What I mean by these statements is that actions such as Goldstein massacring innocent Muslims, McVeigh blowing up a federal building, or young Muslims blowing up bombs in Israel do not regard political repercussions as consequences. Do you think Goldstein cared about the political deterioration between Israel and Palestine? Do you think it mattered to McVeigh how U.S. internal security would react to an act of domestic terrorism? I think not. These extreme ideologies have to deal with government in order to achieve goals, but in the long scheme of things, government is ether an obstacle or inconsequential.
The point I am trying to develop here is that we (by "we" I mean modern society) are ruled by a government, representatives, monarchs etc. In order to accomplish our goals in life, we have to play with the system (and work it if you're good enough) in order to succeed in our aims. Its a paradigm that we're all familiar with. Religious extremist don't have to play with the system to get what they want. Mass cosmic salvation, or the coming of a messiah, isn't something you can get by going through with the system. Extremists can use the system for their advantage, but ultimately it is another thing that is minor in their larger aims.
This was just a thought, maybe controversial. Feel free to disagree with me. My statements don't reflect all extreme parts of religions, but primarily extreme Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Let me know your thoughts!
So, basically, what you are trying to say is that at the end, for extremists, government does not matter as long as it serves them to achieve their cosmic goals. However, doesn’t that also mean that by playing with the system and by the rules, extremists can achieve all their goals? This renders government as an important instrument which can be used in order to advance one’s ideas and ideologies which additionally stresses on its importance. Also, I kind of do not understand this argument here: “Government and politics don't matter; legislative processes and international affairs can mean very little in some cases. Religious extremists participate in government (at times) to achieve their cosmic goals, which can mean having a messiah come, establishing religious rule in order for a messiah to come, or for the world to get salvation”. Doesn’t that also mean that government is so important as to help extremists achieve their goals in the least amount of time? And I personally think that Goldstein cared a lot about the political deterioration between Palestine and Israel. After all, a big part of what induced him to do what he did was the inaction of the secular government of Israel. If one with extremist’s point of view had the opportunity to run the government as he/she sees fit, he/she could have changed the course of history of the conflict. Which also proves that government is important as a way of achieving one’s goals.
ReplyDeleteVery true, you make some great points. I probably should have phrased some of my ideas better. What I am trying to say is that extremists don't always play by the rules. If they do takeover government, it is just means to get to their cosmic goals. I never said it wasn't a significant aspect to religious extremists, its just that using government is just a means.
ReplyDeleteThe way I went about thinking of this was in comparison to secular politics. In the U.S. or other states, one's goal is to get to the top of government in order to change policy to things you believe while making your country stronger. Meanwhile, if you don't have a good foreign or domestic policy, your country often suffers. My take is that if extremists got control of the government (the Taliban in Afghanistan) they cared about imposing shar'ia law more than modernizing and caring for its people. A religious goal often gets in the way of governance, because a religious goal is not always a tangible one.
Not all extremists are alike here, though. For some, establishing 'good government' or just rule as they perceive it can be an end in itself. The Taliban example is ambiguous here. Establishing sharia (the version they understood) was a temporal, political goal, even if inspired by religious convictions. The original European settlers of North America in some instances wanted to establish the good society here & now.
ReplyDeleteSo much here rides on how you understand 'extremist.'