I don't want to continue on the same theme forever, but since I've written that last blog I've been seeing articles about Copts and Muslims in Egypt everywhere. In the current issue of Smithsonian magazine, the article "Aftershocks" by Joshua Hammer gave me a closer look at the many factors influencing recent outbreaks of sectarian violence in Egypt. He spent some time meeting with Coptic Christians from many walks of life and interviewing them on their experiences in post-Mubarak Egypt. He also interviewed the head of the Salafist movement in Alexandria and some more moderate Muslim community leaders. It was a relatively balanced article that was helpful in giving a clearer view of the situation. I'd recommend it. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/A-New-Crisis-for-Egypts-Copts.html)
It left me thinking about two main things. First off, it reminded me that bad consequences usually seem to entail when a religious group is forbidden to build their places of worship. When the group in power forbids a religious group from building their churches, mosques, etc, they are hoping to deprive them of places to gather and of a physical presence in the land. This tactic, seen in Egypt with the building of Christian churches as in France with the building of mosques, is meant to suppress the "undesirable" religious group and to exclude them from having a place in society. But in the cases I've seen so far, it seen to have mostly negative consequences for all involved.
First, the group that isn't allowed to build their mosque/church/temple feels repressed. Being denied places of worship is a pretty clear statement of "we don't want you here." But instead of having the "desired" outcome of decreasing the group's influence, growing sentiments of injustice and persecution often seem to blossom into protests (which sometimes become riots) and sometimes acts of violence. In France, restrictions to where/when/how mosques can be built add to feelings of exclusion and even racism towards France's Muslim citizens, often of immigrant origin. In the past, this clear injustice has been a rallying point for more fundamentalist-style groups. I don't think it's a good idea to make groups get the feeling that they are trapped and oppressed--it could lead to more radical and desperate "solutions" to their problem. One of the main events that led to the recent Maspero riots in Egypt was the destruction of a Coptic church by a group of Muslims who deemed it "unlawful" for them to build.
The second point is one I'm still working out, so I'll leave it open. In so many of these articles, I read about the rise of Salafism, the Muslim Brotherhood/related groups in the wake of so many of these North African (& Middle Eastern) revolutions. Some say that Salafist groups are growing because now they are allowed to gather publicly--to be visible and attract members. But I wonder if these conditions of revolution, change, violence also play a role in making Salafist views more popular than before...it could be interesting to go back to the last chapters of Juergensmeyer and see what he would say.
23 October 2011
18 October 2011
Sectarian violence: the Maspero riots
On October 9th of this year, a non-violent protest by thousands of Coptic Christians in front of a state-run TV building in Maspero, Egypt turned violent when police and local "thugs" intervened, leaving 26 protesters dead. Some news sources refer to the incident as a "battle" with aggressors on all sides, others refer to a "massacre" of unarmed protesters. Different newspapers have chipped in with their theories of the causes for the riot--some theories more believable than others. The building and renovation of churches has been a constant point of
contention, and the demolition of a church that was rumored
not to have proper authorization by Muslims was the direct cause of this most
recent protest.
The Coptic Christians, who make up about 10% of Egypt's population, have been charged with "threatening national unity" since the fall of Mubarak's secular government. Coptic Christians' leaders and intelligentsia are seen as spreading "meaningless propaganda" and encouraging foreign interference in Egypt's affairs (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/23491/Egypt/Politics-/AlJamaa-AlIslamiya-condemns-Copts%E2%80%99-protests,-hints.aspx). On the other side, the Coptic Christians accuse the new government of allowing Islamist groups and the military to persecute them. Some even refer to it as genocide.
This instance of sectarian violence reminded me of the cases of Hindu-Muslim violence in the movie Earth and the book the Colors of Violence about the Hindu-Muslim riots in Hyderabad, India. In both cases, sectarian violence intensified in this period of political sensibility when places in society are renegotiated. Each side has their own version of the events, and it seems to me that the "triggers" for most of these riots say a lot about the fears of each group. For example, a large riot between Muslims and Christians in Egypt last May began when rumors circulated that the Christians were holding a woman who had converted to Islam as a captive. It would be interesting to analyze what makes each group think of the other as a threat and how that influences their response to a perceived affront. The situation in Egypt is complicated, and the articles I was able to find on the Maspero riot varied widely in their accounts of how the violence started and who was involved. For me, this only emphasized how differently two groups might view an event and how they could each use the same event to strengthen their view of things.
The Coptic Christians, who make up about 10% of Egypt's population, have been charged with "threatening national unity" since the fall of Mubarak's secular government. Coptic Christians' leaders and intelligentsia are seen as spreading "meaningless propaganda" and encouraging foreign interference in Egypt's affairs (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/23491/Egypt/Politics-/AlJamaa-AlIslamiya-condemns-Copts%E2%80%99-protests,-hints.aspx). On the other side, the Coptic Christians accuse the new government of allowing Islamist groups and the military to persecute them. Some even refer to it as genocide.
This instance of sectarian violence reminded me of the cases of Hindu-Muslim violence in the movie Earth and the book the Colors of Violence about the Hindu-Muslim riots in Hyderabad, India. In both cases, sectarian violence intensified in this period of political sensibility when places in society are renegotiated. Each side has their own version of the events, and it seems to me that the "triggers" for most of these riots say a lot about the fears of each group. For example, a large riot between Muslims and Christians in Egypt last May began when rumors circulated that the Christians were holding a woman who had converted to Islam as a captive. It would be interesting to analyze what makes each group think of the other as a threat and how that influences their response to a perceived affront. The situation in Egypt is complicated, and the articles I was able to find on the Maspero riot varied widely in their accounts of how the violence started and who was involved. For me, this only emphasized how differently two groups might view an event and how they could each use the same event to strengthen their view of things.
09 October 2011
Does religion necessarily create out-groups?
While taking a study break to read one of my favorite blogs, I came across a passage that seemed especially relevant to our class. I'll get to it in a minute.
First, a little disclosure. I'm a practicing Christian of an Eastern Catholic tradition, and I hope to pursue a graduate degree in Eastern Christian Studies. I study world religions because I love it and I always want to know more about other religions/worldviews.
For me this particular class on religious violence deals with a very real and widespread problem in the world that touches every religious tradition and really the whole global community. Through the class I'd like to learn how to understand the roots of this violence and to build peace in my small (or larger) way. But coming from a religious tradition, I also ask myself if religion is the problem in all this, and if at the root of all religion there will necessarily be violence. Are we the problem?
Our class has already addressed most of these problems on multiple occasions. The broad conclusions I've drawn from these discussions are that no, religion is not the only problem. Many outside contribute to religious violence as well. We've also discussed the factors inherent to religion that do feed and support this violence-- religion deals with life and death and moral code, posits a view of the cosmos that often includes an image of cosmic war, and promotes the formation of an in-group and out-group.
In the examples of religious violence that we have examined so far, most of the religious groups involved have been "fringe" groups that did not have the support of the majority of the religion or the religion's main authority. It is still important to note that these religions "gave birth" to these movements, but I'm always curious what the rest of the religious group has to say about this religious violence, and whether religion always promotes the formation of out-groups that so easily become enemies on a cosmic scale.
That's where this blog passage comes in. It comes from a popular Orthodox Christian blog (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/) and addresses the nature of the mind and heart in Orthodox theology. I was interested by the description of "the mind":
From my limited knowledge, I think that Buddhism (or at least the Tibetan Buddhists that I am more familiar with) has a similar discourse. The elimination of the ego-self is an important part of Buddhist practice, and part and parcel with this is understanding the interdependence and unity of the world. I find that most religions have this sort of discourse which serves to counter in-group/out-group formation. Whether or not this is the dominant discourse seems to vary by religion and time period. But in any case, this discourse can have a positive role that could inhibit some of religion's violent tendencies. I think it is an attitude to be promoted among religious groups.
First, a little disclosure. I'm a practicing Christian of an Eastern Catholic tradition, and I hope to pursue a graduate degree in Eastern Christian Studies. I study world religions because I love it and I always want to know more about other religions/worldviews.
For me this particular class on religious violence deals with a very real and widespread problem in the world that touches every religious tradition and really the whole global community. Through the class I'd like to learn how to understand the roots of this violence and to build peace in my small (or larger) way. But coming from a religious tradition, I also ask myself if religion is the problem in all this, and if at the root of all religion there will necessarily be violence. Are we the problem?
Our class has already addressed most of these problems on multiple occasions. The broad conclusions I've drawn from these discussions are that no, religion is not the only problem. Many outside contribute to religious violence as well. We've also discussed the factors inherent to religion that do feed and support this violence-- religion deals with life and death and moral code, posits a view of the cosmos that often includes an image of cosmic war, and promotes the formation of an in-group and out-group.
In the examples of religious violence that we have examined so far, most of the religious groups involved have been "fringe" groups that did not have the support of the majority of the religion or the religion's main authority. It is still important to note that these religions "gave birth" to these movements, but I'm always curious what the rest of the religious group has to say about this religious violence, and whether religion always promotes the formation of out-groups that so easily become enemies on a cosmic scale.
That's where this blog passage comes in. It comes from a popular Orthodox Christian blog (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/) and addresses the nature of the mind and heart in Orthodox theology. I was interested by the description of "the mind":
In order to be right about anything, the mind has the need to find someone or something that is wrong. In a sense, the mind is always looking for an enemy (the person who is “wrong”), since without an enemy, the mind is not quite sure of its own identity. When it has an enemy, it is able to be more confident about itself. Since the mind also continually seeks for certainty, which is a by-product of the desire to be right, the process of finding and defining enemies is an ongoing struggle for survival. Declaring enemies is, for the mind, not an unfortunate character flaw, but an essential and necessary task.This mindset of us-them, right-wrong is a natural human way of seeing things. That doesn't mean that it's ok. In this particular article, Fr. Meletios continues by advocating for a religion of "the heart" which is characterized by a search for similarity rather than difference, that tries hard not to judge others, and is ego-less. Whether or not many practitioners or even leaders follow this sort of religion is another story, but I'm glad this kind of discourse exists.
Unfortunately, being right is not what people really need, even though a great deal of their lives may be taken up in its pursuit. Defense of the ego is almost always a matter of trying to be right. Interestingly enough, Jesus never once suggested to His disciples that they be right. What He did demand is that they be righteous. In listening to His words we find that we spend almost all our energy in the wrong direction, since we generally pursue being right with every ounce of our being, but leave being good to the weak and the naive.
People fight wars, commit genocide, and deprive others of basic human civil liberties, all in the name of being right. There is little doubt that if a further nuclear war ever takes place, it will be because the person pushing the button believes himself to be right. About something.
Religion, at the level of the mind, can be a terrible thing, causing wanton destruction to individuals, families, and even entire nations, all in the cause of being right. Almost every religious system can, and in most cases, has operated solely at this level at some point in its history. This is the level of religious awareness that can cause the servants of the King of Peace to wage war on those who think thoughts different from their own; it bestows on those who have been commanded to forgive their enemies the right to annihilate their foes. ---Archimandrite Meletios Webber
From my limited knowledge, I think that Buddhism (or at least the Tibetan Buddhists that I am more familiar with) has a similar discourse. The elimination of the ego-self is an important part of Buddhist practice, and part and parcel with this is understanding the interdependence and unity of the world. I find that most religions have this sort of discourse which serves to counter in-group/out-group formation. Whether or not this is the dominant discourse seems to vary by religion and time period. But in any case, this discourse can have a positive role that could inhibit some of religion's violent tendencies. I think it is an attitude to be promoted among religious groups.
Why are so many terrorists male?
Class on Thursday was pretty intense. We watched a part of a video on Hindu-Muslim violence in India which featured speakers at a Hindu rally. The speakers addressed a seemingly all-male audience, referring to their Muslim adversaries as "the eunuchs", "the cut," and "those who have been shortened," referencing the Muslim practice of circumcision. By symbolically emasculating their opponents, they weakened them and also made them less than men. As someone suggested (and then withdrew) in class, this emasculating discourse served as a way to dehumanize their opponents.
While there is definitely an impassioned discussion to be had about the idea that "loss of masculinity = loss of humanity", that's not the point that I'd like to make today. The big thing for me that after all these weeks of examining case studies of religious violence, this was the first time we talked about the majority of these violent actors being men. I mean, yikes, is it something we took for granted? And if so, why is this seen as normal? Do we assume that men are by nature more violent than women? I don't think that's a good assumption to make, and there are more reasonable ways to explain this phenomenon.
Societal roles seem to play a big part. We live in a world where it is men who go to war and where men are the ones traditionally asked to mobilize and fight for a cause. There are exceptions, but as a rule men are the ones who make up our armies and militias. The same logic seems to apply to cosmic war. Perhaps the imagery of the armies of Good battling the armies of Evil appeals more to men who are expected to step up into their Man-as-Soldier role.
While there is definitely an impassioned discussion to be had about the idea that "loss of masculinity = loss of humanity", that's not the point that I'd like to make today. The big thing for me that after all these weeks of examining case studies of religious violence, this was the first time we talked about the majority of these violent actors being men. I mean, yikes, is it something we took for granted? And if so, why is this seen as normal? Do we assume that men are by nature more violent than women? I don't think that's a good assumption to make, and there are more reasonable ways to explain this phenomenon.
Societal roles seem to play a big part. We live in a world where it is men who go to war and where men are the ones traditionally asked to mobilize and fight for a cause. There are exceptions, but as a rule men are the ones who make up our armies and militias. The same logic seems to apply to cosmic war. Perhaps the imagery of the armies of Good battling the armies of Evil appeals more to men who are expected to step up into their Man-as-Soldier role.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)