Backstab

 'If the reports are true, it is reminiscent of the actions of enemies during the cold war'

When your friends act like enemies... When your friends have lost their way. 

Sarkozy

In the wake of the Toulouse siege and the killing of self-proclaimed al-Qaeda operative Mohamed Merah, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has stated:

From now on, any person who habitually consults websites that advocate terrorism or that call for hatred and violence will be punished by the law. Telegraph.uk

Of course we might ask the President what precisely constitutes "terrorism" or how one should understand "advocate." Does activity calling for a new form of government fall into the category? We might also wish to inquire as to the content of the term "consults." At what point, Monsieur President, does a consultation become "habitual?" After two times? A dozen? Is it merely the observation of a website, perhaps out of curiosity, or is it only observation with malice? How can one tell the difference? He does not say, for example, that anyone who consults a certain website and then commits a crime will be punished, but rather that consulting a website is itself a crime.

The logic here is Christian but with a twist. In Christian teaching, one can look but not think (looking at a woman to lust after her is the same as committing adultery), for Sarkozy, one perhaps might think, but they certainly cannot look. They are two sides of the same coin. What the ultimate totalitarian ruler would demand is that one not look or think. To achieve this one might meld together the right leaning secular state (France) and Christian moral teaching. One will deal with the outward appearance of things, while the other will monitor the inner condition of its citizens. Only then can we be safe.

The Political Subject -Egypt-

Recent events in Egypt provide the opportunity to elucidate the example of a Badiouan political subject, reactive subject, and obscure subject. The Evental trace, to be named in the statement by Egyptian youth: “Bread, Freedom, Human Dignity,” comparable to revolutionary slogans the world over, indicates the activation of an Evental subjectivity, a subjectivity in which identarian predicates do not play a role: “I don’t belong to any particular political party, I’m one of the people.” At every point the newly subjectivated body must choose to be faithful to the Evental trace or to betray it, to defy curfews which deny it both freedom and dignity, or submit to the wishes of the errant superpower etc.

The reactionary subject is known by the dismissal of the Evental trace as Event. The “demonstrators” will eventually “drift away.” They do not represent the will of the people: “For all the west, starting with the United States, [Mubarak] has always been considered a wisest man and a point of reference. Compared to a population of 80 million, the number of people on the streets is really low" (Berlusconi). Or Sarah Palin’s statements: “...so we need to find out who was behind all of the turmoil and the revolt and the protests so that good decisions can be made in terms of who we will stand by and support" ( This comment further reveals the conservative reactionist’s denial that the body of a truth can be the true source of a creative novelty. Why, for example, must Palin look for a ghostly spectre behind the uprising, rather than recognize a legitimate movement of the people?). It further denies the ability of the activated body to carry out the consequences of its statements without a compromise of its original position, or it undermines its role in the unfolding of the process. For example, Hilary Clinton’s statement: “... our assessment is that the Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”

The obscure subject wills the destruction of the politically subjectivated body. The baltagea, pro-Mubarak “thugs,” activate a fascist political component with the use of “clubs, machetes, swords and straight razors on Wednesday to try to crush Egypt’s democracy movement.” Evidence of this obscure subjectivity can also be found in its naming of an “atemporal fetish,” in this case the designation “War Hero.” Mubarak himself precisely designates the obscurantist’s formulation of “the incorruptible and indivisible over-body” in a televised address during the protests: “The nation remains. Visitors come and go but ancient Egypt will remain eternal, its banner and safekeeping will pass from one generation to the next. It is up to us to ensure this in pride and dignity.”

What about Haiti?

I am outraged and frustrated by the way the international community, including Canada and the US, has handled the humanitarian crisis in Haiti. Of all those hundreds of millions of dollars, indeed, billions of dollars concerned citizens of these countries have given for the relief effort, only a staggering 20% has reached the people of Haiti since the catastrophe in January. While the US State Department decides whether or not it should honour a promise it made of 1.15 billion dollars in aid, 442 people have died of a totally preventable cholera outbreak, and over 1.3 million are living in "tents." I put it in quotations because I can't justify calling these pieces of scrap materials "tents." A legal intern named Beatrice Lindstrom, who works and lives in Haiti describes it this way:

"But each time the rain falls, I still struggle to turn my mind away from Port-au-Prince’s internally displaced people, especially the hundreds of families living on the street out side my apartment in makeshift tents pulled together from tarp, scrap metal and sheets. For so many of Haiti’s IDPs, rain means no sleep. It means standing up through out the night. It means that the water will transform the floors of their homes into a muddy mess that seeps through their belongings and soaks their beds."

How many homes and shelters have our hundreds of millions of dollars help build for the displaced people of Haiti?: 19,000. And these shouldn't even be called homes. No they're referred to as "transitional wooden shelters." This doesn't even scratch the surface of the need in Haiti. I find it incredible that when the financial sector was threatened with collapse, literally billions of dollars were pumped into the very banks and financial corporations that helped bring about the collapse itself, and this happened in a mere fraction of the time it has taken to build 19,000 shelters, some 10 months after 250,000 people died and over a tenth of the population was displaced because of the earthquake in Haiti. It has become glaringly obvious what the interests of our governments are. While they will scramble like chickens clucking that the sky is falling during a financial crisis, making promises of big bucks to finance corporations (and delivering), once the initial shock of the catastrophe in Haiti was over, it's business as usual. As one of many people who donated to the effort in Haiti, I officially protest the use of only 20% of my donation. I wasn't giving to government or NGOs, I wasn't giving to marketing agencies to promote these same NGOs, or to their CEOs. I, along with literally millions of people, gave to the people of Haiti, every penny, to help ease their suffering and rebuild a life. Ok, realistically I expected a small part of my donation to be used for other purposes (salaries, logistical needs, etc), but only 20% actually reaching the people isn't good enough. It's criminal.

What about Haiti?

Robespierre 8 Thermidor II (A translation)

Mais elle existe, je vous en atteste, âmes sensibles et pures; elle existe, cette passion tendre, impérieuse, irrésistible, tourment et délices des cœurs magnanimes, cette horreur profonde de la tyrannie, ce zèle compatissant pour les opprimés, cet amour sacré de la patrie, cet amour plus sublime et plus saint de l'humanité, sans lequel une grande révolution n'est qu'un crime éclatant qui détruit un autre crime. Elle existe, cette ambition généreuse de fonder sur la terre la première République du monde...

But there exists, I will attest, souls that are feeling and pure; it exists, that tender passion, imperious, irresistible, torment and delight of magnanimous hearts, that deep horror of tyranny, that compassionate zeal for the oppressed, that sacred love of country, that love sublime and holiest of mankind, without which a great revolution is just a loud crime that destroys another crime. It does exist, that generous ambition to establish on earth the first Republic in the world...

Capitalism and Poverty

Margaret Bourke-White

I will summarize at least 5 ways that capitalism creates/contributes to poverty:

1) The preconditions needed for capitalist modes of production create poverty

The process whereby wage labourers are appropriated for use in industrial environments necessarily means the destruction of non-wage modes of production, i.e. the guilds and craft associations, which in turn leads to a severing of the connection between land and labour. This has happened and is continuing to happen in Africa and Asia in large numbers where poverty is additionally created by the fundamental necessity for labour to move, i.e. rural to urban, leading to the breakdown of traditional social configurations and often causing living conditions to considerably deteriorate.

2) Commodification increases poverty

As commodification becomes ever more pervasive, cultural norms are modified to reflect “general standards of private consumption.” Wages are the basic precondition of realizing these modified norms. As others have pointed out, the inability to realize these basic norms means relative poverty.

3) Capitalistic production of waste produces poverty

This may be seen clearly in the case of the production of weapons, tobacco and other socially harmful substances for mass consumption. In addition the by-products of pesticides and nuclear power in the form of nuclear waste often contaminate the water table and thus crops and human health. Rather than allocate funds for health victims of capitalistic modes of production and commodities, researchers have argued that governments in the 20th century used surpluses for military purposes, further endangering and pauperizing global citizens.

4) Capitalistic environmental destruction has caused and will cause further poverty

This is related to the previous point but at a much greater level. While some believe capital will be able to appropriate clean technologies for production, the reality is this process is moving much too slowly to prevent global environmental catastrophe. This is partly because capitalistic modes of production are always pushing towards more and more productivity which require more energy and produce more waste. Researchers believe that due to increasing global warming and climate change, there have already been large migrations of victims, in excess of those migrations caused by global conflict. These mass migrations (sometimes numbering in the hundreds of millions) have the inevitable consequence of causing extreme poverty, even as aid organizations and governments strain to meet the need. Unfortunately these migrations are only likely to increase, especially from coastal regions.

5) Capitalism creates poverty through the mechanism of accelerated technological change

Capitalism seeks to increase profit and productivity through the use of technological innovation. As the pace of productivity increases, the ability of labour to adapt to these changes decreases, as is evidenced by developments in India and elsewhere. Technology which allows greater productivity leads particularly to the reduction of the requirement of unskilled labour, which also allows for the fragmentation of the production process itself, leading to greater outsourcing. This process is also evident here in the West.

A Brief Response

The preacher in me will sometimes utter that age old dictum: “Don’t take my word for it, look it up!” There are at least two reasons ministers do this: 1) It establishes their authority as one who is “in the know”, whose opinions are in fact the opinions of Scripture and scholars, etc; and 2) It encourages the flock to read more Bible, to open their books once and a while and engage in their religious beliefs. Even though I no longer speak from that blessed podium, I still have recourse to the dictum for just these two reasons: a) While I do engage in theoretical exercises I begin from a foundation built upon scientific research, study, and academic opinion; and b) I encourage anyone who engages my thinking to at least show the courtesy of doing the same, even at some minimal level before making unfortunate statements or ad hominem attacks.

It would be simple to dismiss such things out of hand, but I’ve customarily responded to comments on my blog out of respect and the principle of mutual engagement (unless of course the comment be a hearty “amen!” or something similar). Needless to say, I will respond to comments made by a friend regarding the role capital plays in global poverty. I will be brief, however, as there are many, many good books one might turn to for an explication of this well-documented phenomenon, and my time has become very precious lately. Please see the next blog post for a brief summary of my position.

Pastor Terry Jones

Photo Credit: Chip Litherland for The New York Times

What Dove Outreach Ministries’ (Pentecostal) Pastor Terry Jones fails to do is quite frankly what a lot of people fail to do: think deeper about the complexity of the social fields in which Muslims live. I say “Muslims” here because obviously we’re dealing specifically with the claims Jones is making about Islam, but it could just as easily apply to any religion or people. When asked for Jones' response to the deaths and injuries sparked in Afghanistan by his plans to burn the Qur’an he said: "We're pointing the finger at the wrong person. I haven't even done anything. I think it reveals ... the violence in Islam” (1). This kind of surface thinking utterly fails to understand the more fundamental social and economic complexities involved. This isn’t the first time Jones has gotten into trouble for his radical behaviour. In 2009 he was expelled from a church in Germany where he had demanded complete obedience from church members, preached a radical form of demonology (not that uncommon in the Pentecostal assemblies I would argue), and resulted in a number of members having to seek out therapy for the psychological damage he caused (2).

What would a Leftist critique of Jones’ statements be? Quite obviously this doesn’t come down to a matter of religion, but economics. I will not comment on the other important aspects of the social field, of which economics is a part, or on the ethnic and political aspects, which are also fundamentally important. I merely want to highlight the irony involved in Jones’ understanding of Islam. The Pentecostal church has always been known as the church of the poor. It is growing like wildfire in the global South, and churches in Africa, Asia, and South America are increasingly sending missionaries to Europe and North America to preach the gospel. What Jones has failed to analyze is the connection between poverty and violence in what he has called “Muslim” violence. In almost every instance of so-called “Muslim” violence, it has in fact been a violence of the oppressed. For example, just today “Islamic” insurgents carried out a suicide attack in Russia’s Caucasus region, killing at least 18 people. Was it politically motivated? Absolutely. What Denis Dyomkin at Reuter’s news agency astutely observes is that “The blast was a new blow to the Kremlin, which is struggling to contain a growing Islamist insurgency in the North Caucasus, a strip of impoverished, ethnically mixed provinces along predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia's southern border” (3). Jones’ own politically Rightist orientation reflects the very angst so often found to characterize other right-oriented commentators and their counterparts abroad: the fundamental opposition between rich and poor. Religion is a smokescreen Jones. Properly speaking, Islam is not "of the devil": Poverty and its self-deluded big brother, Capitalism, deserve that distinction.

Chomsky on Gaza/Flotilla

Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime. The editors of the London Guardian are quite right to say that "If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a Nato taskforce would today be heading for the Somali coast." It is worth bearing in mind that the crime is nothing new. For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats in international waters between Cyprus and Lebanon, killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes bringing them to prisons in Israel including secret prison/torture chambers, sometimes holding them as hostages for many years.

Israel assumes that it can carry out such crimes with impunity because the US tolerates them and Europe generally follows the US lead. Much the same is true of Israel's pretext for its latest crime: that the Freedom Flotilla was bringing materials that could be used for bunkers for rockets. Putting aside the absurdity, if Israel was interested in stopping Hamas rockets it knows exactly how to proceed: accept Hamas offers for a cease-fire. In June 2008, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire agreement. The Israeli government formally acknowledges that until Israel broke the agreement on November 4, invading Gaza and killing half a dozen Hamas activists, Hamas did not fire a single rocket. Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire. The Israeli cabinet considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to launch its murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead on December 27. Evidently, there is no justification for the use of force "in self-defense" unless peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case they were not even tried, although—or perhaps because—there was every reason to suppose that they would succeed. Operation Cast Lead is therefore sheer criminal aggression, with no credible pretext, and the same is true of Israel's current resort to force.

The siege of Gaza itself does not have the slightest credible pretext. It was imposed by the US and Israel in January 2006 to punish Palestinians because they voted "the wrong way" in a free election, and it was sharply intensified in July 2007 when Hamas blocked a US-Israeli attempt to overthrow the elected government in a military coup, installing Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan. The siege is savage and cruel, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that. It is the latest stage of long-standing Israeli plans, backed by the US, to separate Gaza from the West Bank.

These are only the bare outlines of very ugly policies, in which Egypt is complicit as well.

Noam Chomsky, June 2, 2010

Slave Labour

Some more pictures of worker’s conditions here

Moving to Dubai, Kuwait, and other Middle Eastern countries, men and women from the Philippines, India, and other South-east Asian locations, look for better work opportunities. Upon arrival their passports are taken from them. They soon discover the wages they were promised will be much lower. For years they are forced to work in dangerous conditions to pay back the cost of travel to their new jobs. Any sign of protest will invite beatings or arrest by police. Žižek is right to be critical: “This is the reality sustained by great “humanitarians” like Brad Pitt who invested heavily in Dubai.”

Living in Kuwait I have my own experiences of this. My partner was on her way to work one morning, and stuck in traffic she noticed a Kuwaiti man pull a Bangladeshi from a taxi and beat him with a belt. No one did anything to help. We were also told that workers could get a day off work if temperatures reached over 50 C (which frequently occurs: tomorrow’s forecasted temp is 53 C), but of course this would set construction back, so media outlets (presumably with owners whose interests reach into the building industry) would rarely publish temperatures over 49 C.

The shiny new skyscrapers and giant shopping centres of the Middle East, indeed whole cities are built with the sweat and blood of workers from Apac nations. The luxury contained in these shiny walls serves only to obscure the poverty and desperation of the slum dwellers outside. There will -there must- be a day of reckoning...

"Anarchy"

The actions of the so-called "Anarchists" in Toronto today are condemned. I hesitate here to use the term "Anarchists". Those whom I refer to are hoodlums and cowards. Can one imagine Emma Goldman, for example, hiding her face beneath a handkerchief while throwing a brick through a Starbucks window? She had too much dignity to do either. These are the actions of the childish, the urban frustrated, the impotent. What righteousness, what fidelity to the cause it must have taken to hide behind rags and break windows! Are these actions anything but a violent passage à l'act, reflecting in their perpetrators the very ends they wish to accomplish: the eradication of the degenerate dirt of city life? They, for a moment, become the degenerate dirt themselves, an ironical -becoming- of the urban symptomatic whose source they wish to destroy. Are their actions not a symptom of the urban pathology itself? It is no wonder one can find "Anarchist" journals containing cartoons advocating the destruction of the urban environment and a reversion to our primitive rural origins. Step 1: Tear up bricks and sidewalks to destroy and drive away capitalists and police. Step 2: Shut down the city through whatever means possible. Step 3: Allow nature to overtake the city. Step 4: Throw away all our clothing and live a vegan lifestyle. Here Žižek's prescription for the Left is as pertinent as ever: "Marx has said: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it..' But is it not now more important than ever to re-examine this? Rather than try to change the world (unthinkingly), is it not time for philosophers to interpret it so that proper action may be taken?" This is finally how one should read the contemporary urban Anarchist movement: as symptomatic of an urban pathology, complete with Utopian ecological vision and rites of passage.

Christian Charity

I was recently reminded of a “real” which we should often reflect upon: Christians give more to charity, do more charitable work, than any other single group. Studies indicate that the churchgoer gives up to twice as much to charity as any other person, religious or non-religious (giving even more to non-religious affiliated charities than non-Christians). In addition to charitable work, Christians also provide an impressive degree of first-response disaster relief. Name a disaster in the last fifty years and a Christian-affiliated response team was among the first ones there.

Even if one takes into account the fact that a great deal of Christian giving goes towards “ministers' salaries, church upkeep, and Sunday School” the simple fact is that Christians still give more than any other group. What can explain this?

I will delve into the realm of “motivations” only to say this: whether the Christian gives more because they “are forced to” (an ignorant claim I’ve often heard), i.e. it is their (absolute) duty as a Christian, or because they have a genuine concern for the suffering of the world, matters little to me. In fact, one could argue that "giving as a duty" takes nothing away from the charitable act, but speaks a great deal rather about the integrity of an ideology that requires providing assistance to others. What concerns me here is the outcome: Do the suffering receive aid? Motivations are a moot point (though I would accept an argument which attacks a “charity” with strings attached). In a twist on St. Paul’s discussion concerning the preaching of the gospel: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice” (Phil. 1:18) -What does it matter? (Why question the motives of the Christian here?) The important thing is that Christians give more, whether from false motives or true, to the aid organizations of the world. And because of this I rejoice.

Apart from motivations, one of the major contributing factors to this incredible amount of Christian giving must certainly be related to organizational structure. I've touched on this briefly in a previous blog (in relation to the possibility of reconciliation): Isn't it precisely the Christian system, a system which provides a structure within which giving is made a simple matter, a system in which large groups of people are effectively empowered to give, in which giving itself is a kind of cherished narrative within the community, that has contributed to the success of Christian charity? (This should give those anti-organizational Christians pause: Do not forget the power of an organized people to change the world).

I agree here with my beloved philosopher: The way to show our respect for an authority (an individual or organization, political or not) is to be ruthlessly critical. I want to add: And let us also give honour where honour is due.

The Radical Core of Christianity

There is an increasing trend of materialists/atheists appropriating the language of Christianity for ideological reasons. It is not simply that Christianity, as an ancient and rich source of a wide range of philosophical and scientific thought provides some "models" or "linguistic schemas" for materialist appropriation. These interpreters are interested in a much more profound meaning of Christianity: Christianity as the religion of the exit from the religious.

It has been said that the only authentic atheism is one which has taken part in the Christian experience. What does this mean? A brief theological excursus is in order.

What took place when Jesus first appeared in Mary's womb? The writer of the gospel of John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Later he said, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among men." The incarnation of God himself took place in Mary's womb. It is no wonder she was called "Theotokos" or "God-bearer" by later Christian thinkers. What was necessary for this to occur? St. Paul says in his letter to the Philippians that Jesus had to "make himself nothing", literally, to "empty" himself, what theologians refer to as Christ's kenotic emptying. Empty himself of what? Of his divinity, his divine power. This kenosis is key for Death of God theologians like Thomas Altizer. It was here that they see a definite (de) evolution in God's being. God became man in Christ Jesus. He was indeed a man, but a man who was a God emptied of his power. The next step is crucial: the God-man was crucified. He was put to death. These interpreters see in Christ's "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" a confession of helplessness, a sign of his final kenotic existence. (It is interesting to note that the Gospel of Peter records Jesus as saying: "My power, my power, why have you forsaken me"). What took place on the cross was not just the death of a man, but the death of God. God merely remained consistent in finishing the final kenotic gesture and emptying the cup of his being to the last drop and then smashing the cup.

It is at this moment that Christianity prepares a way for the exit from the religious. Heaven lies vacant, the Christian God has emptied out any meaning the word "God" has ever had. There is no "big Other", no final Guarantor of meaning, no Master behind the curtain pulling the strings (and is Zizek not correct in saying that even in Stalinism there remains a big Other in the guise of "History"?). The stage lies silent and the audience suddenly realizes they're the main act from now on. Right away some people understand and start forming emancipatory communities. It's up to people to change the world, to emancipate humanity. The Spirit of Christ is now interpreted as the will and the action of the emancipatory people. Did Jesus not say, "where two or three are gathered in my name I am there with them"? Suddenly a light dawns on a radically new egalitarian community. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is no female and male..." The Spirit, to quote Hegel, "rises up out of the foaming ferment of finitude." Here now is the only locus of the Spirit: the new universal community. It is literally the people's fidelity to the Event.

The universal collective is soon challenged, however, by a particularist appropriation of Jesus. What this Christian God has done is more than some can bear. No, God cannot be allowed to die. So they constructed the myth of his resurrection. The radical message, the gospel, was soon embedded in an institutionalized ideology. The original heresy was committed: they identified the Church as the body of Christ, forced the particular at the expense of the universal.

The atheist challenge to Christians is clear here: Sacrifice the "Church" as its original founder once sacrificed himself, so that the kenotic will of God may be fulfilled. It's time to reclaim the radical core of Christianity: Christianity as the original and most complete atheism. It's time to form a new world order.

The Mask of Pluralism

There is something suspect in the pluralist notion of society, a place where different cultures and values meet, but a place nonetheless where there is dialogue (even if it is agonistic rather than antagonistic). The only (seeming) condition is that in order to come to the table, to be a part of this society in the first place, any claim to central authority must be waived. So for example, political pluralism cannot exist in a society where a particular ideology is time and again foisted upon the public, where time and again the proponents of this ideology try to gain ruling majority in a bid for political hegemony (and eventually the complete conversion of the masses). Usually in this regard (and let's be brutally honest here), the unspoken referent is Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, or perhaps even secularization in some contexts.

So what is the problem here? I see here an assumption being made by those supporters of pluralism: namely, that there can be no central authority, except the commitment to pluralist values and renunciation of anything else that may endanger these. Supporters of pluralism will even go so far as to suggest that in certain circumstances force must be used to deactivate those who pose a real threat to these ideals (William Connolly for example). The problem then becomes, what difference is there between a pluralist political hegemony and that of one of these fundamentalist groups in regard to central authority claims? Are they both not willing to use force to uphold their ideals? Do they both not claim to offer what is Good, and therefore something that should be embraced universally?

I feel here that one should not be fooled by the appearance of pluralist tolerance and willingness to "listen" to the Other. Proponents of pluralism claim that all opinions are taken into consideration before making policy. But isn't this very refusal to accept claims about authority already an indication that pluralist "dialogue" is a smokescreen? What pluralists (part of the current liberal democratic regime in the West) are saying is: "It's ok to be a Christian or a Muslim as long as you empty your beliefs of any offending characteristics." Who decides what those characteristics are, the "majority"? What happens when a democratic majority may hold a conception of central authority that is fundamentalist in nature? This doesn't even take into consideration the role of mass marketing and indoctrination. In the words of one lover of humanity and freedom: "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."

Olympic Fever

Well Olympic fever is hitting the nation. Not everyone has caught the bug though. Major protests are being organized in Vancouver by various anti-poverty and anti-capitalist groups. Check out this website for the reasons why (click on the title of this blogpost).

On Religious Conflict

The latest clashes in the Nigerian city of Jos between Christians and Muslims have left 200 dead. Jos finds itself located in Nigeria about midway between the Muslim North and the Christian South, its population almost equally divided religiously as well. The latest round of carnage was sparked by the proposal of a new mosque near a Christian dominant neighbourhood. The city has seen past bloodshed and death over Christian/Muslim tensions. There are just over 71 million Christians in Nigeria according to a 2008 census. That's more than 3x the number of Christians in Canada (2001 StatsCan census). There is almost an equal number of Muslims in Nigeria.

Anyone who thinks religious conflict is a thing of the past, or only a thing that happens "over there" is in for a surprise. The fact is, most of the world's population (about 6.8 billion) is religiously inclined (about 86%). Numbers are growing everyday, and as populations are forced into closer and closer living situations, sparks are bound to fly. It doesn't take a prophet to see that incidents like the one in Jos will only become more common.

For people who listen to Western Muslims and Christians condemn the violence with dismissals like "This isn't Islam!" or "This isn't the spirit of Christianity!" it becomes more and more confusing. If this isn't what these religions stand for, why is there such a vast number of people calling themselves by "Muslim" or "Christian" engaging in conflict? Can it be social and economic factors? This is the usual move by Western liberal media. One can't honestly question aloud whether violence isn't inherently part of the religious paradigm itself, at least not in the media. Until these kinds of conversations are openly held in a public forum without labeling those who participate as intolerant how can we ever get beyond the Western-centric bias that religion is a private matter?