Anyone want to give me a synopsis of last weeks discussion?

Last week I was sick and didn’t attend class, rather than trek it to Manhattan and cough on you all. Vitamin C and garlic always seem to get the job done though. Would any of you guys mind quickly touching upon the key points you discussed during class so that I can jump right back into it tomorrow?

Just after starting Terror in the Mind of God I noticed how perfectly this second reading complimented our first since it expanded upon many of the major ideas we had recently discussed. Kirsch’s writing, the Book of Revelation, and our talks about apocalyptic history had lead me into deep thought about them and their correlation to religious extremism, (as I wrote in my last blog.) While Revelation itself, as the apocalyptic text of the New Testament, and Kirsch, related to how Revelation had shaped the Christian institutions with great effect on western history, the Juergensmeyer explored extremists from a wide range of religions, and their personal motivations and explanations for reaching the places they have.

I think Juergensmeyer affectively captivates us, the readers, by first discussing “Christian Militancy in the West.” Though we all could probably tell in great detail every step we took on September 11, 2001, and thus are quite familiar with the effects Islamic extremism have had upon our generation and culture, Christian militancy is a reminder that every religion, when perverted, can be cruel and violent. It also hits close to home since we’re talking about numerous acts of violence committed by our citizens, against out citizens, on our soil.

The 1990’s witnessed a number of domestic acts of violence by pro-life and other Christian extremists. Juergensmeyer eerily describes his encounters with Reverend Michael Bray, convicted in 1989 of a number of abortion clinic bombings in the DC metropolitan area. What’s so eerie to me is that the author clearly has trouble believing at first that Bray could be capable of doing what he did, due to his demeanor and general presentation. “I found nothing sinister of intensely fanatical about him. He was a cheerful, charming, handsome man in his early 40’s who liked to be called Mike.” (20) Bray views abortion as murder, so it is morally OK to kill a practicing Dr. who does abortions, though killing a retired abortionist would be retroactive killing and not OK in his view. As the rest of the chapter exposes – Bray is not alone in having violent and religiously extreme views on abortion, the fate of Christianity, and America itself, which is really what interested me. I was less familiar with Christian identity though very cognizant about who Timothy McVeigh is.

In my last blog I touched upon religious extremists in our country by saying: ”it's REALLY SCARY to think that many fellow Americans - namely those literally in charge of our Government… take [The Book of Revelation] as the literal word of God.” The depictions and visuals are so wild, the theme so vengeful and intense, that even though this text is extremely mainstream in Christian thought, it all of sudden seemed quite “extreme” in nature to me. I was rebutted with the idea that as long as our leaders are not pressing their beliefs on us, why shouldn’t they have the same religious freedom which we all do.* Further more, fear of others faith is exactly what prompted the experiences of the Jews and Christians in the 100’s A.D. who were persecuted and tortured by the Romans. To clarify my initial point, and in light of the Juergensmeyer reading, what bothers me is the slippery slope that religious devotion, extremism, and militancy seems to fall on together. As Juergensmeyer depicts, religious militancy is not found in one predominant religion (as Fox news seems to insist) but all. A good leader, no matter if they are religious or secularly, will be a good leader, just as a bad leader will always be a bad one. I am all for religious freedom, it is one of the major pillars of our nation, but I do not condone (as I know none of you do either) violent acts in the name of god. I believe in our civil liberties, and taking “pre-emptive” action against our own citizens to prevent this would be spying and illegal. But having leaders with misguided policies, a quick trigger, and very strong religious convictions is troublesome to a secularly minded college kid growing up in an increasingly unstable unipolar world. (Again… you’re right though. The apocalyptic tradition at its best perhaps?)

*It is interesting to note that this idea comes back up on page 67 in Islam’s “Neglected Duty”. Abouhalima comments on why Muslim activists target the U.S. and simultaneously praises America for it’s religious freedom, saying that it is easier for him to follow his religion here than it would have been back in Egypt.

*** After writing this I also realized how my own knowledge of history perhaps morphs the way I view secular national leaders versus religious ones. Before reading Kirsch, though I had a solid knowledge of Colonial history, I had never really realized how large a role apocalyptic theory played in the vision and fight for our new nation during the War for Independence. These two factors lead me to an interesting question I thought I’d throw out there. Instead of F.D.R. being a wealthy w.a.s.p. from the North, imagine if he was basically the exact same President, still a democrat and the creator of the New Deal, but from the south instead and devoutly religious, the grandson of a slave owner. It took a lot of coaxing, and an attack at Pearl Harbor, for the America people to support the war, which ultimately removed us from the Great Depression. How do you think history would judge Roosevelt if instead of defending freedom and our European allies by defeating evil, he was vocally calling Hitler the antichrist and saying that the U.S. must defeat Nazi Germany to fulfill the teaching of Revelation?