Will God survive Afghanistan? Reply to Cummings and Johnson

When the Buddhas in Bamyan were destroyed in 2001, dynamited by the Taliban, there was a legitimate outcry. But the war in Afghanistan is, year by year, death by death, destroying the image of ‘God’ in the minds of many people, service members among them. The question is whether anything of this image will remain by the time peace comes.

Continued at Creedible.com: Will God survive Afghanistan? Reply to Cummings and Johnson

Exorcisms Revisited

Laurie Goodstein reports today for the New York Times that the Roman Catholic Church is training more of its clergy to perform exorcisms when necessary, and also to discern whether a person would be better served with psychiatric care. Much of the Western world is quite secularized, and many Christians no longer believe in possession. I authored a post related to this theme over at Creedible the day after Halloween.

Fundamentally one needs to make a choice whether to believe in possession, demons, and the like. In most places and times, the view that there are malign spiritual presences and energies has been dominant. Since the sixteenth century Reformation and seventeenth and eighteenth century Enlightenment, the West has tended to dismiss such forces, and to view exorcisms as superstitious and demon possession as a psychiatric malady. Yet there are some who remain convinced of the reality of sinister forces.

Apart from whether demons exist, it also is interesting to ponder why belief in them may rise and fall. Why do some church communions see need, at times, to reawaken interest in these forces? Do these movements do so to solidify their positions as spiritual guardians, as places of true spiritual power? Do they remix the spiritual cocktail of the opiate of the masses in order to ensure that the masses remain addicted? Does a declining belief in sinister spiritual forces send a 'good' signal that positively inclined spiritual ideation is increasing?

A more or less unplanned and nonconscious kind of reaction may account for increasing attentiveness to negative spiritual forces It may be that religious groups constantly assess and recalibrate their message as parishioners bring concerns and sources of contentment and happiness into their congregations. If there is an upturn in sources of anxiety, these may be thematized as malign spiritual forces.

It's worth noting that the Roman Catholic approach is a partly secular one. There is a discernment about whether spiritual forces are involved. On this interpretation, usually there are not. Only in extraordinary cases are spiritual forces deemed to be at work. That sober approach contrasts starkly with what many imagine to be the 'religious' approach to these issues.

Whatever one thinks of these questions, everyone faces negative experiences. Everyone must have some means of explaining them. Strict secularists are somewhat rare, and that too is worth pondering.

Worries about the Awlaki Case

Back in May 2009, RITN commented on Anwar Al-Awlaki. This case continues to fascinate and provoke worry.

Awlaki is the New Mexico-born Muslim now hiding in Yemen who produces web copy justifying jihad against the United States. He is not a typical militant, but he does represent a profound danger: that well educated, affluent, well-spoken, 'Western' Muslims will be radicalized. Al Awlaki’s case is especially intriguing since he is a U.S. citizen and yet the Obama administration has authorized killing him.

Scott Shane and Robert F. Worth report today for the New York Times that Nasser al Awlaki, the father of Anwar, has filed a lawsuit (with the help of the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights) to prevent the government from killing Awlaki without first seeking court approval. The government has asked that the suit be dismissed on procedural grounds: that the father has no legal standing to bring the suit, and that President Obama alone has authority over the killings since they are framed by secrets of state security. Whatever one thinks of the constitutional watchdogs, they are forcing consideration of questions of rights and due process.

Apart from the legal issues, it’s worth considering whether someone such as al Awlaki should be subject to targeted killing. Is his support of al Qaeda sufficient to sanction his killing? Reasonable people may disagree. That the question can arise shows how extreme are the circumstances: that the U.S. is ‘at war’ with terrorists, and that words are one of the key weapons being employed.

Al Awlaki’s support of al Qaeda may lead to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent bystanders. But the targeted killing of Awlaki also may be used rhetorically to convince more young men and women to continue the jihad against the United States. Dead or alive, Awlaki is a menace, as is bin Laden. Anyone who has pondered the meaning of ‘resurrection’ will not be completely surprised by this claim. Religious meanings, whether redemptive or destructive, go beyond the grave.

As the U.S. wages war against the jihadists, this power of (weaponized) religious ideas is worth considering. It may be possible to kill enough jihadists that the cause dies with them. Such killings may also lead to a spiral of ever-renewed violence, the rhetorical glorification of martyrs, and the inadvertent justification of the jihadist’s cause. Since this is a real risk, the U.S. must continue to develop channels for positive dialogue with as many moderate and liberal Muslims as possible. In the long run, it is they who will need to convince their fellow adherents to practice the ‘greater jihad’ and to renounce ‘lesser jihad.’