Sunday Morning Anti-Sermon

It is perhaps not surprising that our response to the mass shooting in Orlando falls out rather predictably along party lines.  A recent Gallup poll shows that 79% of republicans feel that the incident was islamic terrorism, while only 16% think of it as domestic gun violence.  Conversely, 60% of democrats think of it as domestic gun violence, with only 29% thinking of it as islamic terrorism.  This leads RedState to post a headline reads, "Turns Out 29% of Democrats Aren't as Dumb as We Thought."  In the body of the article they say, "the first reaction is probably disbelief that anyone could consider this anything other than an act of radical Islamic terror given the overwhelming proof that it was exactly that."  First off, I'm not sure there is overwhelming proof.  Other than a connection to the muslim religion itself, and his Facebook declaration of support for ISIS, there seems to be little connection to actual, radicalized muslim factions, including ISIS.  That the besieged and faltering ISIS would declare their "responsibility" for the attack, though they seemed to have no "planning" or "execution" role in the actual attack, seems little more than a propaganda ploy to maintain some semblance of status.   Perhaps more will come out as the "FBI interviews another of Orlando Terrorist's Mosque," but one suspects that it will reveal more of the same, a deeply conflicted individual, with a desire for grandeur, who happened to be muslim and had access to the sorts of guns that maximize potential damage.

There is implicit in all of this a "chicken or egg" question.  When there is a mass shooting of this sort, I am not sure which comes first, a social and religious context that radicalizes alienated  individuals or alienated individuals who seeks out and find affirmation in a social and religious context.  Those who see it as an act of "radical Islamic terror" would, like Sam Harris, point the finger of blame at the religion itself  as the radicalizing context.   The republican insistence that we call it out as radical islamic terror would seem to suggest that the chicken of the religious context lays the terrorist egg, but the recommendations tend to stop there.  Ask yourself, if we grant this argument, then what?   Perhaps it is a failure of imagination, but I can't think of a single answer that would not infringe the first amendment rights to freely worship as one chooses.  Even with increased surveillance, the sorts of profiling advocated as "common sense" by the presumptive republican nominee, there is a fine line between keeping an eye on known threats and violating rights to due process as protected under the fourth amendment.  It suggests that merely being a muslim, and worshipping as a muslim, itself provides sufficient cause for surveillance, which in turn leads, inevitably, to the paranoid style of a Joseph McCarthy, where all muslims, including those who "sympathize" with muslims, are potential radical islamic terrorists seeking the destruction of the American way.  Consequently, just as Joseph McCarthy sought the destruction of  "communism," it leads inevitably to calls for the eradication of the muslim religion, at least on our shores. 

There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the republican stance as well.  There has been little mention of the assassination of Jo Cox on the conservative blogs, none in Red State.   This seems, more clearly than not, a real act of terror, by definition, insofar as a political figure was targeted for political reasons.  As reported in the World Post, "prosecutors said [the assassin] told police he is a "political activist" and that officers found far-right materials in his house.  [The assassin] reported had contacts with far-right groups in South Africa and the U.S. in the past.  His family said he has a history of mental illness."  Here again, which comes first, the chicken of the radicalizing context, right wing thought, which radicalizes a disturbed individual.  Or is it the egg of a disturbed individual that seeks affirmation and inclusion in a social and religious context?  I suspect that the radical right wing terrorist that assassinated Jo Cox bears about the same relation to right wing thought in general as the radical islamic terrorist bears to the general practitioners of the muslim religion, but the conservative press is not indignantly demanding we call it "an act of radical right wing terror given the overwhelming proof that it was exactly that."  First off, of course, it's not our problem.  It's Britain's problem.  Except, we seem to be in the business, not unlike ISIS, of "exporting" a terrorist ideology.  In this particular case, better, it seems, to see him as the democrats saw the Orlando shooter, as first and foremost a disturbed individual who found affirmation in a radical ideology, lest we go down the path of demonizing all "right wing" thought, particularly the sort expressed by the presumptive republican nominee for president. 

Let me be frank.  I have little truck with the muslim religion.  Likewise, I have little truck with the christian religion.  Both espouse comprehensive world views that proclaim "peace" as their goal, but it is the "peace" that comes only with a universal capitulation to a particular world view, one that by command of god himself excludes and condemns and encourages the elimination of non-believers and apostates.  When pushed to the far extreme, both lead to the sorts of violence and "terrorist tactics" that we see represented by ISIS and the National Alliance, and in their world view it is a violence "justified" and "sanctified" by religion.  At the extreme, both become havens for "disturbed" individuals, for the alienated and isolated "with a history of mental illness."  Both provide "explanations" and assign culpability for their alienation and isolation to a society that has fallen from grace, whether that "grace" is worship of Mohammed or Jesus.   At the extreme, both espouse an ideology that would "make society great again," and it would do so first and foremost by destroying all progress toward a more inclusive, a more secular society.    

But, and its a big but, I do value an inclusive secular society.  I am perfectly willing to talk about radical islamic terrorism as a threat to inclusive secular society, but I am also perfectly willing to talk about radical neo-nationalist christian terrorism as an equal threat to a inclusive secular society.  I will let you guess who said this:

I see a future which is red with blood because of the accumulated foolishness of decades, and I hardly think this grim picture is one which the public today wants to look at, nor do I think it will help our cause to try to force them to look at it or at a political program based on it. They would reject it. They do not have sufficient understanding. They do not have the spiritual basis required to understand and accept it.  

A "future red with blood," indeed.  The "spiritual basis required to understand and accept it," indeed, and lest we think this "spiritual basis" is a mere toss off, I will let you guess who said this:

our program is directed almost entirely toward the accomplishment of this spiritual prerequisite for our political goals. Our program is concerned now, and will be concerned for the foreseeable future, with awakening a consciousness of identity and mission in an elite minority of our people, a minority in whom the Divine Spark, the Universal Urge, the Creator’s immanent Self-consciousness, burns brighter than it does in the rest, and when welding this awakened elite into a growing community of blood and consciousness, a spiritual community primarily rather than a political one, a community imbued with an understanding of our Truth and unconditionally dedicated to our Purpose, which is the Creator’s Purpose.

Inclusive secular society of the sort imagined by the framers of our constitution demand of us a duty to tolerate, and like most duties the duty to tolerate can at times be onerous.  I find the thinking represented by the National Vanguard above deeply repugnant, particularly when one comes to understand that they "want to safeguard [their] racial identity by putting an end to the present insanity of enforced racial integration, which is threatening all involved with social chaos, cultural dissolution, and racial death" -- by putting an end, that is, to an inclusive secular society.   Again, I find the thinking represented by the National Vanguard deeply repugnant, just as I find the thinking of islamic fundamentalism deeply repugnant, but I do have a duty, however onerous, to tolerate it.  If we desire a society where one is free to worship as one chooses, then I must tolerate your form of worship, just as I expect you to tolerate my own form of worship.  If we desire a society where one is free to express oneself, then I must tolerate your expression, just as I expect you to tolerate my expression.  We must have faith that the best way to silence ignorance and bigotry is to give it voice, allow it to fully reveal itself for ignorance and bigotry, and hope that the American people have the "spiritual basis" to reject it.  

The core difficulty, however, may well be just that -- the inclusive secular society, and the failing hope that the American people have the spiritual strength to reject ignorance and bigotry.   It is somewhat problematic when half the political spectrum within the US inches closer and closer to ideologies that openly espouse an end to the secular state -- ideologies that would install in its place a christian theocracy -- ideologies that openly espouse an end to gender, racial, ethnic, and religious inclusivity -- ideologies that would actively exclude "alien" populations, whether it be the "rapists and drug dealers" of Mexican heritage, the muslim refugees from "our" wars, and the list goes on.  When the presumptive republican nominee for our highest office openly connects the dots between calling the Orlando shooters "islamic terrorists" and "profiling" them as potential "terrorists" simply because they are muslim.  He and the republican party are using the real and unfortunate fear of "social chaos" and "cultural dissolution" to engage in the worst form of "identity politics." Despite their protestations to the contrary, despite their appeals to "common sense," they are taking us step by step closer to the social programs actively advocated by groups like the National Vanguard.  No, democrats are not as dumb as you thought, and I hope they have the spiritual strength to reject the path to ignorance and bigotry.