Opinion Editorial / Monologue Mondays #1

Opinion Editorial / Monologue Mondays #1

In light of recent events, today's topic is Extremists of all Flavors

I would like to start off with a few comments of sympathy:
Toward those injured and the families of those killed in the violence last week in Paris, toward the families that lost loved ones this past year to unjust violence, toward those that suffer ongoing violence and threats of violence.

By now, the attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters has been well-discussed, but as part of a bigger sociocultural picture that I'm going to draw on in this editorial series, I feel the need to first discuss religious extremism and freedom of the press.

Regardless of the material they published, the twelve killed did not deserve to die. In the unlikely case that anyone hasn't heard by now: in response to satire directed toward Islam and important figures therein, several French Muslim extremists committed saddening acts of murder of some of the publishers of this material.

Some have argued that the satire published is racist and Islamophobic. Having viewed some of the material myself, I'm inclined to agree. But this argument is a red-herring from the main issue: religious extremists should not kill people.

Dangerously, on the other side of the argument, some have called for Islamic religious leaders to denounce or apologize for the attacks. But Islam as a whole, or rather, the body of Muslims worldwide, is not responsible for the actions of a small number of Islamic extremists. Likewise, Christianity as a whole is not responsible for the actions of Christian extremists, such as Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik, to name just a few. So by calling out religious leaders to denounce such actions is itself an incendiary insult, equating a large body of kind, peaceful, loving, human, broken, just-trying-to-get-along-like-everyone-else individuals with the worst examples of people who happen to share some of the same beliefs. Sure, statements denouncing extremists, like that from Nasralla, leader of Hezbollah, are encouraging, but shouldn't be mandatory.

My point is this: a person's religious belief, though it may inform their actions, is not responsible for those actions. A person is responsible for their own actions and for their own personal interaction with their beliefs.

I'll explain with an example: If a Christian were to kill people because the Old Testament commands death for other religions (Ex. 22; Lev. 20, 24; Deut 13, 17, 18), or killing gay people, people who have sex outside of marriage, and people who cheat on their spouse (Lev. 18, 20, 21), not very many people (at least here in the US) would use that individual's actions as a reason to denounce all of Christianity. Religions evolve. Religious writings, and the interpretation thereof evolve. When a person uses their religious beliefs to justify criminal actions, regardless of faith, that person is a criminal, and deserves societal response. However, this isn't at all justification to blame every person of that faith.

Most of mainstream Christianity would agree that following the letter of the Old Testament law to completion is foolish, and a person who acts to carry out this law is acting against the later commands of Jesus with respect to kindness and forgiveness. Likewise, in Islam, there is a similar concept, a doctrine of abrogation, where the Prophet (PBUH, as a sign of respect toward a religion I do not follow) prescribed conflicting rules at different times, allowing for modification of the "revealed truth" as a situational code. So the calls to war are to be taken with as much seriousness as OT calls to war. As in "not applicable today."

Let's go back to the issue. Charlie Hebdo printed what many interpret as racist/Islamophobic material under the name of satire, under the rights of free press. The journalists and cartoonists involved in that satire had the right to say anything they want without inciting criminal behavior, no matter how vulgar or offensive. Was that nice? No. Does that warrant death? No.

Likewise, Muslims have the right to call that publication out about propagating stereotypes, and to say anything they want without inciting criminal behavior. And for the most part, that's what they did.

Most Muslims in France (and most western countries) are secular. That's why the extremists did this in the first place. From several reports, we know that they're having a hard time recruiting new members from the more secularized European Muslim populations. So how are they going to incite more violence? By polarizing conservatives against the secular Muslims. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of an extremist few is not only wrong, it's dangerous. It's foolish to take allies and force them to be your enemies.

As part of a bigger picture, this is exactly the same issue as with Christian extremists: the hyper-conservative religious right political machine, the young-earth propagandists, the quiver-full, the puritanical, &c. This polarizing "us vs them" mentality is trying to destroy the very diversity that allows life to continue. The virtues of Christianity, and all other faiths, should not be forgotten in the midst of fundamentalist extremists. We, of Earth, of all and no faiths, need to come together in peace, not in war over who's religion is best, but instead sharing ideas and collectively bettering all of us.

What gives me hope for this world is that amidst this tragedy, people rose up in solidarity against violence everywhere and ended it foreve... wait, what? There was a bombing at an NAACP office? And there were parents that refused their daughter's emotional needs, instead pushing her to reject herself because of their Christian beliefs, so she stepped onto a highway and killed herself? And police in the US killed over 1100 people in 2014; that's 3 per day killed by the people we trust to protect us?

Things in the world are still majorly screwed up. Violence spans from isolated incidences, like with the Paris extremists, to institutionalized incidences, like with religious intolerance, racism, sexism, gender and sexual prejudice, class prejudice and wage slavery to multibillionaire corporations and individuals.

We need to build togetherness in the face of such tragedies instead of letting our outrage burn bright and die fast. We need to get on our feet, stand together, and say, as with one voice, "STOP THIS MEANINGLESS VIOLENCE", and make sure that everyone listens. Because we'll keep saying it until they do. Be patient, be kind, be peaceful, be true, be brave, be open-minded.

We're all on this planet together, we all at the core are the same, so we all need to work together to harness our diversity and underlying similarity so we (and earth-life in general) can keep existing. United we survive, divided we kill each other and everything else. Which option do you choose?