Here'a an interesting snippet from the second article:
Quote:
7. Avoiding religious wars: The aftermath of the Reformation sank to absurd depths in the Thirty Years War (1618-48), during which Protestants killed Catholics and other Protestants, and Catholics killed Protestants and other Catholics -- a free-for-all. Exhausted, Europe moved into the Enlightenment, which the church has been trying to understand and reconcile with dogma for nearly four hundred years now. The Enlightenment brought skepticism, yes, but it also brought tolerance. Thankfully, many segments of the church in America and elsewhere thus have learned to behave themselves and no longer to persecute or kill one another and unbelievers over doctrine and faith. Protestants and Catholics, fundamentalists and liberals, the Religious Right and the Religious Left can now disagree without violence.
Since religion permeates all of life in Islamic civilization (as it did in Europe in the late Medieval Age when the Reformation began), it is easy to fall into the temptation of religious war. However, unlike the Christian reformers, the present Islamic reformers must realize that no one group within any religion can claim total and pure understanding of the sacred texts. Therefore, it is safer to err on the side of tolerance than rigidity which may lead to violence. The trick is to teach this message to the average citizens, so they will join the moderates.
|
There is a lesson here for Americans, as well. If we continue to express our conflict with certain Middle Eastern factions as an intractable battle between cultures than we are in agreement with the same radical elements that we wish to stop. Use of the term "crusade" to describe our military actions is just a small example of the type of language and thinking that we must avoid lest we add fuel to the religious war fire. Ethnocentric arrogance, always a mistake in global politics, will only serve the needs of bin Laden and his ilk.