On that first article:
The general thrust of the argument is right on. Totalitarian v. Democratic realities. But the whole "American Faith" thing, and the "will of God" thing are way off base. You just can't confuse religion and politics the way the author does (and I believe that's one of his main points!) This whole thing might be cleared up if the author would just use "American politics" instead of "American faith". But anyway, here's my rant.
It's easy to agree with the premise: They try to kill us because we represent freedom. But if we are the first free society (as is proposed in the article), then why have there before been religious wars? The author argues because authoritarian regimes hijack the religion. The author runs into a bit of a contridiction here. If religious war-mongers attack other totalitarian regimes, why argue that they are attacking us because we are not totalitarian?
I find the confusion throughout the "American Faith" and "will of God" section both logically and religiously offensive. Taking for example Christianity (I think the majority faith in America), this aspect of "American faith" would not identify the will of God as pluralistic. Considering the rest of the religions filling out American society, how many of them are pluralistic? It is a small minority of religions that claim "any philosophy is ok with God". The American political philosophy yes, it's pluralistic, open to all faiths. The American faith, no. Furthermore, religions have been exclusionary since their inception - perhaps it's their nature. I know for Christianity at least, if there's been any religious hijacking, it's been away from Christ's exclusionary philosophy towards pluralism.
"All religions believe in one God, share the same idea - establishment of a state of social justice."
-this is just wrong. There's plenty of religions that believe in multiple gods, and I'm not sure how he can claim that state social justice is a will of God, then claim next that no religion (by definition an attempted implementation of God's will) has attempted to implement that will.
"If all the religions share in one common truth then why have their followers been fighting with each other? Because, first, none of the adherents of these religions have tried to implement this will of God in their respective societies"
-this is wrong too. If I understand correctly what the author means by "this will of God" [establishment of a state of social justice], then I'd say all religions have attempted to implement this will. That is the very nature of religion.
"Second, they have allowed their faiths to mutate into exclusive clubs for the benefit of a select few, reserved for only those who believe strictly in their ways of life. "
-ugh. I'm no theologian, but I've read a bit, and I've never come across any religion that didn't say: "if you don't do it in a certain way, you won't get the rewards." That certain way might be believing in something, acting a certain way, or thinking a certain way. And the three I know of, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all started that way. Buddhism too.
"Just like God's will, America believes in the universal truth of unity in diversity. In this faith, everyone, every faith and every ethnic and regional group can be an American without giving up his or her individuality. American faith is all inclusive and promises to work for everyone without any prejudice or discrimination - just the way God's will intends this world to be"
-This is the offensive claim. My faith is my faith and my politics are my politics. I'm a Christian and I'm an American. Christianity is exclusive to those who follow Christ. I'm very glad my American heritage allows me to believe that way without threat of persecution. I will defend that right with my life. Don't try to tell me that because I'm American my faith is pluralistic. It doesn't work that way.
and finally:
"US is the first state in the history that commands total loyalty of its citizens. "
-Uh. Total loyalty?? Either this guy is badly using hyperbole or he needs to visit Oklahoma, Waco, Montana, read about McCarthy, or something.
|