I've just read a fascinating book titled "Terror and Civilization: Christianity, Politics and the Western Psyche" by Shadia Drury, Palgrave MacMillan: New York, 2004. The jacket back states:
"Critically examining Christianity's oldest and deepest ideological roots, regardless of our own religious convictions or convictions about religion, Drury compels us to reflect on our beliefs for the subtle ways they unwittingly implicate us in the violence we thought we had opposed. Required reading for religious and anti-religious thinkers, moralists and anti-moralists, for truth seekers and critics of truth, for idealists and realists of all persuasions."
In the Preface, the author describes precisely what her book is about so I provide that Preface here so that you can determine whether it is worth your time to read. I found that it was worth mine. The remainder of this post consists of that Preface.
"The relation between terror and civilization has been seriously misconstrued in the history of the West. Two contradictory theories have flourished side by side--the naive and the cynical. Interestingly, both have their roots in biblical religion. The naive view is simple-minded. It assumes that terror and civilization are deadly enemies that stand in stark opposition to one another. This view is profoundly dualistic. It divides the world into good and evil, God and Satan, the defenders of civilization, and the enemies of civilization.
Side by side with this naive and dualistic view is a deeply cynical, but more sophisticated view, which has also informed the Western under-standing of the relation between terror and civilization. The Christian assumption that human nature has been profoundly corrupted by the mythical Fall has led to the view that repression, terror, and tyranny are necessary to civilize a fallen and thoroughly wicked humanity. Far from being opposites, terror and civilization are intimately linked. The assumption is that terror--spiritual, political, and psychological--is the secret of the success of civilization. Supposedly, fear of violence and death-fear of the executioner, the pedagogue, and the strap-keeps violence in check. In other words, civilization succeeds because it fights brutality with even greater brutality. But, as society becomes stronger, it manages to turn man's savage instincts inward against the self. In this way, its grip on the instincts becomes more complete. As a result, it is able to relax and dispense with its more gruesome punishments--drawing and quartering, boiling in oil, and the like. Power seems to be less terrible. But one should not be fooled by appearances. Terror has not disappeared; it has merely been internalized and transfigured into a spiritual and psychological terror. The result is the creation of an inner state of siege-a garrison in a conquered city. This is the more sophisticated view.
In this book, I will challenge both the naive and the sophisticated view of the relation between terror and civilization. But in doing so, I will not deny that terror and civilization are intimately linked.
My claim is that the connection between terror and civilization has been seriously misconstrued. It is not for love of evil or love of self that human beings commit murder and mayhem. The worst atrocities have their source in the zealous pursuit of a sublime ideal that is believed to be so majestic, so magnificent, and so grand, that it is worthy of every sacrifice, every hardship, and every abomination. Christianity and Islam are examples of these exalted ideals. Only a grand ideal can combine treachery with a clear conscience. In other words, what is intended to civilize us can also make us monstrous.
Defenders of Christianity (and of Islam) believe that the evils done in the name of these religions are the work of opportunists, rogues, and scoundrels using religion to conceal their iniquity. These apologetic arguments have been used to excuse the Crusades, the persecution of heretics, the burning of witches, the killing of gynecologists, the persecution of homosexuals, the attack on the World Trade Center, and compulsory celibacy. Supposedly, neither Christianity nor Islam is to blame. But it is time to reconsider this view. It is time to critically exam-ine the assumptions of these Biblical religions and their sacred texts. It is time to ask if these sacred texts do not lend themselves to the political extremism, violence, and intolerance perpetrated in their name.
I am not denying that Christianity and Islam have inspired people to do good work in private and public life. It seems to me that these religions have also inspired people to behave in ways that are more cruel and immoderate than they would have otherwise. It is not simply the case that wickedness hides behind the goodness of religion. Some of the evil deeds that are committed cannot be made sense of in the absence of religious beliefs and assumptions. In contrast to the cynicism about human nature that is characteristic of Christianity, I believe that people genuinely seek the good. But religious beliefs and superstitions often cloud and distort the already difficult search for the good and the right.
In examining how religious beliefs inspire pernicious and malevolent conduct we should begin with Christianity because it is our own, and because the Republicans who are in power in the United States are eager to re-empower the Churches. After 300 years of secular liberal revolutions in the West, re-empowering the Churches would be a serious mistake. The reason is not just that there are bad people running the Churches; the reason for resisting efforts to re-empower the Churches is that people who believe much of what Jesus believed are not likely to behave well in positions of power--unless they are willing to keep their religion out of politics as Jesus did. Any suggestion that the Churches should be re-endowed with political power has its source in historical amnesia. In my view, the political crimes committed in the name of Christianity were not historically contingent accidents; they were a logical consequence of Christian beliefs.
The resurgence of militant Islam has led some Christians to imagine that Christianity is a civilized religion of love and peace in comparison to the violent barbarism of Islam. It is time for the West to stop fooling itself into thinking that Christianity is superior to Islam. It is neither more moderate nor less zealous. My aim is to show that the freedom and prosperity of the West have been achieved in spite of Christianity and not because of it. It is because we have dethroned Christianity that our societies are more free and prosperous than the Islamic societies.
Instead of feeling smug and superior, Christians should be determined to save their religion by keeping it scrupulously out of politics. It seems to me that the Christian Right is perversely blind to the dangers of religion in politics. But anyone born in the Middle East (as I was) cannot ignore the disastrous effects of the mixture of religion (especially Biblical religion) and politics. In the Middle East, everyone is brought up to believe that their religion is just fine; all the problems of the world have their source in other people's religion. This is a terrible mistake. The world in general and the Middle East in particular, would be much improved if everyone were more cognizant of the flaws of their own people and religion. This explains my admiration for the likes of journalist Rick Salutin, historian David Noble, film critic and novelist Maurice Yacowar, theorist and playwright Chana Cox, and political scientist Richard Falk. We need more Arab writers critical of the Arab world and its religion. Of course, they risk having a fatwa on their heads. And that may explain why they are not as visible as they might be.
In Part I, "Metaphysics of Terror," I give a critical account of the religion of Jesus. Unlike other critics, I do not focus my critique on the Church; instead, I focus on the religion of Jesus as represented in the sacred texts and their canonized interpreters. Both the critics of Christianity and its defenders have focused their criticisms on Saint Paul and the Church. They blame Saint Paul for darkening the message of sweetness and light imparted by Jesus. They blame the Church for perverting the original teachings of the Gospels. In contrast, I argue that from its earliest and supposedly most idealistic beginnings, Christianity betrays a bleak austerity behind the apparently genial personality of Jesus. I focus on the major elements-faith, salvation, sin, death, and damnation. I explain why the religion of Jesus is zealous, immoderate, and unwise. And this is why Jesus cannot be totally absolved of the savage history of the Church.
In Part II, "Politics of Terror," I make the case against Christianity in politics. My argument is intended as a response to those who believe that Christianity has a salutary effect on politics--from Saint Augustine to George W Bush. It has often been observed that Christianity oscillates between political resignation and militancy. On one hand, it assumes a passive and resigned attitude to political affairs. Overwhelmed by the enormity of human depravity, it resigns itself to the horrors of the world and awaits supernatural redemption. But as soon as Christianity gained political ascendancy in Rome, resignation gave way to militancy. But in my view, the two postures--resignation and militancy--are equally disastrous from a political point of view because they are equally anti-thetical to political moderation, sobriety, or restraint. It stands to reason that those who believe that they are in possession of the one and only truth necessary for salvation are unlikely to be generous, pluralistic, or just. In short, Christianity cannot be vested with political power without courting disaster. The political success of Christianity, then and now, invites the worst tyrannies-tyrannies that seek dominion not only over the actions of the body but over the thoughts, dreams, and longings of the mind.
In contrast to many of his followers, Jesus was apolitical. He did not aspire to political power; nor did he offer a political philosophy. He provided moral and spiritual guidance for the private lives of indi-viduals. And even if we reject his religious doctrines, we must admit that his moral teaching is not without allure. Part III, "Ethic of Love," is a critical examination of the moral teaching of Jesus. I argue that the Jesus ethic is not simply a prudential ethic, as critics contend--if it were, it might be more palatable. I think it is more austere, but more fascinating than critics recognize. In contrast to Nietzsche, I do not think that Christianity has trumped fate or eclipsed tragedy. Whatever its shortcomings, the morality of Jesus is rich in tragic gloom. And far from coming into conflict with the metaphysics of terror, it is intimately connected with it, for reasons that I will explain.
In Part IV, I examine the "Psychology of Terror." It is my contention that the ethic of love has unwittingly fostered a conception of conscience as an inner state of siege. I argue that both psychoanalysis and postmodernism are the heirs of Christianity. In other words, our self-styled liberators are trapped within the Christian horizon. So much so, that it is no exaggeration to say that Freud has provided Christianity with scientific, historical, and psychological justification. He shares the Christian preoccupation with sin, sex, guilt, and expiation. Nor are Nietzsche and his postmodern troops free of the yoke of Christianity. Like Freud, they assume that there is a profound conflict between human nature and civilization, and that the latter depends for its success on psychic terror. This understanding of the relation of terror and civilization is what I aim to challenge. I believe this worldview has deep Biblical roots, which have the effect of deprecating morality, inviting a Promethean revolt, and romanticizing evil.
In Part V, "Terror, Ideals, and Civilization," I reject both the naive and the cynical approaches to the relation of terror and civilization. I argue that terror is neither the opposite of civilization nor the secret of its success. The relationship between terror and civilization is much more complex. I believe that ideals and their zealous pursuit, are at the heart of both the sweetness of civilization and its terrors. Christianity and Islam are examples. What makes the conflict between Islam and the West so deadly is not the radical difference between the antagonists but their similarity--both live in the shadow of Biblical religion, which accounts for the radical and polarizing nature of the conflict. Transcending the Biblical horizon is therefore the first step in the quest for political moderation and sobriety."