Reasonable people may differ on this, of course. But I tend to think the evidence is quite strong that if we aren't in a clash of civilizations at the moment, we are at least teetering on the brink. Whether or not these particular riots fall into the category "clash of civilizations" remains to be seen. But pundits and bloggers and people in the street are going to rush in to fill the vacuum of knowledge with theories, and the idea that there are Islamic fundamentalist supremicists behind this, pulling at least some of the strings (directly or indirectly, intially or presently), is not an entirely unreasonable one.This particular portion of the above jumped right out at me: ..."fundamentalist Islamic tradition has a strain of intolerence, supercessionism, and violence that might be irrelevant were it not being revived today among some Moslems"... I won't argue with this but but what happens when we substitute Islamic and Moslems with Christian and Christians?
Even without those puppeteers, fundamentalist Islamic tradition has a strain of intolerence, supercessionism, and violence that might be irrelevant were it not being revived today among some Moslems, both in Europe and elsewhere, permeating their worldview and informing their actions.
..."fundamentalist Christian tradition has a strain of intolerence, supercessionism, and violence that might be irrelevant were it not being revived today among some Christians"... Equally valid I think. You could also make a replacement with Jewish and Jews with equal success.
What is happening in France has it's roots in economic factors and a lack of recognition but those have their roots in culture and religion.
So we may will be in a "clash of civilizations" but those to blame are "fundamentalists" period, not just the Islamic Fundamentalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be Nice