B U L L E T I N

PLEASE VISIT www.CenterforPluralism.com for all information - Please note that this site was Foundation for Pluralism before

-----------------------------

Friday, October 31, 2014

30th Anniversary of Sikh Genocide, a survivor writes his story

Survivor of Sikh Genocides writes on 30th Anniversary.
Published at:

Dallas, Texas, October 31, 2014.  It’s been 30 years since the Sikh Massacre took place in New Delhi; justice is still not served to the victims and their families. The fanatics among Hindus went on a rampage of killing 3000 Sikhs within a week, just because they were Sikhs and nothing but that. The Moderate Hindus, Muslims, Christians and others have condemned the acts of the fanatics.

As we have been learning about the mind set of criminals regardless of what religious garb they don, invariably they deny – some even say, why bring it up, there is no problem now. They are lying to themselves, the sparks of hatred are potent, and can catch the fire any time.

There is a criminal lurking in each one of us, we need to find him and destroy him before he eats us out from within. If we justify the rapes, murders, killing, massacres or genocides by believing "they asked for it" "they ignited it" or worse "they deserved it", then we have a serious problem and need to find a release.

What is needed is to face the problem squarely, acknowledging the wrong doing, and apologizing to the victims and finding mukti, the Jain Dharma offers a great phrase – Michami Dukadam, that is clean each other’s slates and start afresh.

Injustice is the mother of Adharma – i.e., everything that is wrong in the society stems from injustice, and Martin Luther King said, injustice to one is injustice to all at the end.

I hope one day, India will focus on cleaning up its dirty stains – there are many unfinished items on our plate that prick the nation from time to time. The hatred against the other is part of that mess.

Prime Minister Modi believes that when there is prosperity, most of the nagging things will go away, I hope they do. But I believe until we sit down face to face and acknowledge the evil in each one of us, and commit to go forward dumping the old baggage, we will be limping along. We need to reboot our souls, hearts and minds.

The following write up is from a Sikh Survivor of the 1984 Sikh Massacre.  It is a shame that many a families are still waiting for the whereabouts of their loved ones missing for over 30 years. The Indian Government has a responsibility to take this up, to bring relief to the victims of these massacres. I do hope Mr. Modi, as the Prime Minister of the nation, who claims to be a Hindu, acts like a Hindu and restores Dharma – the righteousness and justice to fellow beings.   

Pritpal Singh has spoken at our Holocaust and Genocides events and I am pleased to share his story with you, please feel free to share wherever you like.

The Foundation for Pluralism and the World Muslim Congress is commemorating Holocaust and Genocides for the last seven years, as a step towards reconciling with each other and learning about each others pain and suffering of each of us humans on this planet.

Wayne Slater of Dallas Morning News wrote, “
Ghouse says he hopes attendees will walk out better appreciating the sufferings of others and seeing “the perpetrator in us” as a way of building trust across social and religious lines.

“I called on my friends with the idea of commemorating the event, and thus began this journey,” said Ghouse. “Education is the purpose; we have to learn, acknowledge and reflect upon the terrible things that we humans have inflicted upon each other, and we have to understand that our safety hinges on the safety of all others around us.”

“There is a shameless cruelty in us, either we shy away or refuse to acknowledge the sufferings of others, worrying that it will devalue our own or somehow it amounts to infidelity to our own cause,” he said. “We should be ashamed of ourselves in justifying the massacres by falsely propagating the myth that the victims deserved it, or asked for it.” It shows an absence of intelligence.

Our event is comprised of 3 segments; Holocaust is the anchor event every year, then Genocides and a Massacre. We have been able to address many Genocides around the Globe, as well as the Massacre of Bangladeshis in 1971, Sikhs in New Delhi in 1984 and Muslims in Gujarat in 2002.  

The criminals are still at large and need to be punished to restore peace of mind to the victims and their families. That is the least a head of the state can do for his countrymen and it is good for the psyche of the people.

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net

 






 



1984:  My Struggle & Inspiration

According to famous Czech writer Milan Kundera, "the first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory.  Destroy its books, its culture, its history.  Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history.  Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was...  The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."  We are here today to continue that struggle.  Never had the citizens of independent India experienced state sponsored genocide against its own people.

  After the assassination of PM Indira Gandhi, for three days the well-organized mob with explicit instructions from the federal government went to loot, destroy, rape, eliminate every identifiable Sikh on India.  Iron rods, crow bars, kerosene, and firearms were provided to mobs.  Voter lists, ration lists, and school registration lists were used to identify & track Sikhs, Gurdwaras, and Sikh businesses. 

Slogans like "blood for blood" were shown repeatedly on state controlled TV.  Rumors were circulated about the violence against Hindus in Punjab to incite hatred against Sikhs in India.  Sikh soldiers were disarmed and confined to barracks while army was deliberately kept outside Delhi until 11/4.  All this occurred in the presence of police who ignored the violence or at times aided in it.  The police officers who deviated from this order were neutralized and records were manipulated to destroy paper trail and to protect criminals from prosecution.  For the Sikh victims, the police refused to record FIR (First Information Reports) or falsified them.

 According to NY times, there was complete censorship of the press.  The relief measures were inadequate.  VM Tarkunde, retired justice of the Indian Supreme Court, stated "Two lessons can be drawn from the experience of Delhi riots.  One is about the extent of criminalization of our politics and the other about the utter unreliability of our police force in critical situation."  According to government report the number of Sikhs killed in Delhi was 2733; HS Phoolka, Delhi high court lawyer, estimates 4000; Affidavits have been filed for 5015; Madhu Kishwar, editor of Manushi, estimates 10,000.  These   estimates are just in Delhi while the killings occurred throughout India.

 Rajiv Gandhi justified the Sikh murders, rapes, loot & arson by saying, "When a great tree falls, earth trembles."  The result of the violence against an easily identifiable minority was winning 414/533 seats in the parliament for Congress Party of India.  Even the opposition party, Sangh Parivar, stated the Sikhs invited the attacks. 

There have been 11 commissions & inquiries but no high level politician or law enforcement official has been convicted despite eye witness accounts and abundant of evidence.  On the other hand, the perpetrators were awarded cabinet positions, governorships, and party chief positions.  The lack of accountability against the organizers of the Genocide paved the way to the violence against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. 

Pogroms will continue to occur in India unless the State acknowledges and records these violations in a transparent & honest manner, toward cleansing itself of the people and the institutions that perpetrate these crimes and addressing the survivors' rights to knowledge, justice, and reparation.

 I, as a survivor of the Sikh Genocide of 1984, wait for a day when the citizens of India will demand and display the very ideals of unity, justice, and healing as the citizens of America illustrated after the Wisconsin massacre in 2012.  So, my dear brothers & sisters, we cannot forget the killings of innocent people no matter where they occur.  Instead, we ought to remember, revive, and respond like our fathers & mothers did.  They sought Inspiration from within and channeled their energy toward discovering their role in pursuit of Justice.

Pritpal Singh 

Thursday, October 30, 2014

The myth of religious violence by Karen Armstrong

Foundation for Pluralism | Preface by Mike Ghouse
Link: http://foundationforpluralism.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-myth-of-religious-violence-by-karen.html

My comments, and abstracts from the article are followed by Armstrong's article below.

The plight of minorities - be it racial, religious, sub-religious, secular, ethnic, linguistic or liberal is fairly similar throughout the history of the mankind. The following article is 4600 words long, but worth the read, it helps us understand the society and factors that shape the majority-minority relationships.

Religious masters have worked very hard to infuse humility into humanity as a bridge to building cohesive societies, most people got that right, and some did not. The struggle is between the majority and minority, it is not all of the majority, but the hard core tiny group of people within a given majority that drives the society, and ironically they tend to be insecure and frightened beings. They are afraid, that these ...... 'bunch of other people' will change their life styles, and their in-built animalistic defense mechanism kicks in and starts preempting attacks on them, to show them their place, and deny them their rights,  i.e., be obedient to them.

The hardcore individuals within the Tea party, ISIS, Talibans, RSS,  Islamists, Zionists, Hindutva and others behave the same when it comes to 'bunch of others'. They resort to imagining and annihilating the other to "feel" secure. The world is not big enough for them, they want to have it all, and don't want the "inferior" other to have their own  space, food and the loved ones.  I called it animalistic behavior because God has endowed animals with paws, fangs, horns and power to fight and resolve their conflicts, where as humans are suppose to resolve their issues through dialogue.  As a society, we have to collectively bring every one to talk and assure security to the insecure, so we all can live without the fear of the other.

If you are a student of building cohesive societies, where we can live without the fear of the other, no matter who we are, then this is worth reading, it provides a deeper understanding of how society functions, how the majority-minority problems have evolved.  Karen Armstrong is my favorite writer, and we have many things in common with Pope Francis, President Obama, President Carter, Aga Khan and I. We respect the otherness of others with all humility, because we are all created by God and we are all one family.

EXCERPTS FROM THE ARTICLE

John Locke, "endorsed a master’s “Absolute, arbitrary, despotical power” over a slave, which included “the power to kill him at any time”.
 

"Ironically, no sooner had the revolutionaries rid themselves of one religion, than they invented another. Their new gods were liberty, nature and the French nation, which they worshipped in elaborate festivals choreographed by the artist Jacques Louis David."

"... allowed states to intrude into the lives of their citizens more than had ever been possible. Even if they spoke a different language from their rulers, subjects now belonged to the “nation,” whether they liked it or not. John Stuart Mill regarded this forcible integration as progress; .."

" ... Yet this toleration was only skin-deep, and as Lord Acton had predicted, an intolerance of ethnic and cultural minorities would become the achilles heel of the nation-state. Indeed, the ethnic minority would replace the heretic (who had usually been protesting against the social order) as the object of resentment in the new nation-state. "

"Thomas Jefferson, one of the leading proponents of the Enlightenment in the United States, instructed his secretary of war in 1807 that Native Americans were “backward peoples” who must either be “exterminated” or driven “beyond our reach” to the other side of the Mississippi “with the beasts of the forest”.

"Napoleon issued the “infamous decrees”, ordering the Jews of France to take French names, privatise their faith, and ensure that at least one in three marriages per family was with a gentile."

"....centuries of Christian prejudice, but gave it a scientific rationale, claiming that Jews did not fit the biological and genetic profile of the Volk, and should be eliminated from the body politic as modern medicine cut out a cancer."

"All too often an aggressive secularism has pushed religion into a violent riposte. Every fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation, convinced that the liberal or secular establishment is determined to destroy their way of life. This has been tragically apparent in the Middle East."

"Mehmet Resid, known as the “execution governor”, regarded the Armenians as “dangerous microbes” in “the bosom of the Fatherland”. Ataturk completed this racial purge."

I am holding off expletives, the SOB Shah of Iran was kicked out because of what he did to his people, "

In Iran in 1928, Reza Shah Pahlavi issued the laws of uniformity of dress: his soldiers tore off women’s veils with bayonets and ripped them to pieces in the street. In 1935, the police were ordered to open fire on a crowd who had staged a peaceful demonstration against the dress laws in one of the holiest shrines of Iran, killing hundreds of unarmed civilians. Policies like this made veiling, which has no Qur’anic endorsement, an emblem of Islamic authenticity in many parts of the Muslim world."

"Had the democratic process been thwarted in such an unconstitutional manner in Iran or Pakistan, there would have been worldwide outrage. But because an Islamic government had been blocked by the coup, there was jubilation in some quarters of the western press – as if this undemocratic action had instead made Algeria safe for democracy. In rather the same way, there was an almost audible sigh of relief in the west when the Muslim Brotherhood was ousted from power in Egypt last year. But there has been less attention to the violence of the secular military dictatorship that has replaced it, which has exceeded the abuses of the Mubarak regime."

The United States has committed many blunders - one of them was rejecting Hamas, democratically elected by the people of Gaza. What options did we give them? All of them were wrong.

"...any secular thinkers now regard “religion” as inherently belligerent and intolerant, and an irrational, backward and violent “other” to the peaceable and humane liberal state – an attitude with an unfortunate echo of the colonialist view of indigenous peoples as hopelessly “primitive”, mired in their benighted religious beliefs."

And the last one, "When secularisation has been applied by force, it has provoked a fundamentalist reaction – and history shows that fundamentalist movements which come under attack invariably grow even more extreme. "
Please read my solution at the very end.

 ..........................................................................


Myths of religious violence by Karen Armstrong
Courtesy of the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular

The popular belief that religion is the cause of the world’s bloodiest conflicts is central to our modern conviction that faith and politics should never mix. But the messy history of their separation suggests it was never so simple



Bullet candles


As we watch the fighters of the Islamic State (Isis) rampaging through the Middle East, tearing apart the modern nation-states of Syria and Iraq created by departing European colonialists, it may be difficult to believe we are living in the 21st century. The sight of throngs of terrified refugees and the savage and indiscriminate violence is all too reminiscent of barbarian tribes sweeping away the Roman empire, or the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan cutting a swath through China, Anatolia, Russia and eastern Europe, devastating entire cities and massacring their inhabitants. Only the wearily familiar pictures of bombs falling yet again on Middle Eastern cities and towns – this time dropped by the United States and a few Arab allies – and the gloomy predictions that this may become another Vietnam, remind us that this is indeed a very modern war.

The ferocious cruelty of these jihadist fighters, quoting the Qur’an as they behead their hapless victims, raises another distinctly modern concern: the connection between religion and violence. The atrocities of Isis would seem to prove that Sam Harris, one of the loudest voices of the “New Atheism”, was right to claim that “most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith”, and to conclude that “religion itself produces a perverse solidarity that we must find some way to undercut”. Many will agree with Richard Dawkins, who wrote in The God Delusion that “only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people”. Even those who find these statements too extreme may still believe, instinctively, that there is a violent essence inherent in religion, which inevitably radicalises any conflict – because once combatants are convinced that God is on their side, compromise becomes impossible and cruelty knows no bounds.

Despite the valiant attempts by Barack Obama and David Cameron to insist that the lawless violence of Isis has nothing to do with Islam, many will disagree. They may also feel exasperated. In the west, we learned from bitter experience that the fanatical bigotry which religion seems always to unleash can only be contained by the creation of a liberal state that separates politics and religion. Never again, we believed, would these intolerant passions be allowed to intrude on political life. But why, oh why, have Muslims found it impossible to arrive at this logical solution to their current problems? Why do they cling with perverse obstinacy to the obviously bad idea of theocracy? Why, in short, have they been unable to enter the modern world? The answer must surely lie in their primitive and atavistic religion.


A Ukrainian soldier near the eastern Ukrainian town of Pervomaysk. Photograph: Photograph: Gleb Garanich/Reuters 

But perhaps we should ask, instead, how it came about that we in the west developed our view of religion as a purely private pursuit, essentially separate from all other human activities, and especially distinct from politics. After all, warfare and violence have always been a feature of political life, and yet we alone drew the conclusion that separating the church from the state was a prerequisite for peace. Secularism has become so natural to us that we assume it emerged organically, as a necessary condition of any society’s progress into modernity. Yet it was in fact a distinct creation, which arose as a result of a peculiar concatenation of historical circumstances; we may be mistaken to assume that it would evolve in the same fashion in every culture in every part of the world.


We now take the secular state so much for granted that it is hard for us to appreciate its novelty, since before the modern period, there were no “secular” institutions and no “secular” states in our sense of the word. Their creation required the development of an entirely different understanding of religion, one that was unique to the modern west. No other culture has had anything remotely like it, and before the 18th century, it would have been incomprehensible even to European Catholics. The words in other languages that we translate as “religion” invariably refer to something vaguer, larger and more inclusive. The Arabic word din signifies an entire way of life, and the Sanskrit dharma covers law, politics, and social institutions as well as piety. The Hebrew Bible has no abstract concept of “religion”; and the Talmudic rabbis would have found it impossible to define faith in a single word or formula, because the Talmud was expressly designed to bring the whole of human life into the ambit of the sacred. The Oxford Classical Dictionary firmly states: “No word in either Greek or Latin corresponds to the English ‘religion’ or ‘religious’.” In fact, the only tradition that satisfies the modern western criterion of religion as a purely private pursuit is Protestant Christianity, which, like our western view of “religion”, was also a creation of the early modern period.

Traditional spirituality did not urge people to retreat from political activity. The prophets of Israel had harsh words for those who assiduously observed the temple rituals but neglected the plight of the poor and oppressed. Jesus’s famous maxim to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” was not a plea for the separation of religion and politics. Nearly all the uprisings against Rome in first-century Palestine were inspired by the conviction that the Land of Israel and its produce belonged to God, so that there was, therefore, precious little to “give back” to Caesar. When Jesus overturned the money-changers’ tables in the temple, he was not demanding a more spiritualised religion. For 500 years, the temple had been an instrument of imperial control and the tribute for Rome was stored there. Hence for Jesus it was a “den of thieves”. The bedrock message of the Qur’an is that it is wrong to build a private fortune but good to share your wealth in order to create a just, egalitarian and decent society. Gandhi would have agreed that these were matters of sacred import: “Those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means.”

The myth of religious violence

Before the modern period, religion was not a separate activity, hermetically sealed off from all others; rather, it permeated all human undertakings, including economics, state-building, politics and warfare. Before 1700, it would have been impossible for people to say where, for example, “politics” ended and “religion” began. The Crusades were certainly inspired by religious passion but they were also deeply political: Pope Urban II let the knights of Christendom loose on the Muslim world to extend the power of the church eastwards and create a papal monarchy that would control Christian Europe. The Spanish inquisition was a deeply flawed attempt to secure the internal order of Spain after a divisive civil war, at a time when the nation feared an imminent attack by the Ottoman empire. Similarly, the European wars of religion and the thirty years war were certainly exacerbated by the sectarian quarrels of Protestants and Catholics, but their violence reflected the birth pangs of the modern nation-state.
A US army soldier shoots at Taliban fighters on the outskirts of Jellawar in the Arghandab Valley, Afghanistan. Photograph: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images

Before the modern period, religion was not a separate activity, it permeated all human undertakings
It was these European wars, in the 16th and 17th centuries, that helped create what has been called “the myth of religious violence”. It was said that Protestants and Catholics were so inflamed by the theological passions of the Reformation that they butchered one another in senseless battles that killed 35% of the population of central Europe. Yet while there is no doubt that the participants certainly experienced these wars as a life-and-death religious struggle, this was also a conflict between two sets of state-builders: the princes of Germany and the other kings of Europe were battling against the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, and his ambition to establish a trans-European hegemony modelled after the Ottoman empire.

If the wars of religion had been solely motivated by sectarian bigotry, we should not expect to have found Protestants and Catholics fighting on the same side, yet in fact they often did so. Thus Catholic France repeatedly fought the Catholic Habsburgs, who were regularly supported by some of the Protestant princes. In the French wars of religion (1562–98) and the thirty years war, combatants crossed confessional lines so often that it was impossible to talk about solidly “Catholic” or “Protestant” populations. These wars were neither “all about religion” nor “all about politics”. Nor was it a question of the state simply “using” religion for political ends. There was as yet no coherent way to divide religious causes from social causes. People were fighting for different visions of society, but they would not, and could not, have distinguished between religious and temporal factors in these conflicts. Until the 18th century, dissociating the two would have been like trying to take the gin out of a cocktail.

By the end of the thirty years war, Europeans had fought off the danger of imperial rule. Henceforth Europe would be divided into smaller states, each claiming sovereign power in its own territory, each supported by a professional army and governed by a prince who aspired to absolute rule – a recipe, perhaps, for chronic interstate warfare. New configurations of political power were beginning to force the church into a subordinate role, a process that involved a fundamental reallocation of authority and resources from the ecclesiastical establishment to the monarch. When the new word “secularisation” was coined in the late 16th century, it originally referred to “the transfer of goods from the possession of the church into that of the world”. This was a wholly new experiment. It was not a question of the west discovering a natural law; rather, secularisation was a contingent development. It took root in Europe in large part because it mirrored the new structures of power that were pushing the churches out of government.


These developments required a new understanding of religion. It was provided by Martin Luther, who was the first European to propose the separation of church and state. Medieval Catholicism had been an essentially communal faith; most people experienced the sacred by living in community. But for Luther, the Christian stood alone before his God, relying only upon his Bible. Luther’s acute sense of human sinfulness led him, in the early 16th century, to advocate the absolute states that would not become a political reality for another hundred years. For Luther, the state’s prime duty was to restrain its wicked subjects by force, “in the same way as a savage wild beast is bound with chains and ropes”. The sovereign, independent state reflected this vision of the independent and sovereign individual. Luther’s view of religion, as an essentially subjective and private quest over which the state had no jurisdiction, would be the foundation of the modern secular ideal.

But Luther’s response to the peasants’ war in Germany in 1525, during the early stages of the wars of religion, suggested that a secularised political theory would not necessarily be a force for peace or democracy. The peasants, who were resisting the centralising policies of the German princes – which deprived them of their traditional rights – were mercilessly slaughtered by the state. Luther believed that they had committed the cardinal sin of mixing religion and politics: suffering was their lot, and they should have turned the other cheek, and accepted the loss of their lives and property. “A worldly kingdom,” he insisted, “cannot exist without an inequality of persons, some being free, some imprisoned, some lords, some subjects.” So, Luther commanded the princes, “Let everyone who can, smite, slay and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisoned, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel.”

Dawn of the liberal state

By the late 17th century, philosophers had devised a more urbane version of the secular ideal. For John Locke it had become self-evident that “the church itself is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on both sides are fixed and immovable.” The separation of religion and politics – “perfectly and infinitely different from each other” – was, for Locke, written into the very nature of things. But the liberal state was a radical innovation, just as revolutionary as the market economy that was developing in the west and would shortly transform the world. Because of the violent passions it aroused, Locke insisted that the segregation of “religion” from government was “above all things necessary” for the creation of a peaceful society.

Hence Locke was adamant that the liberal state could tolerate neither Catholics nor Muslims, condemning their confusion of politics and religion as dangerously perverse. Locke was a major advocate of the theory of natural human rights, originally pioneered by the Renaissance humanists and given definition in the first draft of the American Declaration of Independence as life, liberty and property. But secularisation emerged at a time when Europe was beginning to colonise the New World, and it would come to exert considerable influence on the way the west viewed those it had colonised – much as in our own time, the prevailing secular ideology perceives Muslim societies that seem incapable of separating faith from politics to be irredeemably flawed.

The reign of terror plunged France into an irrational bloodbath, in which 17,000 men, women and children were executed

This introduced an inconsistency, since for the Renaissance humanists there could be no question of extending these natural rights to the indigenous inhabitants of the New World. Indeed, these peoples could justly be penalised for failing to conform to European norms. In the 16th century, Alberico Gentili, a professor of civil law at Oxford, argued that land that had not been exploited agriculturally, as it was in Europe, was “empty” and that “the seizure of [such] vacant places” should be “regarded as law of nature”. Locke agreed that the native peoples had no right to life, liberty or property. The “kings” of America, he decreed, had no legal right of ownership to their territory. He also endorsed a master’s “Absolute, arbitrary, despotical power” over a slave, which included “the power to kill him at any time”.

The pioneers of secularism seemed to be falling into the same old habits as their religious predecessors. Secularism was designed to create a peaceful world order, but the church was so intricately involved in the economic, political and cultural structures of society that the secular order could only be established with a measure of violence. In North America, where there was no entrenched aristocratic government, the disestablishment of the various churches could be accomplished with relative ease. But in France, the church could be dismantled only by an outright assault; far from being experienced as a natural and essentially normative arrangement, the separation of religion and politics could be experienced as traumatic and terrifying.
During the French revolution, one of the first acts of the new national assembly on November 2, 1789, was to confiscate all church property to pay off the national debt: secularisation involved dispossession, humiliation and marginalisation. This segued into outright violence during the September massacres of 1792, when the mob fell upon the jails of Paris and slaughtered between two and three thousand prisoners, many of them priests. Early in 1794, four revolutionary armies were dispatched from Paris to quell an uprising in the Vendée against the anti-Catholic policies of the regime. Their instructions were to spare no one. At the end of the campaign, General François-Joseph Westermann reportedly wrote to his superiors: “The Vendée no longer exists. I have crushed children beneath the hooves of our horses, and massacred the women … The roads are littered with corpses.”
Ironically, no sooner had the revolutionaries rid themselves of one religion, than they invented another. Their new gods were liberty, nature and the French nation, which they worshipped in elaborate festivals choreographed by the artist Jacques Louis David. The same year that the goddess of reason was enthroned on the high altar of Notre Dame cathedral, the reign of terror plunged the new nation into an irrational bloodbath, in which some 17,000 men, women and children were executed by the state.

To die for one’s country

When Napoleon’s armies invaded Prussia in 1807, the philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte similarly urged his countrymen to lay down their lives for the Fatherland – a manifestation of the divine and the repository of the spiritual essence of the Volk. If we define the sacred as that for which we are prepared to die, what Benedict Anderson called the “imagined community” of the nation had come to replace God. It is now considered admirable to die for your country, but not for your religion.

As the nation-state came into its own in the 19th century along with the industrial revolution, its citizens had to be bound tightly together and mobilised for industry. Modern communications enabled governments to create and propagate a national ethos, and allowed states to intrude into the lives of their citizens more than had ever been possible. Even if they spoke a different language from their rulers, subjects now belonged to the “nation,” whether they liked it or not. John Stuart Mill regarded this forcible integration as progress; it was surely better for a Breton, “the half-savage remnant of past times”, to become a French citizen than “sulk on his own rocks”. But in the late 19th century, the British historian Lord Acton feared that the adulation of the national spirit that laid such emphasis on ethnicity, culture and language, would penalise those who did not fit the national norm: “According, therefore, to the degree of humanity and civilisation in that dominant body which claims all the rights of the community, the inferior races are exterminated or reduced to servitude, or put in a condition of dependence.”

The Enlightenment philosophers had tried to counter the intolerance and bigotry that they associated with “religion” by promoting the equality of all human beings, together with democracy, human rights, and intellectual and political liberty, modern secular versions of ideals which had been promoted in a religious idiom in the past. The structural injustice of the agrarian state, however, had made it impossible to implement these ideals fully. The nation-state made these noble aspirations practical necessities. More and more people had to be drawn into the productive process and needed at least a modicum of education. Eventually they would demand the right to participate in the decisions of government. It was found by trial and error that those nations that democratised forged ahead economically, while those that confined the benefits of modernity to an elite fell behind. Innovation was essential to progress, so people had to be allowed to think freely, unconstrained by the constraints of their class, guild or church. Governments needed to exploit all their human resources, so outsiders, such as Jews in Europe and Catholics in England and America, were brought into the mainstream.

A candlelight vigil in 2007 at the Arlington West Memorial in Santa Barbara, California, to honour American soldiers killed in the Iraq war. Photograph: Sipa Press/REX 

Yet this toleration was only skin-deep, and as Lord Acton had predicted, an intolerance of ethnic and cultural minorities would become the achilles heel of the nation-state. Indeed, the ethnic minority would replace the heretic (who had usually been protesting against the social order) as the object of resentment in the new nation-state. Thomas Jefferson, one of the leading proponents of the Enlightenment in the United States, instructed his secretary of war in 1807 that Native Americans were “backward peoples” who must either be “exterminated” or driven “beyond our reach” to the other side of the Mississippi “with the beasts of the forest”. The following year, Napoleon issued the “infamous decrees”, ordering the Jews of France to take French names, privatise their faith, and ensure that at least one in three marriages per family was with a gentile. Increasingly, as national feeling became a supreme value, Jews would come to be seen as rootless and cosmopolitan. In the late 19th century, there was an explosion of antisemitism in Europe, which undoubtedly drew upon centuries of Christian prejudice, but gave it a scientific rationale, claiming that Jews did not fit the biological and genetic profile of the Volk, and should be eliminated from the body politic as modern medicine cut out a cancer.

When secularisation was implemented in the developing world, it was experienced as a profound disruption – just as it had originally been in Europe. Because it usually came with colonial rule, it was seen as a foreign import and rejected as profoundly unnatural. In almost every region of the world where secular governments have been established with a goal of separating religion and politics, a counter-cultural movement has developed in response, determined to bring religion back into public life. What we call “fundamentalism” has always existed in a symbiotic relationship with a secularisation that is experienced as cruel, violent and invasive. All too often an aggressive secularism has pushed religion into a violent riposte. Every fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation, convinced that the liberal or secular establishment is determined to destroy their way of life. This has been tragically apparent in the Middle East.

Very often modernising rulers have embodied secularism at its very worst and have made it unpalatable to their subjects. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who founded the secular republic of Turkey in 1918, is often admired in the west as an enlightened Muslim leader, but for many in the Middle East he epitomised the cruelty of secular nationalism. He hated Islam, describing it as a “putrefied corpse”, and suppressed it in Turkey by outlawing the Sufi orders and seizing their properties, closing down the madrasas and appropriating their income. He also abolished the beloved institution of the caliphate, which had long been a dead-letter politically but which symbolised a link with the Prophet. For groups such as al-Qaida and Isis, reversing this decision has become a paramount goal.

Ataturk also continued the policy of ethnic cleansing that had been initiated by the last Ottoman sultans; in an attempt to control the rising commercial classes, they systematically deported the Armenian and Greek-speaking Christians, who comprised 90% of the bourgeoisie. The Young Turks, who seized power in 1909, espoused the antireligious positivism associated with August Comte and were also determined to create a purely Turkic state. During the first world war, approximately one million Armenians were slaughtered in the first genocide of the 20th century: men and youths were killed where they stood, while women, children and the elderly were driven into the desert where they were raped, shot, starved, poisoned, suffocated or burned to death. Clearly inspired by the new scientific racism, Mehmet Resid, known as the “execution governor”, regarded the Armenians as “dangerous microbes” in “the bosom of the Fatherland”. Ataturk completed this racial purge. For centuries Muslims and Christians had lived together on both sides of the Aegean; Ataturk partitioned the region, deporting Greek Christians living in what is now Turkey to Greece, while Turkish-speaking Muslims in Greece were sent the other way.

The fundamentalist reaction

Secularising rulers such as Ataturk often wanted their countries to look modern, that is, European. In Iran in 1928, Reza Shah Pahlavi issued the laws of uniformity of dress: his soldiers tore off women’s veils with bayonets and ripped them to pieces in the street. In 1935, the police were ordered to open fire on a crowd who had staged a peaceful demonstration against the dress laws in one of the holiest shrines of Iran, killing hundreds of unarmed civilians. Policies like this made veiling, which has no Qur’anic endorsement, an emblem of Islamic authenticity in many parts of the Muslim world.

Following the example of the French, Egyptian rulers secularised by disempowering and impoverishing the clergy. Modernisation had begun in the Ottoman period under the governor Muhammad Ali, who starved the Islamic clergy financially, taking away their tax-exempt status, confiscating the religiously endowed properties that were their principal source of income, and systematically robbing them of any shred of power. When the reforming army officer Jamal Abdul Nasser came to power in 1952, he changed tack and turned the clergy into state officials. For centuries, they had acted as a protective bulwark between the people and the systemic violence of the state. Now Egyptians came to despise them as government lackeys. This policy would ultimately backfire, because it deprived the general population of learned guidance that was aware of the complexity of the Islamic tradition. Self-appointed freelancers, whose knowledge of Islam was limited, would step into the breach, often to disastrous effect.



Many regard the west’s devotion to the separation of religion and politics as incompatible with democracy and freedom

If some Muslims today fight shy of secularism, it is not because they have been brainwashed by their faith but because they have often experienced efforts at secularisation in a particularly virulent form. Many regard the west’s devotion to the separation of religion and politics as incompatible with admired western ideals such as democracy and freedom. In 1992, a military coup in Algeria ousted a president who had promised democratic reforms, and imprisoned the leaders of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which seemed certain to gain a majority in the forthcoming elections. Had the democratic process been thwarted in such an unconstitutional manner in Iran or Pakistan, there would have been worldwide outrage. But because an Islamic government had been blocked by the coup, there was jubilation in some quarters of the western press – as if this undemocratic action had instead made Algeria safe for democracy. In rather the same way, there was an almost audible sigh of relief in the west when the Muslim Brotherhood was ousted from power in Egypt last year. But there has been less attention to the violence of the secular military dictatorship that has replaced it, which has exceeded the abuses of the Mubarak regime.

After a bumpy beginning, secularism has undoubtedly been valuable to the west, but we would be wrong to regard it as a universal law. It emerged as a particular and unique feature of the historical process in Europe; it was an evolutionary adaptation to a very specific set of circumstances. In a different environment, modernity may well take other forms. Many secular thinkers now regard “religion” as inherently belligerent and intolerant, and an irrational, backward and violent “other” to the peaceable and humane liberal state – an attitude with an unfortunate echo of the colonialist view of indigenous peoples as hopelessly “primitive”, mired in their benighted religious beliefs.

There are consequences to our failure to understand that our secularism, and its understanding of the role of religion, is exceptional. When secularisation has been applied by force, it has provoked a fundamentalist reaction – and history shows that fundamentalist movements which come under attack invariably grow even more extreme. The fruits of this error are on display across the Middle East: when we look with horror upon the travesty of Isis, we would be wise to acknowledge that its barbaric violence may be, at least in part, the offspring of policies guided by our disdain.
• Karen Armstrong’s Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence is published today by Bodley Head.



 
My solution is pluralistic governance of course the requirement for that is every one feel secure about his belief and his way of life. I will present another paper on that, meanwhile, check this out. This is a warning to terrorist and education for those who bark blindly at religion.
CLICK ON THE RED POSTER TO VIEW IN FULL SIZE


In a learning environment, good thoughts and concrete ideas are developed with criticism and feedback; here is why this kind of response is needed.  


  1. Don't bark at the religion for the acts of bad guys. Punishment is set for bad acts, to restore the trust in a given society. When a Rapist is running around in a neighborhood, everyone is apprehensive, but when the guy is caught and nailed, peace of mind is restored in the neighborhood. Instead of catching the guy, if we blame his raising, his family, his religion, his race or nation, and his imam, rabbi, pastor or pundit – we will not restore peace. I intend to aggressively communicate this idea, the right idea, and intend to speak at various law enforcement agencies as well as religious institutions.  
  2. The criminal ought to know that he will be punished; we will not allow the poor alibi of religion, not at all. The Law enforcement and the media people also need to get this in their heads, the purpose of investigations and chasing the bad guys is to restore trust and not to aggravate by barking at a non-entity like Religion. The more you bark at criminal’s religion, race or ethnicity, the worse it gets. You cannot shoot, kill, hang, beat or bury the religion, then why bark at it?

  3. 72 Virgins are promised. Both the terrorists and the communicators of the problem (Media and Politicians) to the world at large have gotten it wrong. The poor guy needs to be outraged at the recruiters that he was duped, and there are no 72 virgins waiting for him, instead the SOB will rot in Jail if we Americans get him, or killed mercilessly if he is caught by the opposite party. No Geneva conventions will be observed by either the terrorist or his chasers.  The Media needs to stop the BS of propagating the falsity with nothing to back up in the Qur'an.

  4. Both the criminal and the law enforcement (coupled with the media and politicians) must be aware that it is the Sin, and not the sinner we are after. The clarity should prevent us from being unjust.  We should not be abusive in disciplining or punishing the wrong doer. As a civil society, we cannot become the very evil we want to eradicate.
     
  5. We should seek the criminal to lead us to the source of recruiting material and the recruiters by mitigating his punishment. 
  6. The Challenge to “read the right translation/interpretation” of Qur'an applies to both the criminal and the law enforcement. I am certain, the criminal will become a genuine repenter, and the law enforcement will not buy or propagate the dished out non-sense in the market or bark irrelevantly.
This is the right time to forge peace to the society in general, and American society in particular by boldly and loudly getting people to get the message, and i.e.,

I am being assertive, never has any Muslim or other communicated this so clearly and it is time we do that, thank God for the opportunities he has blessed us with to find solutions.   If I don't, no one will speak, and I sincerely hope many of us to speak up, do it on your own or join me.


It is time we separate the evil from good.

Bottom line is to free Islam and Muslims from the stupid stereotyping, and focus on punishing the bad guys and restoring trust in the society. 


 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------


You SOB, you are the damned murderer, you messed up the peace, and your ass will nailed big time.

Don’t give me the BS about your job, childhood, parents, kids, siblings, spouse, imam, rabbi, pastor or the pundit. You did it and you'll pay for it.



I am not stupid to buy in your argument that your religion made you do that, and then bark at the religion endlessly. AH, you are the bad guy and you are going to pay for it. I am here to restore justice in the society and not be detracted and scream at your religion like a stupid ass. I can hang you, shoot you, bury you and beat you up to restore justice and trust in the society, and that is my goal

 Note: Mr. Terrorist, I don't condemn you, it is your sin I condemn. If you claim to be a Muslim, just remember, those guys who recruited you, and cheated you with  false promises of Hoories and virgins in paradise were dead wrong. There is no such thing nor is it mentioned in Qur'an, instead you will rot in jail for life. Would you turn in your recruiters for cheating you? Would you read the correct translations of Qur'an, we might minimize your sentence?

This should be the attitude of Law enforcement
Authorized by Mike Ghouse, World Muslim Congress.



Thank you

 

Mike Ghouse

(214) 325-1916 text/talk
www.WorldMuslimCongress.com 
...............................................................................................................................
Mike Ghouse is a public speaker, thinker, writer and a commentator on Pluralism at work place, politics, religion, society, gender, race, culture, ethnicity, food and foreign policy. He is commentator on Fox News and syndicated Talk Radio shows and a writer at major news papers including Dallas Morning News and Huffington Post.  All about him is listed in several links at www.MikeGhouse.net and his writings are at www.TheGhousediary.com and 10 other blogs. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day.