nothing whatsoever to do with "the hypnotic power of well-executed cunnilingus."

An Orthodox theologian explains what he means by "Inclusivism" and "Tolerance"

.
"Isn’t it a little too much to have tolerance and delicate forbearance
preached by what is intolerance and cruelty itself?"
[from Religion: A Dialogue, by Arthur Schopenhauer, 1889]

Rev. Dr. George C. Papademetrious is a prominent Orthodox theologian who is especially noted for his involvement in inter-faith dialogue (see his official biography at the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website). Father Papademetrious is a highly educated and exceptionally articulate man. When he writes about the relationship between Christianity and other religions he is not satisfied with glib, politically correct catch-phrases. Where he finds simplicity, he does not shy away from stating things plainly, even bluntly. And where he finds complexity, he insists on giving that complexity it's full due.

As far as I can see, there is no reason to doubt that Father Papademetrious has a genuine personal commitment to religious tolerance, and an abhorrence of all religious violence and persecution regardless of who the victims (or perpetrators) are. And he also possesses a clearly demonstrated interest in and sympathy for non-Christian religious traditions and their adherents.

But while Father Papademetrious' intelligence and humaneness shine through in his writings, this only makes it all the more jarring when one realizes the unambiguous import of what he believes to be the truth about all non-Christian religions. In particular, he insists that Christianity alone offers "salvation" and contains "saving truths". But somehow he makes this claim in the name of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" (and also in the name of rejecting "exclusivism"). But Father Papademetrious is not here engaging in any deception or sophistry. He states very clearly what he means by "exclusivism", "inclusivism" and "tolerance". On close inspection, his definitions turn out to be rather counterintuitive, but they are not completely unreasonable, and they are presented in a very forthright and even well-reasoned manner, so there is no excuse for misunderstanding him.

An important source of Father Papademetrious' thinking on these matters is his essay An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions. Therein he not only defines the three terms mentioned above, but also presents his definition of "pluralism" (which he also associates with the terms "syncretism" and "relativism").

Let's go through these four terms, one at a time, as defined by this noted Orthodox scholar:

"Exclusivism"
Father Papademetrious defines "exclusivism" very precisely and narrowly: it only refers to the most extreme position that all non-Christians "will be damned because there is no salvation outside the visible Body of Christ, the Church".

"Inclusivism"
Papademetrious' definition of "inclusivism" reflects and expands upon his definition of "exclusivism". While allowing that salvation is possible for non-Christians, Papademetrious (again very precisely and very narrowly) states that (1) the only possible avenue by which non-Christians can escape damnation is "through the mercy of [the Christian] God"; and also that (2) non-Christians do not attain salvation (if they attain it at all) through the agency of their non-Christian religious traditions, for such salvation is only conferred on the non-Christian "in spite of the religion he practices".

"Pluralism"
The definition of "pluralism" employed by Papademetrious follows inexorably from his definitions of "exclusivism" and "inclusivism". The simple truth is that he means by "pluralism" what most people naturally assume is meant by "inclusivism", namely that "the non-Christian may be saved by means of the very religion he practices, for nonChristian religions may also contain saving truths." This "pluralism" is rejected unambiguously by Papademetrious, thus categorically denying any spiritual value to any religion whatsoever other than Christianity.

"Tolerance"
It is clear from the above that what is included in Papademetrious' "inclusivism" is not non-Christian religions themselves, but rather selected individual adherents of non-Christian religions who are deemed worthy, at the sole discretion of the Christian God, of salvation in spite of their religious beliefs and practices. Likewise, Papademetrious' conception of "tolerance" toward non-Christian does not in any way involve any concession that non-Christian religions possess any spiritual value or "saving truths". In fact, Papademetrious makes a point of emphasizing that "Christian Truth is of highest importance in the Orthodox view of other religions," and that "Christ is Truth."

Even more can be learned from another paper authored by Papademetrious, which consists mostly of quotations from the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople: Recent Patriarchal Encyclicals on Religious Tolerance and Peaceful Coexistence. The most revealing of these quotations is the following:

"It is well known that every religion asserts that it holds within its belief system the absolute truth concerning God and the world, the latter of which also incorporates humanity."

Compare the above quote to one from the noted Hindu teacher Swami Vivekananda in 1893 (link):

"I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth."

This, finally, brings us to the heart of the matter. The Orthodox Patriarch claims that all religions are the same because they all make exclusive truth claims, while the Hindu sage claims that all religions are the same because they are all true!

Vivekananda himself recognized and articulated this very point when he also said (link):

"All religions are, at bottom, alike. This is so, although the Christian Church, like the Pharisee in the parable, thanks God that it alone is right and thinks that all other religions are wrong and in need of Christian light. Christianity must become tolerant before the world will be willing to unite with the Christian Church in a common charity."

All of the above very nicely illustrates the mentality of what Egyptologist Jan Assmann has termed "the Mosaic distinction", according to which mentality all religions can be divided neatly into two mutually exclusive groups: the one true religion, on the one hand, and false religions, on the other hand. Most importantly, Assmann has clearly shown that this mentality is not a universal feature of all religions, but is rather one of the defining characteristics of a certain kind of religion: monotheism.

Here is how Assmann himself explains this in the first chapter of his book Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism:

The distinction I am concerned with in this book is the distinction between true and false religion that underlies more specific distinctions such as Jews and Gentiles, Christians and pagans, Muslims and unbelievers. Once the distinction is drawn, there is no end of reentries or subdistinctions. We start with Christians and pagans and end up with Catholics and Protestants, Calvinists and Lutherans, Socinians and Latitudinarians, and a thousand more similar denominations and subdenominations. Cultural or intellectual distinctions such as these construct a universe that is not only full of meaning, identity, and orientation, but also full of conflict, intolerance and violence. Therefore, there have always been attempts to overcome the conflict by reexamining the distinction, albeit at the risk of losing cultural meaning.

Let us call the distinction between true and false in religion the "Mosaic distinction" because tradition ascribes it to Moses. We cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside the tradition. But we can be sure that he was not the first to draw the distinction. There was a precursor in the person of the an Egyptian king who called himself Akhnenaten and instituted a monotheistic religion in the fourteenth century B.C.E. His religion, however, spawned no tradition but was forgotten immediately after his death. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history, while Akhenaten is a figure of history but not of memory. Since memory is all that counts in the sphere of cultural distinctions and constructions, we are satisfied in speaking not of Akhenaten's distinction, but of the Mosaic distinction. The space severed or cloven by this distinction is the space of Western monotheism. It is this constructed mental or cultural space that has been inhabited by Europeans for nearly two millennia.

It is an error to believe that this distinction is as old as religion itself, though at first sight nothing might seem more plausible. Does not every religion quite automatically put everything outside itself in the position of error and falsehood and look down on other religions as "paganism"? Is this not quite simply the religious expression of ethnocentricity? Does not the distinction between true and false in reality amount to nothing other than the distinction between "us" and "them"? Does not every construction of identity by the very same process generate alterity? Does not every religion produce "pagans" in the same way that every civilization produces "barbarians"?

However plausible this may seem, it is not the case. Cultures not only generate otherness by constructing identity, but also develop techniques of translation. We have to distinguish here between the "real other," who is always there beyond the individual and independent of the individual's constructions of selfhood and otherhood, and the "construction of other," who is the shadow of the individual's identity. Moreover, we have to realize that in most cases we are dealing not with the "real other," but with our constructions and projections of the other. "Paganism" and "idolatry" belong to such constructions of the other. It is this inevitable construction of cultural otherness that is to a certain degree compensated by techniques of translation. Translation in this sense is not to be confused with the colonializing appropriation of the "real" other. It is simply an attempt to make more transparent the borders that were erected by cultural distinctions.

Ancient polytheisms functioned as such a technique of translations. They belong within the emergence of the "Ancient World" as a coherent ecumene of interconnected nations. The polytheistic religions overcame the primitive ethnocentrism of tribal religions by distinguishing several deities by name, shape, and function. The names are, of course, different in different cultures, because the languages are different. The shapes of the gods and the forms of worship may also differ significantly. But the functions are strikingly similar, especially in the case of cosmic deities; and most deities had a cosmic function. The sun god of one religion is easily equated with the sun god of another religion, and so forth. Because of their functional equivalence, deities of different religions can be equated. In Mesopotamia, the practice of translating divine names goes back to the third millennium B.C.E. ... In the second millennium, this practice was extended to many different languages and civilizations of the Near East. The cultures, languages, and customs may have been as different as ever: the religions always had a common ground. Thus they functioned as a means of intercultural translatability. The gods were international because they were cosmic. The different peoples worshipped different gods, but nobody contested the reality of foreign gods and the legitimacy of foreign forms of worship. The distinction I am speaking of [between true and false religions] simply did not exist in the world of polytheistic religions.

The Mosaic distinction was therefore a radically new distinction which considerably changed the world in which it was drawn. The space which was "severed or cloven" by this distinction was not simply the space of religion in general, but that of a very specific kind of religion. We may call this new type of religion "counter-religion" because it rejects and repudiates everything that went before and what is outside itself as "paganism". It no longer functioned as a means of intercultural translation; on the contrary, it functioned as a means of intercultural estrangement. Whereas polytheism, or rather "cosmotheism," rendered differed cultures mutually transparent and compatible, the new counter-religion blocked intercultural translatability. False gods cannot be translated.

[pp. 1-3]

See related posts at this blog:
The Price of Monotheism in a nutshell
Are there two kinds of religion?
What is "Counterreligion"?
The Essence of Religion: Four Theories
Roman Catholicism (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Seven)
Charlemagne, Part Deux (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Six)
Charlemagne (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Five)
Muhammad (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Four)
Constantine (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Three)
Moses (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Two)
Akhenaten (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part One)
Monotheistic Robots of Doom, Part Deux
Monotheistic Robots of Doom
Lies, Damned Lies, and Pagan Monotheism
Hic Sunt Dracones

Salman Rusdhie: Back To The Future

On February 14, 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini personally read out, over state controlled Iranian radio, his fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie because the Indian-born writer had committed the crime of "blaspheming against Islam" in his novel The Satanic Verses.

Nearly 23 years later, the organizers of the Jaipur Literary Festival initially "wanted it to be a place where you could meet Salman Rushdie, not just read him." But by the time the festival (in the capital and largest city of the Indian state of Rajasthan) got underway few days ago, not only was Rushdie not present, but a scheduled-at-the-last-minute video "appearance" by him was canceled at the urging of local police authorities.

But wait, there's more. For all festival attendees it is now forbidden to read aloud from any of Rushdie's writings during the proceedings. Four writers who dared to ignore that prohibition were forced to flee Jaipur or face arrest (or possibly worse). Even displaying Rushdie's picture has been banned from the festival!

The whole thing has turned into a slow-motion train wreck of the worst kind of politically correct capitulation to the demands of Islamism. But please, don't take my word for it. Here are several recent articles describing the unfolding debacle:

Why Salman Rushdie's voice was silenced in Jaipur, The Guardian, 26 January 2012

Jaipur festival cancels Salman Rushdie video link, The Guardian, 24 January 2012

Rushdie Jaipur speech cancelled amid death threats, Reuters, 24 January 2012

Jaipur Literature Festival organisers stop novelists from reading Satanic Verses, India Today, January 20, 2012

Salman Rushdie, Islamic Critics Clash Over Jaipur Literature Festival, Huffington Post, 20 January 2012

Salman Rushdie Jaipur festival appearance in doubt, The Guardian, 19 January 2012

Salman Rushdie Jaipur trip in doubt after India protest, BBC.com, 17 January 2012