Frederick Clarkson, "Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy" (Common Courage Press, 1997):
www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=088
From the publisher's description (on Amazon): "Drawing on years of rigorous research, Clarkson exposes the wild card of the 'theology of vigilantism' which urges the enforcement of 'God's law' and argues for fundamentalist revolution against constitutional democracy."
Review: "Frederick Clarkson's Eternal Hostility provides a chilling road map to a growing movement whose roots go back to the founding days of the country. Clarkson asks the reader to consider what it would be like if having an abortion was punishable by death, if gays and lesbians were thrown into jail, or if our constitutional rights were replaced by biblical law. [...] Chastising liberals and the left for failing to recognize the depth of the threat to liberty, Clarkson argues that we must develop a coherent response to a well-organized effort aimed at overthrowing democracy. When he exposes the aims and strategies of such diverse Christian zealots as the 'Promise Keepers' and the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, remember that [...] Clarkson was also the first to expose how elements of the Christian Right were encouraging the formation of citizen 'militias' almost five years before the Oklahoma City bombing propelled the militia movement into general public awareness." ("Midwest Book Review")
Frederick Clarkson is an independent US journalist and book author.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
01 October 2010
Article: On Democracy and Kings
John C. Médaille is the author of an article titled "On Democracy and Kings", which appeared on 15 September 2010 as the first of a series of articles in the fortnightly traditionalist Roman Catholic US newspaper "The Remnant" (43 [15]: no page numbers given).
The full text of the article can be read free of charge here:
www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0915-medaille-monarchy.htm
Excerpts: "[I]t is clear to me, especially in this late date of our democracy, that it enthrones the will of determined and well-financed minorities, that it dissolves the customs and traditions of the people, and that it has no concern for the future. And a king may indeed be a tyrant, but such is the exception rather than the rule. [...] A king, no less than a president, must consider the forces and interests in his kingdom. But a king is free to judge the justice of the arguments; a president is free only to count the votes. And while the president might attempt to engage in persuasion, in the end he himself can only be persuaded by power, that is, by whoever controls the votes, which is very likely to be the one who controls the money. A king may also be persuaded by power and money, but he is always free to be persuaded by justice. And even when a king is a tyrant, he is an identifiable tyrant; much worse is when a people live in a tyranny they may not name, a system where the forms of democracy serve as cover for the reality of tyranny. And that, I believe, is our situation today. [...]
"Modern democracy has come to mean, in preference to all other possible forms, electoral democracy [...]. Since this democracy is something we are willing to both kill and die for, it assumes the status of a religion, albeit a secular one. Like all religions, electoral democracy has its central sacrament, its central liturgy, and its central dogma; its sacrament is the secret ballot, its liturgy is the election campaign, and its dogma is that the election will represent the will of the people. But is this dogma true in any sense? [...] One might respond that it is the will of the people who cared enough to vote. However, that ignores the fact that there are people (like myself) who care enough not to vote; people who find no party acceptable, or worse, find that both parties are really the same party with cosmetic differences for the entertainment and manipulation of the public. [...] Further, we can ask if a bare majority is actually a sufficient margin for any really important decision, one that commits everyone to endorse serious and abiding actions. For example, should 51% be allowed to drag the rest into war? [...]
"[D]emocracies tend to erode traditions by pandering to current desires. [...] In abandoning the past, democracy also abandons the future. We pile the children with debts they cannot pay, wars they cannot win, obligations they cannot meet [...]. In truth, elections are markets with very high entry costs. [...] Indeed, in the 2008 elections, campaign costs were a staggering $5.3 billion, and that was just for the national races. There are very limited sources for that kind of money, and the political process must, perforce, be dominated by those sources. [...] And why is so much money needed? Because the political arts in a democracy are not the arts of deliberation and persuasion, which are relatively inexpensive, but are the arts of manipulation and propaganda, which are extremely costly. The appeal is almost never to the intelligence, but to raw passion and emotion. The path to power in a democracy, the surest way to ensure the loyalty of one's followers, is to exaggerate small differences into great 'issues.' [...]
"A thing is known by its proper limits, and a thing without limits becomes its own opposite. Thus democracy, sacralized and absolutized, becomes its own opposite, a thinly disguised oligarchy of power which uses all the arts of propaganda to convince the public that their votes matter. There is precedent for this. The Western Roman Empire maintained the Republican form and offices. Consul, quaestor, aedile, and tribune remained and there were hotly contested and highly expensive campaigns for these offices. The army still marched under the banner not of the emperor, but of the SPQR, 'The Senate and People of Rome.' But of course it was all a sham; real power lay with the emperor and with the army and the merchant/landowning classes whose interests he largely represented, while buying off the plebs with the world's largest welfare state. But at least the Romans could see their emperor, could know his name, could love him or hate him. We are not permitted to see our real rulers, and never permitted to name them. The democratic sham covers the oligarchic reality."
The second installment of the series, an article titled "A Real Catholic Monarchy", appeared in "The Remnant" on 30 September 2010 (43 [16]: no page numbers given).
Excerpt: "A modern bureaucrat, in the normal course of his day, exercises more power than a medieval king; the bureaucrat can, with a stroke of a pen, take away your business or your children, thereby making tyranny a sort of daily routine; the bureaucrat's writ does indeed run as law, as long as the proper forms are filled out ..."
The full text of this article is only accessible to subscribers of the paper (available in print or as e-edition).
I was not able to ascertain whether there will be further installments in future issues of "The Remnant".
John C. Médaille is Adjunct Instructor of Theology at the University of Dallas.
The full text of the article can be read free of charge here:
www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0915-medaille-monarchy.htm
Excerpts: "[I]t is clear to me, especially in this late date of our democracy, that it enthrones the will of determined and well-financed minorities, that it dissolves the customs and traditions of the people, and that it has no concern for the future. And a king may indeed be a tyrant, but such is the exception rather than the rule. [...] A king, no less than a president, must consider the forces and interests in his kingdom. But a king is free to judge the justice of the arguments; a president is free only to count the votes. And while the president might attempt to engage in persuasion, in the end he himself can only be persuaded by power, that is, by whoever controls the votes, which is very likely to be the one who controls the money. A king may also be persuaded by power and money, but he is always free to be persuaded by justice. And even when a king is a tyrant, he is an identifiable tyrant; much worse is when a people live in a tyranny they may not name, a system where the forms of democracy serve as cover for the reality of tyranny. And that, I believe, is our situation today. [...]
"Modern democracy has come to mean, in preference to all other possible forms, electoral democracy [...]. Since this democracy is something we are willing to both kill and die for, it assumes the status of a religion, albeit a secular one. Like all religions, electoral democracy has its central sacrament, its central liturgy, and its central dogma; its sacrament is the secret ballot, its liturgy is the election campaign, and its dogma is that the election will represent the will of the people. But is this dogma true in any sense? [...] One might respond that it is the will of the people who cared enough to vote. However, that ignores the fact that there are people (like myself) who care enough not to vote; people who find no party acceptable, or worse, find that both parties are really the same party with cosmetic differences for the entertainment and manipulation of the public. [...] Further, we can ask if a bare majority is actually a sufficient margin for any really important decision, one that commits everyone to endorse serious and abiding actions. For example, should 51% be allowed to drag the rest into war? [...]
"[D]emocracies tend to erode traditions by pandering to current desires. [...] In abandoning the past, democracy also abandons the future. We pile the children with debts they cannot pay, wars they cannot win, obligations they cannot meet [...]. In truth, elections are markets with very high entry costs. [...] Indeed, in the 2008 elections, campaign costs were a staggering $5.3 billion, and that was just for the national races. There are very limited sources for that kind of money, and the political process must, perforce, be dominated by those sources. [...] And why is so much money needed? Because the political arts in a democracy are not the arts of deliberation and persuasion, which are relatively inexpensive, but are the arts of manipulation and propaganda, which are extremely costly. The appeal is almost never to the intelligence, but to raw passion and emotion. The path to power in a democracy, the surest way to ensure the loyalty of one's followers, is to exaggerate small differences into great 'issues.' [...]
"A thing is known by its proper limits, and a thing without limits becomes its own opposite. Thus democracy, sacralized and absolutized, becomes its own opposite, a thinly disguised oligarchy of power which uses all the arts of propaganda to convince the public that their votes matter. There is precedent for this. The Western Roman Empire maintained the Republican form and offices. Consul, quaestor, aedile, and tribune remained and there were hotly contested and highly expensive campaigns for these offices. The army still marched under the banner not of the emperor, but of the SPQR, 'The Senate and People of Rome.' But of course it was all a sham; real power lay with the emperor and with the army and the merchant/landowning classes whose interests he largely represented, while buying off the plebs with the world's largest welfare state. But at least the Romans could see their emperor, could know his name, could love him or hate him. We are not permitted to see our real rulers, and never permitted to name them. The democratic sham covers the oligarchic reality."
The second installment of the series, an article titled "A Real Catholic Monarchy", appeared in "The Remnant" on 30 September 2010 (43 [16]: no page numbers given).
Excerpt: "A modern bureaucrat, in the normal course of his day, exercises more power than a medieval king; the bureaucrat can, with a stroke of a pen, take away your business or your children, thereby making tyranny a sort of daily routine; the bureaucrat's writ does indeed run as law, as long as the proper forms are filled out ..."
The full text of this article is only accessible to subscribers of the paper (available in print or as e-edition).
I was not able to ascertain whether there will be further installments in future issues of "The Remnant".
John C. Médaille is Adjunct Instructor of Theology at the University of Dallas.
14 June 2010
Booklet: Should Christians Vote?
Christians against democracy: David C. Pack is the author of the booklet "Should Christians Vote?", published in 2008 by the North America-based Restored Church of God, which operates a worldwide online ministry.
The booklet is available free of charge here:
www.thercg.org/books/scv.pdf
Excerpts: "You may have supposed that the governments of modern nations generally reflect God's way. This is almost everyone's assumption. Yet, while God does, in fact, establish and remove nations, this is not His world! [...] Christ would not vote, because He understands the origin of the governments of this world and who is behind them. [...] This world, with its ways and systems, is controlled by the devil! [...] Not only does Satan govern the kingdoms of this world, through his power and influence, but he also does it in an undivided, unified fashion with the aid of hundreds of millions [...] of demons. [...] Together they deceive, confuse and exert far-reaching influence over all the governments and activities on earth. [...]
"Christians never participate in the governments of this world [...]. It is not God's purpose that the 'better' people win. God determines the winners in advance. In the end, the 'will of the people' has no power or effect, because God is in charge of the outcome of elections. [...] For instance, what if true Christians are actively voting in Europe as the final beast of Revelation 17 arises? This great military, political, religious power is prophesied to come soon – and is already rising! By voting, Christians would literally be participating in establishing the final world-dominating counterfeit government foretold to deceive the world and fight Christ at His Return! [...]
"The practices of favoritism, endless debates and arguments, bribes, lust for power, corruption, lying and deceit, scandals and cover-ups, greed, exploitation, aggression, intense and relentless accusation, inefficiency, vanity, decisions based on polls, voter apathy, strife and back-stabbing are just some of the fruits of democracy [...]! Democratic politics are shot full of division and disagreement, over nearly every issue that any society might face. [...] Study the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single instance where an election was used to select a leader. Nowhere in the Bible can you find people electing leaders – and the Bible is the pattern that Christians are supposed to follow in all matters. [...] God's Word neither authorizes nor reflects any kind of pattern of voting. [...]
"Christ understood the corrupting nature of self-exaltation! He sees through the guise of phony 'concern' for the people whose votes these 'leaders' must get and/or retain to be in office. [...] To participate in a system in which men exalt themselves, in the seeking of high office, is to endorse – to validate – to agree with – a corrupt system, with terrible fruit, emphasizing vanity and pride. Democracy is completely opposite to what God expects of all people when He commands them to humble themselves! [...] Christians participating in the governments of Satan's world, through voting, [...] is far more serious than most realize. It is disloyalty – a form of spiritual fornication and spiritual treason – to the government of God and His complete authority over a Christian's life."
David C. Pack is Pastor General of the Restored Church of God, with headquarters in Wadsworth, Ohio, USA.
The booklet is available free of charge here:
www.thercg.org/books/scv.pdf
Excerpts: "You may have supposed that the governments of modern nations generally reflect God's way. This is almost everyone's assumption. Yet, while God does, in fact, establish and remove nations, this is not His world! [...] Christ would not vote, because He understands the origin of the governments of this world and who is behind them. [...] This world, with its ways and systems, is controlled by the devil! [...] Not only does Satan govern the kingdoms of this world, through his power and influence, but he also does it in an undivided, unified fashion with the aid of hundreds of millions [...] of demons. [...] Together they deceive, confuse and exert far-reaching influence over all the governments and activities on earth. [...]
"Christians never participate in the governments of this world [...]. It is not God's purpose that the 'better' people win. God determines the winners in advance. In the end, the 'will of the people' has no power or effect, because God is in charge of the outcome of elections. [...] For instance, what if true Christians are actively voting in Europe as the final beast of Revelation 17 arises? This great military, political, religious power is prophesied to come soon – and is already rising! By voting, Christians would literally be participating in establishing the final world-dominating counterfeit government foretold to deceive the world and fight Christ at His Return! [...]
"The practices of favoritism, endless debates and arguments, bribes, lust for power, corruption, lying and deceit, scandals and cover-ups, greed, exploitation, aggression, intense and relentless accusation, inefficiency, vanity, decisions based on polls, voter apathy, strife and back-stabbing are just some of the fruits of democracy [...]! Democratic politics are shot full of division and disagreement, over nearly every issue that any society might face. [...] Study the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single instance where an election was used to select a leader. Nowhere in the Bible can you find people electing leaders – and the Bible is the pattern that Christians are supposed to follow in all matters. [...] God's Word neither authorizes nor reflects any kind of pattern of voting. [...]
"Christ understood the corrupting nature of self-exaltation! He sees through the guise of phony 'concern' for the people whose votes these 'leaders' must get and/or retain to be in office. [...] To participate in a system in which men exalt themselves, in the seeking of high office, is to endorse – to validate – to agree with – a corrupt system, with terrible fruit, emphasizing vanity and pride. Democracy is completely opposite to what God expects of all people when He commands them to humble themselves! [...] Christians participating in the governments of Satan's world, through voting, [...] is far more serious than most realize. It is disloyalty – a form of spiritual fornication and spiritual treason – to the government of God and His complete authority over a Christian's life."
David C. Pack is Pastor General of the Restored Church of God, with headquarters in Wadsworth, Ohio, USA.
07 June 2010
Transcript: Condemnation of the Democratic Process, Voting, and the Islamic Stances on these Issues
"Condemnation of the Democratic Process, Voting, and the Islāmic Stances on these Issues" is the English translation of the transcript of an undated, but fairly recent Arabic audio recording of Shaykh Abū Qatādah 'Umar Ibn Mahmūd Abū 'Umar Al-Filastīnī (also: Abu Qatada [al-Filastini], Abū-Omar, or Omar Mahmoud [Mohammed] Othman/Uthman), the Jordanian-born presumed former spiritual leader of al-Qaeda in Europe currently imprisoned in the United Kingdom, being interviewed by At-Tibyān Publications, an online organization accused of spreading terrorist propaganda in the West.
The transcript can be downloaded free of charge here:
www.archive.org/details/CondemnationOfTheDemocraticProcessVotingAndTheIslamicStancesOn_865
Excerpts: "[E]lections are [...] an ideology [....] The meaning of an election is that I am satisfied with this one (individual) as a representative for me in expressing my will in declaring something to be Halāl [permitted] or Harām [forbidden], here in the legislation. And this, as it is clear, is in opposition to [...] the will of the Muslim who says 'I render myself obedient to Allāh [...]'. In other words, I do not accept anyone, in this issue, the legislation, I do not accept a legislator except Allāh. I do not accept as a ruler over me, (and) a ruler, not in the meaning of ruling in the meaning of implementation, but a ruler in the meaning of the right to issue commands, except Allāh. [...] But for, for you to vote for this one to be a god for you, then this is another issue, as you see, it differs with complete difference [...], because if you chose him as a ruler for you then you would have disbelieved."
Another, related At-Tibyān Publications title: "The Doubts Regarding the Ruling of Democracy In Islām" is a booklet whose author(s)
remain(s) anonymous, dated June 2004.
The booklet is (as of now) available free of charge here:
http://muslimsagainstvoting.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/the_doubts_regarding_the_ruling_of_democracy_in_islam.pdf
Excerpts: "Democracy [...] is a system, which is at odds with the very essence of Allāh's exclusive right of legislation and as such it steps outside the mere disobedience of Allāh into the realm of Shirk [idolatry], in that it seeks to elevate mankind to the level of the Legislator (i.e. Allāh). [...] And because the people are the ones who select the laws, by means of their representatives, these laws are based upon what the people wish and they are in accordance with the desires of the majority, rather than what Allāh has revealed. [...] And for this reason, Allāh, the Most High, referred to any person or system that does not rule by what Allāh has revealed, as a 'Tāghūt' (i.e. false deity) [...]. And if we conclude that these Members of Parliament commit Shirk and Kufr [disbelief] by legislating laws besides Allāh, then what would be said about the people who elect them for this job, knowing that this candidate will be engaging in the formation of man-made laws on behalf of the people who elect him?"
Two harmless texts.
The transcript can be downloaded free of charge here:
www.archive.org/details/CondemnationOfTheDemocraticProcessVotingAndTheIslamicStancesOn_865
Excerpts: "[E]lections are [...] an ideology [....] The meaning of an election is that I am satisfied with this one (individual) as a representative for me in expressing my will in declaring something to be Halāl [permitted] or Harām [forbidden], here in the legislation. And this, as it is clear, is in opposition to [...] the will of the Muslim who says 'I render myself obedient to Allāh [...]'. In other words, I do not accept anyone, in this issue, the legislation, I do not accept a legislator except Allāh. I do not accept as a ruler over me, (and) a ruler, not in the meaning of ruling in the meaning of implementation, but a ruler in the meaning of the right to issue commands, except Allāh. [...] But for, for you to vote for this one to be a god for you, then this is another issue, as you see, it differs with complete difference [...], because if you chose him as a ruler for you then you would have disbelieved."
Another, related At-Tibyān Publications title: "The Doubts Regarding the Ruling of Democracy In Islām" is a booklet whose author(s)
remain(s) anonymous, dated June 2004.
The booklet is (as of now) available free of charge here:
http://muslimsagainstvoting.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/the_doubts_regarding_the_ruling_of_democracy_in_islam.pdf
Excerpts: "Democracy [...] is a system, which is at odds with the very essence of Allāh's exclusive right of legislation and as such it steps outside the mere disobedience of Allāh into the realm of Shirk [idolatry], in that it seeks to elevate mankind to the level of the Legislator (i.e. Allāh). [...] And because the people are the ones who select the laws, by means of their representatives, these laws are based upon what the people wish and they are in accordance with the desires of the majority, rather than what Allāh has revealed. [...] And for this reason, Allāh, the Most High, referred to any person or system that does not rule by what Allāh has revealed, as a 'Tāghūt' (i.e. false deity) [...]. And if we conclude that these Members of Parliament commit Shirk and Kufr [disbelief] by legislating laws besides Allāh, then what would be said about the people who elect them for this job, knowing that this candidate will be engaging in the formation of man-made laws on behalf of the people who elect him?"
Two harmless texts.
23 May 2010
Book: Democracy: A Religion!
Abu Muhammad 'Aasim (also: Asem/Asim) al-Maqdisi is named as the author of an undated (recent) booklet titled "Democracy: A Religion!"
(translated from Arabic by Abu Muhammad al-Maleki and revised by Abu Sayf Muwahhid). Apparently, this is a pseudonym assumed by the Palestinian writer Isam Mohammad (or: Muhammad/Mohammed) Tahir (or: Taher) al-Barqawi, a cleric and one-time spiritual mentor of the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Maqdisi has been called "the most influential living Jihadi [t]heorist" and "the key contemporary ideologue in the Jihadi intellectual universe". He currently seems to be imprisoned in Jordan.
The full text of the booklet can (currently) be read free of charge here:
http://muslimsagainstvoting.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/democracyreligion.pdf
Excerpts: "They distort the Truth with Falsehood, and mix [...] the Polytheism of democracy with the Monotheism of Islam. But we, with the help of Allah, replied to all of these fallacies, and showed that democracy is a religion. But it is not Allah's religion. It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. [...] We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies – hate them and wage a great Jihad against them. [...]
[O]bedience in legislation is a form of worship, and must not be for any one except for Allah, since Allah is the only One who can provide legislation. Therefore, anyone who seeks to implement a legislation created by someone other than Allah, is in fact a polytheist. [...] If anyone transgresses the limits and does that, he makes himself a legislator, and he will be enacting the role of a deity. [...] Therefore, the legislators became gods to every one who obeyed and followed them, or agreed with them in this disbelief and polytheism [....]
"Be careful not to limit the word 'religion' just to Christianity, or Judaism and so on, because you may follow the other void religions and go astray. It includes every religion, method, judgment system, and law that the creatures follow and adhere to. All of these false religions must be left, and avoided. [...] This may include Communism, Socialism, Secularism, and other such innovated methods, and principles, which men invented with their own minds, and then satisfied these ideas to be their own religions [sic]. One of these religions is democracy. [...] The people in a democracy select representatives and each group or tribe will select a god of these disparate gods, to legislate according to their desires and whims, but according to the constitution's texts. Some of them select their god (their legislator), according to their ideology, or way of thinking, so there will be a god for this party and another one for that. Some of them select him according to the tribe, so there will be a god for this tribe and another for that tribe. And some select a religious god, as they claim, or a bearded god, or an unbearded one, and so on. [...] These representatives, in fact, are erected, engraved images and worshipped idols, and claimed gods that are set up and fixed in their temples, at their heathen sanctuaries (the parliaments). [...]
"Some ignorant people [...] called their putrid democracy a consultation (i.e. they are saying that democracy is the same as a Shura' – the Islamic method of consultation) – to show and imbue a legitimate religious tinge upon this fake religion – to approve it and to make it permitted. [...] The comparison of the democracy of polytheist people with the monotheists['] consultation (i.e. Shura), and the similitude of the consultation council, with the disbeliever's, sinful, disobedient [sic] councils is a vile similitude and false comparison. [...] The consultation is from Allah's decree, His religion, but democracy is a disbelief in Allah's decree and His religion. [...] The consultation must be in the matter that has no judgement, but when we have a text, an evidence, or a judgement, then there will be no consultation. [...] [I]n a consultation, people, or the majority is that who is under the obligation, commissioned to obey Allah and His Prophet (saw) than to the Muslims' leader [sic]. And the leader is not forced to accept the majority's opinion, or Judgement. The majority is forced to obey the leader even if he is wrong, unless he calls to the disobedience of Allah." (first italics originally bold)
(translated from Arabic by Abu Muhammad al-Maleki and revised by Abu Sayf Muwahhid). Apparently, this is a pseudonym assumed by the Palestinian writer Isam Mohammad (or: Muhammad/Mohammed) Tahir (or: Taher) al-Barqawi, a cleric and one-time spiritual mentor of the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Maqdisi has been called "the most influential living Jihadi [t]heorist" and "the key contemporary ideologue in the Jihadi intellectual universe". He currently seems to be imprisoned in Jordan.
The full text of the booklet can (currently) be read free of charge here:
http://muslimsagainstvoting.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/democracyreligion.pdf
Excerpts: "They distort the Truth with Falsehood, and mix [...] the Polytheism of democracy with the Monotheism of Islam. But we, with the help of Allah, replied to all of these fallacies, and showed that democracy is a religion. But it is not Allah's religion. It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. [...] We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies – hate them and wage a great Jihad against them. [...]
[O]bedience in legislation is a form of worship, and must not be for any one except for Allah, since Allah is the only One who can provide legislation. Therefore, anyone who seeks to implement a legislation created by someone other than Allah, is in fact a polytheist. [...] If anyone transgresses the limits and does that, he makes himself a legislator, and he will be enacting the role of a deity. [...] Therefore, the legislators became gods to every one who obeyed and followed them, or agreed with them in this disbelief and polytheism [....]
"Be careful not to limit the word 'religion' just to Christianity, or Judaism and so on, because you may follow the other void religions and go astray. It includes every religion, method, judgment system, and law that the creatures follow and adhere to. All of these false religions must be left, and avoided. [...] This may include Communism, Socialism, Secularism, and other such innovated methods, and principles, which men invented with their own minds, and then satisfied these ideas to be their own religions [sic]. One of these religions is democracy. [...] The people in a democracy select representatives and each group or tribe will select a god of these disparate gods, to legislate according to their desires and whims, but according to the constitution's texts. Some of them select their god (their legislator), according to their ideology, or way of thinking, so there will be a god for this party and another one for that. Some of them select him according to the tribe, so there will be a god for this tribe and another for that tribe. And some select a religious god, as they claim, or a bearded god, or an unbearded one, and so on. [...] These representatives, in fact, are erected, engraved images and worshipped idols, and claimed gods that are set up and fixed in their temples, at their heathen sanctuaries (the parliaments). [...]
"Some ignorant people [...] called their putrid democracy a consultation (i.e. they are saying that democracy is the same as a Shura' – the Islamic method of consultation) – to show and imbue a legitimate religious tinge upon this fake religion – to approve it and to make it permitted. [...] The comparison of the democracy of polytheist people with the monotheists['] consultation (i.e. Shura), and the similitude of the consultation council, with the disbeliever's, sinful, disobedient [sic] councils is a vile similitude and false comparison. [...] The consultation is from Allah's decree, His religion, but democracy is a disbelief in Allah's decree and His religion. [...] The consultation must be in the matter that has no judgement, but when we have a text, an evidence, or a judgement, then there will be no consultation. [...] [I]n a consultation, people, or the majority is that who is under the obligation, commissioned to obey Allah and His Prophet (saw) than to the Muslims' leader [sic]. And the leader is not forced to accept the majority's opinion, or Judgement. The majority is forced to obey the leader even if he is wrong, unless he calls to the disobedience of Allah." (first italics originally bold)
15 May 2010
Article: Is a Halakhic State Possible? The Paradox of Jewish Theocracy
Aviezer Ravitzky, "Is a Halakhic State Possible? The Paradox of Jewish Theocracy" ("Israel Affairs", 11 [1], January 2005: pp. 137-64):
www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a714003326&db=all
Abstract: "Is a consistent Jewish religious position requires [sic] either fashioning the State of Israel into a halakhic theocracy or negating it completely? If Torah observers gained control over Israeli society, would their faith require them (or permit them) to impose the Torah's laws on one and all, even against the will of the community and its elected representatives? Would there be no escape from having the rule of Torah undercut that of the State? In this article we propose a negative answer to these questions. We argue that the vision of a halakhic theocracy is vulnerable to challenges on two main levels – on the basis of the age-old inner logic of the Jewish tradition and on account of the actual condition of the contemporary Jews. However, criticism of the 'halakhic state' does not imply endorsement of the opposing slogan, 'separating of religion and Jewish state'. The latter gives rise to its own set of serious difficulties, from the perspective of the religion of Israel and of the State of Israel alike. Both positions may be refutable equally. Yet, there is a wide range of useful political and cultural options available between these two poles."
Excerpt: "The Jewish religion is a religion of legal, societal and national dimensions. It is a religion of law (halakhah), in that it concentrates on its adherents' way of life and takes a greater interest in their tangible actions than in their declarations of faith. It is a social religion, in that it deals with communal values and seeks to shape the public domain, sometimes even before getting involved with the private. And it is a national religion, in that most of its commandments and directives pertain to a particular people, the congregation of Israel, and only a few are directed toward humanity per se. Taken together, these three elements afford the Jewish religious tradition a definite political character. Naturally, such a religio-political tradition can never be indifferent with respect to a state that it regards as the state of the Jewish people. It will strive mightily to influence that state's laws and values and to impose its imprint on its culture and symbols."
The article has been reprinted in "Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads", ed. Raphael Cohen-Almagor (Routledge, July 2005: pp. 137-64). The contents of the book appear to be (almost) identical to those of the earlier journal.
The article (as published in the book) can be partially read here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EUomQ3KB3p0C&pg=PT137&dq
Aviezer Ravitzky is Saul Rosenblum Professor of Jewish Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and recipient of the 2001 Israel Prize in Jewish Thought.
www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a714003326&db=all
Abstract: "Is a consistent Jewish religious position requires [sic] either fashioning the State of Israel into a halakhic theocracy or negating it completely? If Torah observers gained control over Israeli society, would their faith require them (or permit them) to impose the Torah's laws on one and all, even against the will of the community and its elected representatives? Would there be no escape from having the rule of Torah undercut that of the State? In this article we propose a negative answer to these questions. We argue that the vision of a halakhic theocracy is vulnerable to challenges on two main levels – on the basis of the age-old inner logic of the Jewish tradition and on account of the actual condition of the contemporary Jews. However, criticism of the 'halakhic state' does not imply endorsement of the opposing slogan, 'separating of religion and Jewish state'. The latter gives rise to its own set of serious difficulties, from the perspective of the religion of Israel and of the State of Israel alike. Both positions may be refutable equally. Yet, there is a wide range of useful political and cultural options available between these two poles."
Excerpt: "The Jewish religion is a religion of legal, societal and national dimensions. It is a religion of law (halakhah), in that it concentrates on its adherents' way of life and takes a greater interest in their tangible actions than in their declarations of faith. It is a social religion, in that it deals with communal values and seeks to shape the public domain, sometimes even before getting involved with the private. And it is a national religion, in that most of its commandments and directives pertain to a particular people, the congregation of Israel, and only a few are directed toward humanity per se. Taken together, these three elements afford the Jewish religious tradition a definite political character. Naturally, such a religio-political tradition can never be indifferent with respect to a state that it regards as the state of the Jewish people. It will strive mightily to influence that state's laws and values and to impose its imprint on its culture and symbols."
The article has been reprinted in "Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads", ed. Raphael Cohen-Almagor (Routledge, July 2005: pp. 137-64). The contents of the book appear to be (almost) identical to those of the earlier journal.
The article (as published in the book) can be partially read here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EUomQ3KB3p0C&pg=PT137&dq
Aviezer Ravitzky is Saul Rosenblum Professor of Jewish Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and recipient of the 2001 Israel Prize in Jewish Thought.
09 May 2010
Article: Parochial Universalism, Democracy Jihad and the Orientalist Image of Burma
Michael Aung-Thwin, "Parochial Universalism, Democracy Jihad and the Orientalist Image of Burma: The New Evangelism" ("Pacific Affairs", 74 [4], winter 2001-2002: pp. 483-505):
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3557803
Excerpts: "Throughout history there have been [...] rationalizations of parochial universalism. [...] And now, we have Pax Americana declaring the ideals of democracy and human rights as universal doctrines. In all these cases, it is the conquerors [...] (or those who were in control) who have argued that their parochial values were universal, while the conquered [...] (or those not in charge) [...] have invoked cultural relativism. Universalizing parochial values is thus not a new or unique American strategy, but an established, predictable rationalization of the strong, the ideology of the superpower to validate its hegemony. And although that rationalization today is secular rather than religious, and the goals are this-world oriented rather than the next, nevertheless, the zeal, the righteousness, the imagery, and the vocabulary with which this universalism is proclaimed are uncannily evocative of earlier religious evangelisms.
"In part, the belief that these parochial values of the superpower are indeed universal is 'confirmed' by the victims [...] when they confess their 'sin' of having once worshiped false gods (like Communism) and, in return, receive absolution (and material aid). [...] Does anyone seriously believe that [the Nobel Peace Prize,] this highest badge of honour awarded in the name of peace by the West – a form of secular canonization if you will – could ever be given to someone who did not advocate democracy or human rights, his or her actual contribution to peace notwithstanding? [...] Indeed, the establishment of democracy has become, virtually, a sine qua non for legitimate government per se. It now resembles a jihad, a holy war, backed by aggressive and confrontational rhetoric as well as economic sanctions or support.
"The most recent example can be found in the declaration of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec, which includes a 'democracy clause.' It stipulates that any country that retreats from democracy will be banished from the Summit meeting process (in the case of Cuba, not invited in the first place); thereby restricting the congregation to a holy brethren of nations who have been 'saved.' And those who 'fall from grace' are forbidden to remain in – or in the case of the 'nonbelievers,' enter at all – the Garden of Eden. Thus, not only does the word democracy today evoke images and employ vocabulary of ideological purity, it has also become a kneejerk, convenient, 'catch-all,' 'cure-all,' 'end-all' term for simple solutions to complex political problems. It marks good from evil, the latter usually reserved for the Islamic Middle East and non-Christian 'undeveloped' Asia, and provides a blanket (at least public) rationale for the West's God-given right to interfere in virtually any situation. It is the 'white man's burden' and 'manifest destiny' all over again. [...]
"In countries such as Burma, even instances of commonplace grousing is interpreted within a democratic versus authoritarian framework of analysis by democracy advocates, so that ordinary complaints by ordinary Burmese citizens (say, of annoying, standard bureaucratic snafus, found anywhere) automatically become anti-authoritarian, pro-democracy statements. All this tends to encourage the western public to accept simplistic paradigms, so that complicated events are viewed as struggles between the forces of good (western-style democracy and the free market) and the forces of evil (Third World-style everything else), in which the Burmese situation is easy to 'locate.' [...] That this is not well understood, especially among many of the same expatriate Burmese advocating democracy in Burma, is obvious. Many are cut from the same cloth and are as authoritarian and intolerant of alternative views as those they are denouncing. [...]
"Still, the obsession with propagating democracy amongst the 'political heathen' continues, reminiscent of the zeal and piousness found in the literature of imperialism. Only now, the latter's 'superior' religious and racial ideology (Christianity and the white man) has been replaced by equally 'superior' secular political and social ideology (democracy and human rights). The message may have changed but not the righteous assumptions held by the messenger; that is, neither his belief in his own cultural-intellectual superiority, nor, therefore, its rationale (the claim to universality) is substantively different. [...] Thus, in much the same way missionaries during the late nineteenth century declared that belief in the one and only true God would bring salvation, today's advocates of democracy [...] – the new evangelists – proclaim their doctrine as the one and only true ideology that will save a society from hell-fire and damnation of a worldly kind. [...]
"[D]emocracy jihad's assumption that the electoral process is the sole criterion for determining legitimate authority everywhere is self-fulfilling and tautological in any case. According to this argument, since elections are considered the only valid procedure for determining legitimate authority, only one kind of government will ever be considered legitimate anywhere in this world – a democracy – thereby excluding a priori all other kinds of political systems, their procedures, and the principles on which they rest. [...] Sukarno's 'guided democracy' and Mao's 'democratic centralism' are [...] lamented by the west as a 'corruption' of 'pure' principles, a reaction not dissimilar to the way the 'localization' of Christianity in Asia and Africa was viewed. [...] Democracy [...] is not even an issue for most of the people of Burma most of the time."
Burmese-born Michael Aung-Thwin, a historian by training, is Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3557803
Excerpts: "Throughout history there have been [...] rationalizations of parochial universalism. [...] And now, we have Pax Americana declaring the ideals of democracy and human rights as universal doctrines. In all these cases, it is the conquerors [...] (or those who were in control) who have argued that their parochial values were universal, while the conquered [...] (or those not in charge) [...] have invoked cultural relativism. Universalizing parochial values is thus not a new or unique American strategy, but an established, predictable rationalization of the strong, the ideology of the superpower to validate its hegemony. And although that rationalization today is secular rather than religious, and the goals are this-world oriented rather than the next, nevertheless, the zeal, the righteousness, the imagery, and the vocabulary with which this universalism is proclaimed are uncannily evocative of earlier religious evangelisms.
"In part, the belief that these parochial values of the superpower are indeed universal is 'confirmed' by the victims [...] when they confess their 'sin' of having once worshiped false gods (like Communism) and, in return, receive absolution (and material aid). [...] Does anyone seriously believe that [the Nobel Peace Prize,] this highest badge of honour awarded in the name of peace by the West – a form of secular canonization if you will – could ever be given to someone who did not advocate democracy or human rights, his or her actual contribution to peace notwithstanding? [...] Indeed, the establishment of democracy has become, virtually, a sine qua non for legitimate government per se. It now resembles a jihad, a holy war, backed by aggressive and confrontational rhetoric as well as economic sanctions or support.
"The most recent example can be found in the declaration of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec, which includes a 'democracy clause.' It stipulates that any country that retreats from democracy will be banished from the Summit meeting process (in the case of Cuba, not invited in the first place); thereby restricting the congregation to a holy brethren of nations who have been 'saved.' And those who 'fall from grace' are forbidden to remain in – or in the case of the 'nonbelievers,' enter at all – the Garden of Eden. Thus, not only does the word democracy today evoke images and employ vocabulary of ideological purity, it has also become a kneejerk, convenient, 'catch-all,' 'cure-all,' 'end-all' term for simple solutions to complex political problems. It marks good from evil, the latter usually reserved for the Islamic Middle East and non-Christian 'undeveloped' Asia, and provides a blanket (at least public) rationale for the West's God-given right to interfere in virtually any situation. It is the 'white man's burden' and 'manifest destiny' all over again. [...]
"In countries such as Burma, even instances of commonplace grousing is interpreted within a democratic versus authoritarian framework of analysis by democracy advocates, so that ordinary complaints by ordinary Burmese citizens (say, of annoying, standard bureaucratic snafus, found anywhere) automatically become anti-authoritarian, pro-democracy statements. All this tends to encourage the western public to accept simplistic paradigms, so that complicated events are viewed as struggles between the forces of good (western-style democracy and the free market) and the forces of evil (Third World-style everything else), in which the Burmese situation is easy to 'locate.' [...] That this is not well understood, especially among many of the same expatriate Burmese advocating democracy in Burma, is obvious. Many are cut from the same cloth and are as authoritarian and intolerant of alternative views as those they are denouncing. [...]
"Still, the obsession with propagating democracy amongst the 'political heathen' continues, reminiscent of the zeal and piousness found in the literature of imperialism. Only now, the latter's 'superior' religious and racial ideology (Christianity and the white man) has been replaced by equally 'superior' secular political and social ideology (democracy and human rights). The message may have changed but not the righteous assumptions held by the messenger; that is, neither his belief in his own cultural-intellectual superiority, nor, therefore, its rationale (the claim to universality) is substantively different. [...] Thus, in much the same way missionaries during the late nineteenth century declared that belief in the one and only true God would bring salvation, today's advocates of democracy [...] – the new evangelists – proclaim their doctrine as the one and only true ideology that will save a society from hell-fire and damnation of a worldly kind. [...]
"[D]emocracy jihad's assumption that the electoral process is the sole criterion for determining legitimate authority everywhere is self-fulfilling and tautological in any case. According to this argument, since elections are considered the only valid procedure for determining legitimate authority, only one kind of government will ever be considered legitimate anywhere in this world – a democracy – thereby excluding a priori all other kinds of political systems, their procedures, and the principles on which they rest. [...] Sukarno's 'guided democracy' and Mao's 'democratic centralism' are [...] lamented by the west as a 'corruption' of 'pure' principles, a reaction not dissimilar to the way the 'localization' of Christianity in Asia and Africa was viewed. [...] Democracy [...] is not even an issue for most of the people of Burma most of the time."
Burmese-born Michael Aung-Thwin, a historian by training, is Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
06 May 2010
Muslim anti-democracy activist approved for assassination
On 6 April 2010, the "New York Times" reported that US President Barack Obama's administration (including the National Security Council) authorized the assassination of American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (sometimes spelled al-Aulaqi), an outspoken critic of democracy. Born of Yemeni parents, al-Awlaki, a former imam, was lately a Lecturer at Iman University (alternatively transcribed as al-Iman, el-Eman, or al-Eman University) in Yemen, an institution that appears to have been attended by many students later involved in terrorist activities. Al-Awlaki has been linked to al-Qaeda himself, although the evidence is shaky. He is said to be in hiding in Yemen now.
Before the 2008 presidential elections in the United States, al-Awlaki released a scathing statement against democracy, titled "Voting for the American President". The article was originally published on his blog, which seems to have been taken down since.
The cached version of the article can be read free of charge here:
http://cryptome.org/anwar-alawlaki/08-1031.htm
Excerpts: "Democracy in [sic] an un-Islamic system and we as Muslims should have nothing to do with it. Whether one looks at the root and history of democracy or at the reality of democracy today one can realize that it is a system that is not only different than the Islamic system but is opposed to it. Can't you see that the West in its war against Islam is offering the democratic system as an alternative to Sharia? So if the West, which is the founder of democracy, sees democracy as an opposing system to Islam why are some Muslims still insisting on participating in it and adopting it as their political religion?
"Democracy is a Western system that was founded and developed in the West and today the West, not the Muslims, have full authority and right to tell the world what democracy is and how it should be practiced and implemented. We have our own system of government and likewise it is the Muslims who are going to define it and will not allow non[-]Muslims to meddle with our religion and teach us what is right from wrong.
"Muslims should seek to avoid any forms of participation in Western democracy. The promoters of participation in American elections argue that we are choosing the least of the two evils. This principle is correct but what they are missing is that in the process of choosing the lesser of the two evils they are committing an even greater evil. The breaking down of the psychological barrier that should exist between Muslims and non-Muslims, the erosion of the aqeedah of wala and bara (loyalty to Allah and disavowal of the enemies of Allah,) [sic] and the risk of loosing one's religion are evils that outweigh any benefit that may come out of such participation.
"Also the types of candidates that American politics has been spitting out is [sic] absolutely disgusting. I wonder how any Muslim with a grain of iman in his heart could walk up to a ballot box and cast his vote in endorsement of creatures such as Mcain [sic] or Obama?! How can a Muslim sleep with a clear conscience after he has chosen the likes of G.W. Bush? No matter how irrelevant your vote is, on the Day of Judgment you will be called to answer for it. You, under no coercion or duress, consciously chose to vote for the leader of a nation that is leading the war against Islam."
It is thought that vocal homebred anti-democracy activist Anwar al-Awlaki is the first US citizen ever singled out for "targeted killing" by the CIA, the Joint Special Operations Command, and possibly other US security agencies.
Before the 2008 presidential elections in the United States, al-Awlaki released a scathing statement against democracy, titled "Voting for the American President". The article was originally published on his blog, which seems to have been taken down since.
The cached version of the article can be read free of charge here:
http://cryptome.org/anwar-alawlaki/08-1031.htm
Excerpts: "Democracy in [sic] an un-Islamic system and we as Muslims should have nothing to do with it. Whether one looks at the root and history of democracy or at the reality of democracy today one can realize that it is a system that is not only different than the Islamic system but is opposed to it. Can't you see that the West in its war against Islam is offering the democratic system as an alternative to Sharia? So if the West, which is the founder of democracy, sees democracy as an opposing system to Islam why are some Muslims still insisting on participating in it and adopting it as their political religion?
"Democracy is a Western system that was founded and developed in the West and today the West, not the Muslims, have full authority and right to tell the world what democracy is and how it should be practiced and implemented. We have our own system of government and likewise it is the Muslims who are going to define it and will not allow non[-]Muslims to meddle with our religion and teach us what is right from wrong.
"Muslims should seek to avoid any forms of participation in Western democracy. The promoters of participation in American elections argue that we are choosing the least of the two evils. This principle is correct but what they are missing is that in the process of choosing the lesser of the two evils they are committing an even greater evil. The breaking down of the psychological barrier that should exist between Muslims and non-Muslims, the erosion of the aqeedah of wala and bara (loyalty to Allah and disavowal of the enemies of Allah,) [sic] and the risk of loosing one's religion are evils that outweigh any benefit that may come out of such participation.
"Also the types of candidates that American politics has been spitting out is [sic] absolutely disgusting. I wonder how any Muslim with a grain of iman in his heart could walk up to a ballot box and cast his vote in endorsement of creatures such as Mcain [sic] or Obama?! How can a Muslim sleep with a clear conscience after he has chosen the likes of G.W. Bush? No matter how irrelevant your vote is, on the Day of Judgment you will be called to answer for it. You, under no coercion or duress, consciously chose to vote for the leader of a nation that is leading the war against Islam."
It is thought that vocal homebred anti-democracy activist Anwar al-Awlaki is the first US citizen ever singled out for "targeted killing" by the CIA, the Joint Special Operations Command, and possibly other US security agencies.
26 March 2010
CONF: Orthodox Constructions of the West
The Solon and Marianna Patterson Triennial Conference for the Theological and Historical Examination of the Orthodox/Catholic Dialogue "Orthodox Constructions of the West", hosted by the Orthodox Christian Studies Program at Fordham University, Rose Hill Campus, O'Hare Hall, New York City, USA, 28-30 June 2010
www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/orthodox_christian_s/triennial_patterson_/index.asp
From the rationale: "Orthodox authors, especially in the twentieth century, had created artificial categories of 'East' and 'West' and then used that distinction as a basis for self-definition. The history of Orthodox Christianity is typically narrated by Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike as developing in the 'East', which is geographically ambiguous, but usually refers to the region in Europe east of present-day Croatia, Hungary and Poland. In contemporary Orthodoxy, 'West' refers not simply to a geographical location, but to a form of civilization that was shaped and influenced by Latin Christendom, which includes both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The 'West,' thus, represents a cluster of theological, cultural and political ideas against which Orthodox self-identify. In other words, Orthodox self-identification often engages in a distorted apophaticism: Orthodoxy is what the 'West' is not.
"Given that much of the Orthodox world has until recently suffered oppression from the Ottomans and the Communists, one can read the creation of the 'East-West' binary as a post-colonial search for an authentic Orthodox identity in the wake of such domination. After centuries of repression, it is not surprising that the Orthodox recovery of identity would take the form of opposition to that which is seemingly the religious, cultural and political 'Other.' The question that the conference will attempt to answer is whether such a construction has as much to do with Orthodox identify formation vis-à-vis the West as it does with genuine differences. By creating this opposition to the 'West,' do Orthodox communities not only misunderstand what Western Christians believe but, even more egregiously, have they come to believe certain things about their own tradition and teachings that are historically untrue?
"The importance of addressing these questions is not simply limited to the theological realm. There is evidence of anti-democracy and anti-human rights rhetoric coming from traditional Orthodox countries that have recently been liberated from communism, and this rhetoric often associates liberal forms of democracy and the notion of human rights in general as 'Western' and, therefore, not Orthodox. In other words, the self-identification vis-à-vis the 'West' is affecting the cultural and political debates in the traditional Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe. Insofar as this conference addresses the broader theme of identity formation, its impact is potentially far-reaching, as it hopes to influence the production of theological, cultural and political ideas within contemporary Orthodoxy."
Keynote speakers: Robert F. Taft, SJ (formerly Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome) and Sarah Coakley (Cambridge)
According to the website, registration for the conference was set to begin in February. There is however no registration information to be found yet. I presume that it may be added soon.
Alternatively, contact one of the Co-Founding Directors of Fordham's Orthodox Christian Studies Program, George Demacopoulos: damacopoulos@fordham.edu
or Aristotle Papanikolaou: papanikolaou@fordham.edu
www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/orthodox_christian_s/triennial_patterson_/index.asp
From the rationale: "Orthodox authors, especially in the twentieth century, had created artificial categories of 'East' and 'West' and then used that distinction as a basis for self-definition. The history of Orthodox Christianity is typically narrated by Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike as developing in the 'East', which is geographically ambiguous, but usually refers to the region in Europe east of present-day Croatia, Hungary and Poland. In contemporary Orthodoxy, 'West' refers not simply to a geographical location, but to a form of civilization that was shaped and influenced by Latin Christendom, which includes both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The 'West,' thus, represents a cluster of theological, cultural and political ideas against which Orthodox self-identify. In other words, Orthodox self-identification often engages in a distorted apophaticism: Orthodoxy is what the 'West' is not.
"Given that much of the Orthodox world has until recently suffered oppression from the Ottomans and the Communists, one can read the creation of the 'East-West' binary as a post-colonial search for an authentic Orthodox identity in the wake of such domination. After centuries of repression, it is not surprising that the Orthodox recovery of identity would take the form of opposition to that which is seemingly the religious, cultural and political 'Other.' The question that the conference will attempt to answer is whether such a construction has as much to do with Orthodox identify formation vis-à-vis the West as it does with genuine differences. By creating this opposition to the 'West,' do Orthodox communities not only misunderstand what Western Christians believe but, even more egregiously, have they come to believe certain things about their own tradition and teachings that are historically untrue?
"The importance of addressing these questions is not simply limited to the theological realm. There is evidence of anti-democracy and anti-human rights rhetoric coming from traditional Orthodox countries that have recently been liberated from communism, and this rhetoric often associates liberal forms of democracy and the notion of human rights in general as 'Western' and, therefore, not Orthodox. In other words, the self-identification vis-à-vis the 'West' is affecting the cultural and political debates in the traditional Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe. Insofar as this conference addresses the broader theme of identity formation, its impact is potentially far-reaching, as it hopes to influence the production of theological, cultural and political ideas within contemporary Orthodoxy."
Keynote speakers: Robert F. Taft, SJ (formerly Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome) and Sarah Coakley (Cambridge)
According to the website, registration for the conference was set to begin in February. There is however no registration information to be found yet. I presume that it may be added soon.
Alternatively, contact one of the Co-Founding Directors of Fordham's Orthodox Christian Studies Program, George Demacopoulos: damacopoulos@fordham.edu
or Aristotle Papanikolaou: papanikolaou@fordham.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
