Updated 7/17/08 for better organization/readability and detail on sources and concluding implications.
WHY THIS MATTERS. The present war of ideas underlying the global jihad against the West relates to all of us, and therefore we must take it very seriously. This is the point I attempted to make in my first post in this series of thoughts. As we get closer to the November Presidential vote, it is even more important to think through this conflict.
Having had several discussions on this subject with friends and associates, I am encouraged to see that many people genuinely understand that this really is a conflict about ideas. But most don’t seem clear enough on the underlying ideas to have a well-informed view on how American officials and citizens should best to respond.
This is an important discussion with multi-generational implications. In this and subsequent posts, I want to try to get inside the logic of some underlying ideas that are driving this conflict, and then suggest some direction for further study and discussion.
No one should doubt that we are in a true war about certain conflicting ideas. This was expressed so clearly and destructively on 9/11. Islamic radicals attacked us for many reasons. I surely don’t know them all. But from my study, I believe it is accurate to say that this global jihad stems from a global vision of personal and societal life rooted in certain ideas about man, God, and government.
I’ll explore the global vision in the next post. For now, I’d like to first look at the idea of global jihad.
WHAT IDEAS ARE DRIVING GLOBAL JIHAD? From what I understand, the common idea of jihad by most Muslims is about personal self-purification to the will of Allah through obedience to the Koran, chiefly expressed through practicing the five pillars of Islam.
Radical Islam*, or Islamism, says jihad goes beyond this. Jihad is still the submission of the will to Allah. But if people do not submit by personal choice, then it must occur through forced subjection or by the death of unbelievers (infidels), even on a global scale.
In this vision, Allah is not pleased when Muslims allow infidels, expressed chiefly in Western politics and economics, to flourish in the earth. The West’s flourishing, in fact, is a form of judgment against Islam, and a call for a radical response if the course of things is to be reversed and Allah’s blessing to be regained.
This is the basic justification for a broader purification–a global jihad–to take place. The argument gains significant force when one lacks productive direction in a nation with many job options for expressing one’s God-given talents. A charismatic leader blaming the West on one’s plight may be enough to win over enough eager converts to a radical view and martyrdom.
9/11, in this view, is an offering to Allah by those faithful to this vision. It is a prayer for blessing and a step of purification. By remove more infidels like me and you from the earth, the hope is that Allah will mercifully grant that the global Islamist vision can be increasingly established on the earth.
TAKING A STEP BACK. There is an expansive, diabolical logic to all this, if you know what I mean. Consider the dangerous position of becoming convinced that one’s only meaningful options for a productive life are between 1) eternal security through martyrdom; or 2) ongoing earthly conflict towards the establishment of the global vision.
When the facts suggest that only a desperate hope exists for the global vision of Islam to be implemented in the earth, what would you choose? I would probably opt for martyrdom. Eternity is a long time.
I also don’t want to oversimplify the choice one might face when presented with the claims of Islamism. I am certainly not endorsing suicidal terrorism. My goal is to take one step back to gain needed perspective, so that we can move forward toward a more humble consideration of the subject, particularly for effective communication with our fellow citizens and others who are Muslim. Before making any arguments against global jihad, I think it is important to understand in at least some small way the kinds of choices one would face if one does not believe there are other real options.
While we take for granted that there are almost always many options in any choice we have in America, if we want to engage the war of ideas from a citizen level, I suggest we should first become effective at what I call “contextual dexterity.” This is a self-discipline enabling one to see a situation from multiple assumptions and perspectives, in order to make a proper determination on how to act in a complex situation.
INSIGHTS & IMPLICATIONS. This all points us back to the importance of the individual conscience. Freedom of dissent and religious choice are not operating values throughout much of the Muslim world, as best I can tell. This means the individual conscience is suppressed, making it hard to see what we see so clearly–that suicide bombings like 9/11 are absolutely wrong.
What do you think?
I’d like to know whether most Muslims agree with the radical vision. I have not heard that many Muslims in America denouncing that vision in favor of pluralistic, religious freedom in a liberal democracy. I wonder if that is because many moderate Muslims have not been given the outlet to speak on this, or if they are afraid for their lives to speak out, or if they really agree with the radical vision–though perhaps disagreeing with terrorism as the right path to get there.
For American citizens, I think it is critical to know where leading Muslim citizens in America stand in this war of ideas. If anyone can point out any good resources, I’d appreciate it. With an understanding of the primary groups and their perspectives on the present war of ideas, I think we stand a much better chance of driving towards a fruitful outcome.
I believe it will take a combined top-down and bottom-up approach if we hope for the most enduring resolutions in this war of ideas. People like us have as much stake in the outcome as any government leader, and our Muslim friends who can turn the tide are normal people like us. Policy changes will not solve a war of ideas. The consciences of all stakeholders need to be much more awake to the choices and implications before us. From there we can chart a more productive course than the current ideological back-and-forth that seems to be driving the present war of ideas.
We all need to get this right.
—–
*A primary resource for my understanding of the radical jihadi perspective is Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. I strongly encourage others to read this important resource., and I welcome any counterarguments to the facts and ideas provided in the book.
Hello,
you have written a very interesting blog and i applaud you for your commitment towards seeking a better understanding of the issue you are discussing and i hope you find it.
In response to the questions asked in your second last paragraph. Firstly, i and all Muslims i know are not in agreement with the radical vision. To understand where this radical vision has stemmed from one needs a thorough understanding of history. A movement or sect deviating from Islam known as Wahabbism was created in Arabia with the help and encouragement of the British intelligence agencies. This sect was formed to try and destroy the religion of Islam from within as the behind the scenes leaders of the secular Wes perceived Islam as an obstacle in the way of their progress. Why? Because Islam does not allow the practice of usury in finance (interest) as it leads to the oppression of the poor and allows economic inbalance and excessive financial greed to flourish which is exactly what money hungry rulers crave. As Allah (SWT) has said in the Holy Quran and as the Prophet peace be upon him,
has told us The Quran is protected and will never be destroyed or changed. Thus the Wahabbi agenda grew to destroy certain teachings of Islam and it sought to present Islam to the world as a twisted threat as opposed to the pure way of life that it is. By doing this it would create a resentment of Islam and would encourage non-Muslims to seek to eradicate it or at least detest it. The Wahabbi sect has secretly and covertly grown in the last century and particularly in the last few decades.
Al Qaeda follows Wahabbi teachings. Allah(SWT) has revealed to humanity that if the Muslims stop practicing their religion and decrease in their worship of Allah (as has happened in many cases throughout history then they will be punished). Perhaps what we are seeing now is another case of this. If the Muslims want to change our condition we need to return to the pure traditional teachings of the Quran and the example of the Prophet peace be upon him. We need to get back to the grassroots and not pick and choose what we like about the Divine code. To solve the current problem of terrorism the Orthodox Muslims need to stand up and learn their faith correctly and encourage their brothers and sisters who have strayed into diluted understandings of the faith to do the same thing with an honest heart. Non-Muslims seeking to solve the problem of terror should encourage Muslims to do the same thing as opposed to propagating war, revenge attacks or the insane calls being made by radical atheists to “ban all religions”. The problem of religious terrorism be it from Al Qaeda, the State of Israel or the Bush government is not religion but a lack of the true traditions of the religions they claim to practice. For more reading on why Wahabbism was formed see “The House of Saud” by Said K Aburish.
As for the current so called Islamic states in the Mid-East, they are puppet governments set up by America to give Islam a bad name as an excuse to go to war against thenm and to eradicate Muslims, thus they are extreme in their laws and oppress women, oppress other faith groups and even Muslim men and women. If you want to understand how a Muslim state should be run look back to the history of the four rightly guided caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them). See how Umar ibn Khattab ruled Palestine and how he protected the Jews and Christians as the Quran teaches. Please also check out “Muhummad: (pbuh) The Man & Prophet” by Adil Salahi.
Thirdly, “global jihad” is an idiotic self defeating agenda which will hopefully soon be extinguished. Allah tells humanity in the Holy Quran in Surat Al Kafirun that the Muslims and non-Muslims who can’t live together are to agree to disagree: to you your religion and to me mine.
Muslims are not required nor allowed to force people into Islam. Muslims are compelled to tell people about Islam but not to convert people. People are to be free to make their own decision regarding what faith they follow as repeatedly Allah SWT asks us humans to use reason in the Holy Quran. Ultimately, as with everything, Allah is in control. He decrees who will be and will not be a Muslim. If people choose not to be so they are doing so out of the choice that Allah has given them by this thing we call “free will”. Indeed Allah SWT is Most Wise and Merciful. As for dissent, well the Allah SWT encourages anyone to try and challenge the Quran. Many have and no one has nor ever will succeed. Many scientists have tried and ended up discovering its truth and became Muslim. One example is Dr Maurice Bucaille
Hello, part 2 of my response is below. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Dr Marcus Bucailles wrore a book called The Origin of Man. See his other work also.
Challenges are made to stregthen one’s faitn because if what you believe is the truth it cannot be refuted. That is why the great English philosopher John Stuart Mill said the truth needs to always be challenged or it will slip into falsehood. Thus we can say that much anti-Islamic rhetoric exists to challenge and strengthen Muslims.
To conclude i am not a radical nor a “moderate”. I am trying to be a Muslim. I am not perfect because i am fighting the inner Jihad of purification of the heart but i seek to one day soon become an excellent Muslim. For more about purification read Purification of the Heart by Hamza Yusuf.
In closing i’d like to say that Islam does not teach utopic ideals in this ethemeral existence. Utopia comes in the afterlife. Thus in the current world at this moment it is not possible for every human being to become a Muslim. If Allah wills it it will happen but it will not happen by killing people. Nor is it important for a Muslim to make the world one large Islamic state. On the Day of Judgement we’ll be asked primarily about how we got on worshipping Allah SWT and purifying ourselves to for his sake and to make our worship of him easier. That is what we were made for. To worship the Most High, not to convert the world to Islam.
God bless…Salaam…Peace
God bless
Freedom of dissent and religious choice are not operating values throughout the Muslim world, as best I can tell. This means the individual conscience is suppressed, making it hard to see what we see so clearly–that suicide bombings like 9/11 are absolutely wrong.
Good grief. Are you really so completely unaware that, throughout the Muslim world, the 9/11 bombings were attacked as absolutely wrong?
I mean, post-9/11, Bush managed to destroy that worldwide sympathy and support, but that doesn’t change the fact that the attacks on civilians using Islam as a justification were condemned much more widely among Muslims than the Christian terrorist attacks on doctors and health clinics for performing abortions are condemned by Christians. Were you really so completely unaware of this and so uninterested in finding out that you didn’t even type into Google the words Muslim condemnation of September 11 to find (for example) this page?
For American citizens, I think it is critical to know where most Muslims stand in this war of ideas.
For most Muslims, it’s clear where the US government stands in this war of ideas: with the bombers, the torturers, and the fundamentalist and oppressive governments like that of Saudi Arabia. The US government has twice bombed the offices of al-Jazeer, the Muslim world’s independent news service: journalists have been killed in Iraq in far greater numbers than journalists reporting on any other conflict. Where do ordinary Americans stand? The growing anti-war movement in the US says one thing: the lack of any public will to prosecute the torturers and the murders of journalists says something else.
Ahmed & Jes,
Great comments. I really appreciate the time each of you spent. Very worthy of thoughtful responses, which I will provide in the next few days. In the meantime, I welcome more comments like these from others. I know you’re out there. These are exactly the kinds of discussions I want to have here.
To your point, Jes, a lot of people that I know are unaware of the views of moderate Muslims. I have had the opportunity to hear from moderate Muslims directly, which was a big catalyst for my study on the real underlying ideas in conflict here. The radical vs. moderate Muslim conflict of ideas is a big part of the larger “war” between the West and Global Jihad.
Just curious, though, Jes, if you believe conservatives and even Christians in America are more to blame for this war than radical Islamists? Do you believe there is liberal vision of how to engage Radical Islam’s ideological differences with the West in a decisive but peaceful way? For example, do you think Barack Obama is on the right track with his plans a 16-month troop withdrawal and direct talks with Ahmedinejad? I am very interested in getting your insights on this.
Thanks!
Just curious, though, Jes, if you believe conservatives and even Christians in America are more to blame for this war than radical Islamists?
Could you expand on that question?
There exist radical Islamists, and radical Christianists (William Boykin, for example, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence until last year), and radical Jews – radical religionists of every faith, in fact.
I see radical religionists as the enemy in the war of ideas. Radical Christianists and Radical Islamists share most of the same values, including the belief that the state should impose religious values with a force of law – and similiar ideas about what those “religious values” should be.
Insofar as American conservatives are part of, or at least strongly influenced by, radical religionism – and I believe that to be the case – they are certainly as much to blame for the war of ideas as the radical Islamists. But they are all on the same side: they believe that their religious beliefs ought to be imposed on others by the state, using violence if necessary.
Before I jump in with more thoughts, I have to say that I am very pleased to be having this dialog with both Ahmed and Jes. I believe that a deep understanding and appreciation of religious pluralism is critical for properly engaging the war of ideas. As Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias has said, we must always recognize the equality in people and the hierarchy in ideas. The equality of value and personhood of all people is the foundation of a well-functioning pluralistic society, and I embrace that idea here.
As a consequence, I extend to each of you a full invitation to share your ideas and even your vision for society here at A Deo Lumen. Wherever we disagree, we may do so civilly and respectfully with that fundamental respect of human equality as our common starting point.
Ahmed,
I appreciate your concluding sentiments that the truth needs to always be challenged, and that you do not consider yourself a radical nor a moderate, only a faithful Muslim. I find that perspective a good example of humility that I want to live out as a Christian. I see our shared desire to be faithful to the truth as a strong common ground for our continued discussion.
I have restated some of your comments and listed my questions for you below.
> How do you believe it can be extinguished? Will this take place primarily through the efforts of Muslim religious and governmental leaders? Do you see the West’s “Global War on Terrorism” playing a positive or negative role in this?
> Do you believe that “money hungry rulers” in the West have been acting “behind the scenes” (e.g., “with the help and encouragement of British intelligence”) to deceive Westerners and establish a popular justification to send troops into the Middle East for economic advantage (e.g., for taking control of oil production)?
> What do you think are the main ways that your Muslim brothers and sisters have strayed into diluted understandings of the faith? How does their lack of Orthodoxy contribute to radical Islam’s influence in the Muslim world?
> Do you believe the Bush government is a religious terrorist group? Do many “moderate” Muslims believe that it is?
Jes,
Thanks for the insights, as always. I share your concern about radical religionists as being the enemy in the war of ideas, where “radical” means unwilling to listen to reason and question the truthfulness of one’s beliefs.
I like the term “self-righteous” for the underlying attitude in any form of radicalism such as that. Would you agree that this is a dangerous attitude anyone can have, even if one does not act it out in radical ways to hurt or endanger others?
One reason I ask is because I share your concern about “religious beliefs being imposed on others by the state, using violence if necessary.” Yet, I think we are touching on a primary battleground in the war of ideas. I am concerned that some people think that imposing anti-religious beliefs on others by the state is appropriate. What is your view on this, given your desire for a more secular state?
I am not trying to trap you at the logical level, as if this were a debate. I suspect you’d show me up quickly in a logical toe-to-toe, given the depth of your knowledge on many political questions. My intent is to get your insights on this question of “imposing religious beliefs,” because you probably know as well as I that there is a form of secularism that functions as religion.
I strongly encourage you to read Culture and Values in the 1960s by Stanley Kurtz, which unpacks how the religious form of secularism (whichKurtz calls left-liberalism) posits certain views of truth, morality, and human nature that are as faith-based as any formal religion.
There is another use of the word “secularism” that is more in line with the term “classic liberalism,” which Kurtz also describes in the article. I think we can move the discussion with you, me, and Ahmed in that direction and get to workable ideas about a conscience-driven pluralism. I just don’t see true pluralism as achievable as long as religious secularism is allowed to hold de facto authority in how the war of ideas is engaged in the public square.
Does that make sense? Do you agree there can be a self-righteousness to religious secularism that can become as dangerously radical as any religionists, if left unchecked?
My intent is to get your insights on this question of “imposing religious beliefs,” because you probably know as well as I that there is a form of secularism that functions as religion.
No, actually, I don’t know that.
One reason I ask is because I share your concern about “religious beliefs being imposed on others by the state, using violence if necessary.” Yet, I think we are touching on a primary battleground in the war of ideas. I am concerned that some people think that imposing anti-religious beliefs on others by the state is appropriate. What is your view on this, given your desire for a more secular state?
I think I’d want to know what you meant by “imposing anti-religious ideas” – examples?
My key examples of religious beliefs being imposed on others by the state are the various “pro-life” attempts to prevent women being able to choose abortion – and, of recent years, access contraception to prevent abortion: and of course the perennial issue of same-sex couples either not being permitted to marry, or not having their legal marriage recognized. The former has been more violent on the “pro-life” side – murders, bombs, other forms of religious terrorism, quite apart from the intrinsic violence of forced pregnancy – and the latter has been more openly supported by the government (including even the US Census declaring they’ll count married couples as two single persons if they’re both same-sex).
What examples do you have of anti-religious ideas being imposed by the state? I can’t think of any.
Jes,
Your questions deserve time and attention, not a shoot-from-the-hip response. I want to spend some time making my case through a series of posts, and in that process get your thoughts and feedback to make sure I am making sense. I don’t expect you to agree fully, but I do think there are many points at which we will agree.
In my view, the big question we are touching on–how do various worldviews function in a peaceful way within a pluralistic society–is at the heart of “engaging the war of ideas.” There will always be fundamental disagreements between various belief systems–both theism and atheism cannot be true–but through a pluralistic approach, we can set up more meaningful “rules of engagement” to work through those disagreements in a productive way towards common goals in the public square.
Your comments on pro-life “religious terrorism” provide a good example of what happens when one group in society attempts to impose their morality on others. Any bombing of abortion clinics or other such destruction in the name of Christianity is wrong, in my view. If one believes, as I do, that a “fetus” is a human life, and that abortion is murder, then one must be able to use morally upright methods of countering this practice within the legal constructs that make up our system.
I will attempt to argue in future posts that the wholesale rejection of creationism as a legitimate scientific option reveals a similar imposition by naturalism. Naturalism, like creationism, is a worldview built on certain truth claims about the origins of man and human nature. Those claims, in both naturalism and creationism, are held by faith, for none of us were there at the beginning to observe what happened, and science is not equipped to answer such questions. It can only look at natural events. Man is then left to consider the transcendent implications. Naturalism’s attempts to delegitimize creationism, in my view, is another example of one faith-based worldview imposing its biases on others.
I’d like to make the case that science needs pluralism to be most effective. It is good that science has swung away from exclusively theological arguments, which has reduced the controlling political interests in the church from hindering science from its best results. Yet, the pendulum has swung too far, I fear, where reasonable people who do not accept naturalism’s fundamental assumptions are marginalized, stereotyped, and discredited.
Is this not a violation of civil rights, by any reasonable standard?
That’s what I want to explore with you and others. I recognize that what I am describing entails a societal shift toward a more balanced approach–where both evolution and creationism (and other systematic views of life’s origins) can be accepted as available worldviews for legitimately interpreting scientific data. Such a shift can happen productively, from the grassroots up, if we work together.
Or we can accept a form of ideological engagement that looks more like war than peace. I want peace wherever possible.
So, for your consideration, a premise:
A “competitive” pluralistic approach to science forces each worldview’s adherents to be clear, accurate, and precise as much as possible. This only helps the consumer of science to have more confidence that outcomes are sound when building upon its findings.
The same competitive principle–is it survival of the fittest or a free market approach?–applies to all areas of human inquiry. I will delve into this further in my study and writing. I don’t claim to have clairvoyance on the topic, but I do believe that if one’s goal to is evolve to a higher level of consciousness and effectiveness, or if one’s goal is to be more like Christ, then a pluralistic public square like this is better than the present ideological back-and-forth in this war of ideas.
Your comments on pro-life “religious terrorism” provide a good example of what happens when one group in society attempts to impose their morality on others. Any bombing of abortion clinics or other such destruction in the name of Christianity is wrong, in my view.
Absolutely.
If one believes, as I do, that a “fetus” is a human life, and that abortion is murder, then one must be able to use morally upright methods of countering this practice within the legal constructs that make up our system.
Such as in the Netherlands? I consider the Netherlands to be an excellent example of a morally upright campaign to prevent abortions – at least to minimize abortions to the lowest known level worldwide.
Because if you believe, as I do, that the pregnant woman (or girl) is human, and that forcing her through pregnancy and childbirth against her will is at best slavery and at worst murder, then there is no morally upright way to force her to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of the methods used.
Moving on, though:
I recognize that what I am describing entails a societal shift toward a more balanced approach–where both evolution and creationism (and other systematic views of life’s origins) can be accepted as available worldviews for legitimately interpreting scientific data.
Well, I wouldn’t put it that way. Let me put it another way, temporarily avoiding the issue of evolution.
When I look at a sunset or a sunrise, I appreciate its beauty.
I also know that the gorgeous colours of the sunlight at that time of day are caused because the atmosphere is the thickness it is, so that the angle of light through the Earth’s atmosphere when perceived by the human eye means the light refracts at a shorter wavelength so that the light which we perceive as blue when the sun is (more or less) shining directly downwards, we can perceive as multiple shades of red/orange/yellow/purple when the sun is shining at an angle to the observer. It all works because our eyes are the size they are and the world is the size it is and the atmosphere is the thickness it is and hey: sunsets!
I enjoy the beauty of the sunset and I enjoy knowing the scientific explanation for the sunset – which I also find beautiful in an entirely different way.
Just as I think a Christian can enjoy the beauty of the myth of Creationism, and the beauty of the Theory of Evolution: because while it is a lovely story that God made the world, and I would not want to take that story away from anyone, it is an entirely different form of beauty than the beauty of scientific truth – which includes, of course, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Children may learn all the different creation myths their culture tells in classes on comparative religion or literature – but when they study biology, they shouldn’t be told that the reason there are multiple different forms of finch on the Galapagos Islands is because “God did it”. In some sense, if you’re a person of faith, this is true – but it is not a useful thing to say in a science class.
You cannot study a basic science like biology without knowing Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Denying it or arguing for a parallel explanation involves running the field of biological science back to the 1850s.
A “competitive” pluralistic approach to science forces each worldview’s adherents to be clear, accurate, and precise as much as possible. This only helps the consumer of science to have more confidence that outcomes are sound when building upon its findings.
Well, yes. That’s the basics of science. That’s why creationism, or any variation thereof, does not belong in a biology class: it has long since been shown, in the scientific sense, to be false.
A person of faith is free to believe that God created the law of natural selection in order to create species: or that God created the world 6000 years ago as is and also created all the scientific evidence that shows the Earth is about five billion years old and that we evolved from a complicated chemical soup in the Earth’s oceans about 2.2 billion years ago. But those arguments are not scientific, precisely because they are not based on any evidence.
There is no evidence that sunsets are beautiful: I just know they are. There is evidence why we have sunsets: it’s not faith but facts. I think that people who try to introduce creationism into science classes are trying to get students to discuss why they know sunsets are beautiful (regardless of their actual opinion of sunsets) in a class on the refraction of light.
Jes,
You bring up one of the more logical arguments on pro-choice side. Along a similar line, I have heard the argument that abortion is murder, but it is better than an unwanted pregnancy and subsequent life.
Do you agree with this perspective?
More than anything, I’d like to know how you arrived at your position. Given the choice involved in becoming pregnant, I find your argument unconvincing and tending to remove the responsibility of the pregnant girl. If you want to post your thoughts on your blog, I’d be happy to continue the discussion on this point with a cross-blog conversation. I would welcome this, as I genuinely value your many insights and experiences.
We could also have a cross-blog convo on the question of science and creationism. Similarly, I’d like to know how you are so certain creationism is a myth. Stating that with such certainty strikes me as a big leap of faith. I know you have developed this position over time, and it would be ideal to know how you arrived here.
In the interest of transparency, my view is that creation is not a myth. You certainly remind me of the mystery in this. We don’t know all the details, which has led to varieties of young earth, old earth, and theistic evolution arguments in the Christian world. In any case, the argument is one of means. How did God do it? Science, at its best, allows us to pursue answers to question of means, but science stops there, and it takes a faith-based perspective to interpret it from there.
It strikes me as evidence for Divine origins when multiple layers of experience–mystery, personality (seeing sunsets as beautiful), and order (the science of the refraction of lift)–all function simultaneously in our experience within creation.
I can organize my thoughts to make the case for this kind of multi-layered experience, if you don’t mind making your case for why you see creation as a myth.
You bring up one of the more logical arguments on pro-choice side. Along a similar line, I have heard the argument that abortion is murder, but it is better than an unwanted pregnancy and subsequent life.
I don’t agree that abortion is murder.
A woman who has an abortion is – in the vast majority of abortions, those carried out early in the first trimester – not actually killing the fetus. No one is killing the fetus. The fetus is removed from the uterus, that’s all: the woman ceases to provide her bodily resources to keep the fetus alive and developing. To cease to provide bodily resources is not murder.
You may refuse to donate a kidney, and the person who could have received a kidney and lived, dies. That isn’t murder: it’s your kidney. A woman may refuse to donate her uterus, and the potential baby that could have existed if she had wanted to provide the use of her body for nine months… never exists. That isn’t murder: it’s her body.
I do agree, as noted above, that it’s thoroughly immoral to force a woman to use her body – at potential risk to her life, and likely risk to her health – to make a baby out of a fertilised egg: especially – given the number of children in need of parents – when no one wants the baby. “Adoption” is usually cried up as if it were an alternative, but that too strikes me as appalling: adoption is a last alternative to find parents for a child whose biological parents can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t care for their own child. There are always more children in need of adoptive parents than there are adoptive parents able and willing to care for them.
I feel it is thoroughly immoral and irresponsible to argue that a woman should have a baby she doesn’t want and can’t care for because (if the baby is light-skinned and able-bodied) it will be easier to find adoptive parents for that baby than it would be for any of the thousands of older children who desperately need adoptive parents to find them. In effect, encouraging a woman who has decided she wants an abortion to have the baby in order to “give it up for adoption” is treating the woman as a breeding machine to produce babies for other couples.
Given the choice involved in becoming pregnant, I find your argument unconvincing and tending to remove the responsibility of the pregnant girl.
A woman chooses pregnancy when she finds out she is pregnant and decides not to have an abortion. A woman who isn’t allowed to decide not to have an abortion isn’t allowed to choose to become pregnant: she’s forced. If she can’t get an abortion (and of course, women who don’t want to be pregnant get abortions, regardless of whether it’s legal or illegal to do so) then she is being forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will – she isn’t allowed to take responsibility for her own pregnancy,
I find your assertion, that a woman who is able to decide whether she will or will not have a baby, is “tending to remove the responsibility” completely nonsensical: responsibility comes via choice. A woman who chooses to be pregnant, or who chooses not to be by having an abortion, is being responsible. A woman who is forced is not being allowed to be responsible.
Similarly, I’d like to know how you are so certain creationism is a myth.
Well: we know via the evidence of the rocks, stones, and stars, that the Earth came into existence about 5 billion years ago as part of the solar system. We also know, from biological, chemical, and physical evidence, that the first life on Earth came into existence about 2.2 billion years ago, and we have a reasonably clear pattern of evolution, mass extinctions, etc, from then on – based on evidence, not faith.
The myths of creationism are varied: the Norse believed that beyond Muspell lay the great and yawning void named Ginnungagap, and beyond Ginnungagap lay the dark, cold realm of Niflheim, and that ice, frost, wind, rain and heavy cold emanated from Niflheim, meeting in Ginnungagap the soft air, heat, light, and soft air from Muspell, and that this created the first frost ogre, from whose body sprang the rest of creation. The various religions that originated from the Mesopotamian plains, including Judaism, tell a story that suggests a God standing on a flat surface building a world – separating the salt water from the fresh water, making the sky, populating the world with plants, then animals, then humans.
When you don’t know how something happened, it’s human nature to tell a story about it, making sense of it. The Norse didn’t know how the world had come to be, but they had seen how each year winter is followed by spring, and with spring the snow melts and plants grow and animals are born: their creation myth was a story based on their own experience. The ancient Mesopotamians didn’t know how the world had come to be, but they were the original discoverers of agriculture and the builders of the first known cities: for them, God was a grower and a maker of animals and a builder. (The Abrahamic religions creation myth is known by internal and documentary evidence to be a late and very sophisticated story, probably no earlier than the 5th century BCE: but if you read other creation myths derived from the Mesopotamian plains, you can see the family resemblance.)
Modern “creationism”, as I understand it, far from being a sincere effort to understand the world as it is, supposes that God created the world a few thousand years ago complete with all the evidence that it was actually 5 billion years old and that life evolved over billions of years. While obviously everyone is entitled to believe in any God they like, this does strike me as a particular example of “God the practical joker”. I have read strained and distorted “creationist” attempts to explain the Grand Canyon by the Biblical Great Flood.
It strikes me as evidence for Divine origins when multiple layers of experience–mystery, personality (seeing sunsets as beautiful), and order (the science of the refraction of light)–all function simultaneously in our experience within creation.
And that I can accept: but discussion of it doesn’t belong in a class on the refraction of light.
Science constitutes the factual evidence we can all follow. Bringing religious belief into a science class is wrong for multiple reasons: it’s potentially offensive to the students who don’t share the same religion, or who don’t have a religion: it’s timewasting, since the stories of creation are nothing to do with science: and the religious belief that we are made to appreciate sunsets and that the world is made so that we have sunsets to appreciate, is orthogonal to the scientific facts about sunrise and sunset.