Religions at War?
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer writes on Friday about the hypocrisy of Islamic leaders threatening to kill the Pope for supposedly claiming (if you read his speech it's pretty clear he's not) that Islam is a violent religion.
Krauthammer goes on to point out that both Judaism and Christianity have had their bouts with violence in the past, but that they "long ago gave it up"
What I find interesting about the piece is how it goes to the heart of why groups fight.
As each side builds it's identity, especially in opposition to the "other", the group begins to only see the "good" qualities it possesses and only sees the "bad" qualities of the enemy.
Muslims burning down churches because of the Pope's statement can't see that somehow they are reinforcing the stereotype that the religion is violent. Because they believe the stereotype is untrue, and the Christians and Jews are the ones trying to destroy them, they look at their actions as self defense. Yes, the Pope didn't physically attack them. But they perceived that he attacked their core identity and psychologists such as Vamik Volkan believe that's enough to provoke a violent response.
Christians and Jews can't see that somehow they are reinforcing the stereotype that their religion is the violent one with the countless brutal attacks on Islamic countries and factions. Rumors (and it looks like that's all they are) about flushing the Koran down the toilet or allusions to 'crusade' reinforce the feeling in much of the Islamic world that it is America, through the guise of capitalism and democracy that is secretly spreading it's faith by the sword. Americans see their actions as self defense. A small group of Muslims attacked them. A much larger group of Muslims support Osama bin Laden who ordered the attacks. Their reaction is justified and therefore they can claim, that somehow Christianity gave up violence a long time ago. But as long as Bush continues to claim that America is a Christian nation and as long as he actively prays for the support of his God as he goes to battle, are Muslims really that crazy to believe that their religion is under attack?
Krauthammer goes on to point out that both Judaism and Christianity have had their bouts with violence in the past, but that they "long ago gave it up"
What I find interesting about the piece is how it goes to the heart of why groups fight.
As each side builds it's identity, especially in opposition to the "other", the group begins to only see the "good" qualities it possesses and only sees the "bad" qualities of the enemy.
Muslims burning down churches because of the Pope's statement can't see that somehow they are reinforcing the stereotype that the religion is violent. Because they believe the stereotype is untrue, and the Christians and Jews are the ones trying to destroy them, they look at their actions as self defense. Yes, the Pope didn't physically attack them. But they perceived that he attacked their core identity and psychologists such as Vamik Volkan believe that's enough to provoke a violent response.
Christians and Jews can't see that somehow they are reinforcing the stereotype that their religion is the violent one with the countless brutal attacks on Islamic countries and factions. Rumors (and it looks like that's all they are) about flushing the Koran down the toilet or allusions to 'crusade' reinforce the feeling in much of the Islamic world that it is America, through the guise of capitalism and democracy that is secretly spreading it's faith by the sword. Americans see their actions as self defense. A small group of Muslims attacked them. A much larger group of Muslims support Osama bin Laden who ordered the attacks. Their reaction is justified and therefore they can claim, that somehow Christianity gave up violence a long time ago. But as long as Bush continues to claim that America is a Christian nation and as long as he actively prays for the support of his God as he goes to battle, are Muslims really that crazy to believe that their religion is under attack?
