The point of the piece concerns a) the mendacious portrayal of Islam as some powerful threat to the United States and the West and b) the idea that one religion or another, including Islam, is a somehow a unique cause of violence and oppression. When violence and oppression are so widespread that it is clear there is nothing unique about one manifestation or another other than its cultural or religious trappings. The source of Islamic terrorism has something to do with the prevalence of frustration in Islamic societies — something that has its source in colonialism, autocratic government, poverty, internecine conflict, and other factors. That there is violence and politics in the Koran is no surprise — many ancient texts reflect the violence of their times (the Old Testament will trump the Koran in this any day). That some ideology or another is used to give meaning to violent responses to frustration is not surprising either — whether it’s Christianity, Islam, nationalism, the rights of workers, and so on. These ideologies are there to sanctify and justify. But they are not themselves a source of violence. Even the religious wars of Western history were run through with considerations of power, politics, regional rivalries and frustrations, and so on.

This is not to say that religion other ideologies have very close ties to violence. In fact, you could make a speculative anthropological argument that religion comes on the scene as the kind of violence that creates communities in the first place. In other words, the formation of communities requires some sort of force, some glue, something authoritative. The more transcendent the glue, the more powerful the society: the more likely its members are to obey its laws, the more passionate its members will be in fighting of its enemies. All of this is run through with violence (for those outside the community, war) and the threat of violence (for those inside the community, punishment for the transgression of law).

If it seems like I’m contradicting myself, let me clarify: the point is not about the close relationship between religion and violence, the point is that the violence comes first, and religion comes second as transcendent justification. That Christianity has been tamed to some extent is the result of the affluence and political stability of Christian societies. That there are terrorists who seem to be motivated by Islam does not mean there’s anything special about Islam; it means there’s political instability, and so religion takes on more of its anthropologically regressive role. But again, there are other ideologies that form this role in Western societies, including nationalism.

So a) there’s nothing unique about Islam and its relationship to oppression and violence, and b) on the scale of threats faced by the West, it is low — and not surprisingly so, given the fact that violence rationalized by religion is itself an indication of societal weakness and instability.

In short:

McEwan does not know himself. He’s too vain to understand his own flawed psychology, his own ressentiment.

So goes the world, yes?

Dennet, Hitchens, and others think they understand your point about self-delusion (or collective delusion) all too well, without vanity of their own. They wield Nietzschean skepticism and perspicacity, at least in their own minds.

They are tired of the limits of human reason, and of behaviors that protect those limits. They think religions are the ruined monuments of those limits.

Good work on this blog. Consider yourself StumbledUpon.

That is why we want everyone to be able to Post so they can start a conversation about an idea they have to make this happen.

Stop on by and check it out. By all means leave a comment and sign up to blog with us as we figure out what needs to be done to return our Fourth Amendment Rights and our rule of law.

If you have a blog already and you become a poster we will link to your site.

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/

At this time most “experts” believe that even if additional supplies of crude oil are discovered there will only be enough to support demands for about ten years. So it is important that we not allow new oil discoveries be used to put us back into the “business as usual situation” resulting in the nation returning to the same crisis situation in ten years.

If new oil explorations results in the discovery of new fossil fuels it will temporarily help reduce market speculation and give us time to develop new industries in alternate energy. These industries should become part of America’s new vision for the future. This vision can also help guide us towards becoming a nation which demonstrates to the world how serious we are about reducing global pollution.

Sorry, Antarctica.

But let me modify my point: I like lots of crap. Bad books, TV, movies, you name it. But like bad food, I recognize that taken in excess, they’re bad for me. That a unimaginative and badly written children’s book would dominate the cultural landscape in the way it has is a shame.

I love a story about a child and the eternal fight between good and evil — and that’s why I hate Harry Potter. He is Evil. If I could get to Harryland, or whatever it’s called, I would hunt him to the ends of his preparatory school and drown him in a toilet and all the books with him. In the name of Good.

Actually, there really is no drama of good and evil in these books, and that’s Byatt’s point. There is nothing larger at stake — the fate of the world, for instance. It’s really all just about Harry’s personal safety.

It’s not everyone who likes Harry Potter is an idiot — readers’ ability to imbue such meager offerings with their own fantasies is in some ways an advantage, as Byatt points out. But we shouldn’t be unwilling to face the fact that just because we like something doesn’t mean it’s any good.

So, why don’t you tell me this? How many of your friends have read Harry Potter and enjoyed it and how many of them are asstards? You’re an intelligent fellow so I doubt it very much that you associate with the type of numskulls that Byatt professes HP readers to be.

I do agree with you…this kind of generalization does make you a snob. I still like you but if you and Byatt think that you’re above a story of a child and the eternal fight between good and evil, thats fine too. More ’smut’ for the rest of us!

She does have more experience, but what worked in the ’90’s won’t work in this decade as too much has happened - the fall-out of the China magnet sale signed by her husband, the Columbia deal, etc………Jobs lost due to NAFTA…….

As I see it - they had their chance; it is someone else’s turn. A fresh idea, new things happening!!! Sounds good to me. I don’t have to worry about my candidate until November!