George Carey teaches me Christian humility. No matter how sure I am of my own righteousness, I begin to doubt it when I see him galumphing up to join me at the barricade. So, should I reconsider the defence of Ratzinger, now that Lord Carey has come down in favour of Jihad and Crusade?
Lord Carey, who as Archbishop of Canterbury became a pioneer in Christian-Muslim dialogue, himself quoted a contemporary political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who has said the world is witnessing a “clash of civilisations”.
Arguing that Huntington’s thesis has some “validity”, Lord Carey quoted him as saying: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
Lord Carey went on to argue that a “deep-seated Westophobia” has developed in recent years in the Muslim world.
OK: this is a report in the Times. It may not fairly represent what Carey meant.1 For all we know, he quoted Huntingdon in order to disembowel him. But the point about Carey is that he had a shrewd political sense on questions that did not touch his self-importance. One shouldn’t take his remarks at face value as an analysis of the situation: rather they represent a second-order analysis — his answer to the question “what should a World Spiritual Leader say in this situation?” and from that we conclude that he thinks that a struggle is inevitable, if not under way.
Now this is a question of fact, to some extent independent of the value question about whether such a struggle should exist. Clearly, you can make a struggle more likely by pretending it has already begun. But, just as clearly, you can’t make one vanish, after it has begun, just by denying its existence.
There is a secondary question, in the event of a clash of civilisations , which is whether it should be pursued by violent means or not. To take an example from an earlier period, one could be in favour of fighting communism while also believing it right to minimise the amount of fighting communists.
Thinking in these terms brings a little clarity to the debate. It leads to three possible positions among non-Muslims. Let’s call them, for short, Cole, Ratzinger, and Carey.
The Cole position is that there is no global struggle between Islam and Christianity. It follows that this non-struggle should certainly not lead to violence, and, where it seems to, both faiths have been perverted.
The Ratzinger position is that there is such a struggle but we must not talk in those terms. The two faiths are rivals and do threaten each other’s well-being. Nonetheless, violence is wrong. Persuasion must proceed by peaceful means. (The status of this “must” is a little unclear. How do I compel you to be peaceful?)
The Carey position seems to be that there is a struggle, both physical and ideological; they are being violent. So we must talk about the struggle and be prepared to use violence to defend our position. I’m using here “we” in the broadest sense. I can’t remember what he thought about the Iraq war, but he would certainly be in favour of the “Christian” side in Nigeria or Darfur.
I think I am a Cole-ite, though Ratzinger clearly has a case. But the Carey-ite prophets have a certain self-fulfilling quality. At some stage, if there are enough of them, they will become right.
1 In my experience, assuming that his speeches meant anything did violence to the quality of his argument. But I may be misjudging this one. I haven’t seen it.
Is it significant that he delivered this lecture at a Seventh Day Adventist college?
full text at http://www.glcarey.co.uk/Speeches/2006/Cross%20and%20Crescent.html?.html
DARFUR, URGENT: WHAT WOULD RACHEL CORRIE START THIS WEEK?
Darfur Vigil DAY 118 (now in NYC); 56 Days Hunger Strike since July 4, 2006 http://www.standwithdarfurwhitehouseii.blogspot.com
Young Rachel Corrie saw a bulldozer intentionally bearing down on the house of a family, a family she probably never knew. She got in front of that bulldozer, between the bulldozer and the house, between the threat, and the innocents. (http://www.criticalconcern.com/rachelcorrie.html.)
We need to get between what is killing Darfur (Bashir’s performance and lack thereof by we-the-people) – and our children, sisters and brothers in Darfur. Now. And as of now we are not (http://standwithdarfurwhitehouseii.blogspot.com/2006/09/sept-17th-activism-awesome-but-not.html) How do we do that? How do we make it happen? What would a sufficient “wake up” look like? IF SOMEONE HAS THIS ALREADY STARTED, LET ME KNOW. I’ll join you, or even back out if that is best.
I am deciding what I will do next, what I expect to be my final attempt to spark the Rescue of Darfur by waking up sufficient numbers of we humans in time, converting us from spectators, critics and activists-of-convenience into antiviolent warriors (think Civil Rights struggle) of profound courage, wisdom, tenacity and effectiveness; utilizing to the max the few weeks, days and seconds that our Darfur family has left.
What would Rachel Corrie start THIS WEEK? This question strikes me as the way to approach the task of deciding. The way to focus the mind to come up with the appropriate, proportional response of greatest chance – THE BEST AIMED “HAIL MARY” PASS.
Rachel Corrie stood in front of a bulldozer about to destroy a house in Palestine (http://www.criticalconcern.com/rachelcorrie.html). Would a different role model help you more? How about Steve Beko (South Africa, movie, Denzel), a young Gandhi, a young Nelson Mandella, an antivioloent Rambo, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, John Q (from the Denzel Washington movie)…? You get the idea. Think of your own role model APPROPRIATE to this situation.
LET’S JOIN TOGETHER IN THIS QUANDARY, before it is too late, please: Send me, or post, your ideas (http://standwithdarfurwhitehouseii.blogspot.com/). Now. I expect to embark on whatever best plan by early next week at the latest, with anyone that wants to join together.
A CONSTRAINT: Suggestions must centrally embrace this notion of the problem from Samantha Power’s inspired, Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “Problem from Hell” (and I paraphrase AND take license): THE BATTLE TO STOP GENOCIDE HAS ALWAYS BEEN LOST ON THE FIELD OF PUBLIC OPINION. THE PEOPLE [WE THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD]… HAVE NEVER STOOD UP SUFFICIENTLY TO STOP IT.
HUNCH: The plan should involve leveraging STAND’s Oct 5th Fast to make it into the END OF THE GONOICIDE, the START of a WORLDWIDE FAST UNTIL DARFUR GENOCIDE IS ENDING. One-day only by all participants is too-little-too-late. A one day fast is NOT what the world’s response to the Holocaust, the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews lacked. Not by many orders of magnitude. Death rates are climbing toward 25,000 per week in Darfur, NOW. We must be REALISTIC. Code Pink’s “Troops Home Fast” could be a model (www.troopshomefast.org). Make STAND’s October 5th the START? THAT COULD DO IT.
But, WE NEED EVEN BETTER, MUCH BETTER SUGGESTIONS and specific ideas for approach and execution than I am hinting at.
RESPOND. PLEASE. Deadline: FRIDAY, 9/22/06, because THERE IS NO MORE T-I-M-E. (For those of you that just want to watch, and have a good laugh at my frantic gyrations, enjoy.)
What would Rachel Corrie start THIS WEEK?
Jay McGinley (jymcginley@cs.com) 484-356-6243
>(The status of this “must” is a little unclear. How do I compel you to be peaceful?)
by blowing up 3rd parties, of course