Crusade against Nationalism

Commentators have suggested that we are observing a return to the Crusades of the Middle Ages, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Do they mean that we have returned to a period of religious warfare between the forces of Christianity and the forces of Islam, or do they mean a period of warfare in the name of religion? If they simply mean warfare in the name of religion, I can agree with them, but if they imagine that any of the present conflicts in the world are genuine expressions of either Faith, then I am at odds with that view, since the conduct of the combatants is not consistent with the tenets of either religion.

If the fundamental purpose of religion is to unite mankind, then it provides no justification for dividing it into warring factions. It is true that Islam makes provision for war, but only for the purpose of protecting the Faith of Islam itself, which was a dire issue in the days of the Prophet but not today. The greatest threat to Islam today would seem to come from its own professed believers, not any particular political or ethnic group. Indeed throughout the world there is a growing respect for the principle of freedom of religion, so that everyone should be free to practice their Faith according to their own conscience and without hindrance or persecution. Despite the links drawn between terrorist activities and fundamentalist religious movements, the leaders of both religions are at pains to recognise terrorism as an aberation which has no relationship to the true Faith it purports to uphold. In such an environment of growing tolerance there is no rational basis for Jihad, any more than there is a rational basis for refusing to recognize the significant common ground between Islam and Christianity.

The turmoil which the world is presently experiencing will come to be seen as not so much a religious crusade as the death throes of Nationalism, giving way as it must to globalism. That the politicians busy with the present conflict have failed to recognize this is obvious from the absurd excuses they make for their present course of military action well outside their sovereign boarders, well outside the most generous interpretation of their national interests and without a clear mandate from the United Nations. On the one hand they use the argument of national sovereignty to justify the harsh treatment of asylum seekers, while on the other they show complete disregard for the sovereignty of another nation, on the grounds of corrupt government.

It can be rationalised however, if one views the world as a single federation and the United States as the self appointed Federal Police. But what sort of democracy would that illustrate besides one from which ninety five percent of the world is disenfranchised? Is this the sort of democracy we would like to see introduced to Iraq?

Distinguishing Literature

In the late seventies a student of Literature, tasked with reading and responding to several examples of modern literature, concluded that read together as representatives of the modern novel, they offered a portent that the world was entering a new dark age. The student observed a progressive breakdown in the structure of plot, and a progressive preoccupation with the alienation of the individual ego in the face of an essentially meaningless and absurd human existence. There could be observed in the work of certain prominent authors a progressive abandonment of universal symbols in favour of introspective rumination and stream of consciousness, inviting the conclusion that the power of Literature to convey meaning through symbolism was itself under threat. The lecturer, on reading the essay, concluded that it had little to do with literature and more to do with psychology and refused to mark the paper. The student was given to understand that literature was a special class of text with special qualities which literary critics are trained to distinguish, and to which students of literature should aspire. 
 
Now, a quarter of a century later, and with the dark age clearly upon us, I turn again to the question of value in literature, and what distinguishes one type of writing from another so that one deserves the title literature and the other, pulp fiction. I would argue that this ability to distinguish one from the other is more important now than it was then with the proliferation of all manner of text in all manner of forms.
 
I have read commentaries by western authors on both the Koran and the Bible, extolling these books as Literature, while ignoring and devaluing them as scripture. The curious difference is that the western mind seems to ignore the authorship of the Bible, while decrying the claims made by the author of the Koran. The Bible is seen as a compilation by many authors, while the Koran is clearly the work of one author. The claims that this book is a sister to the Bible and belongs to that special class of scriptural literature are ignored, and in the process, the significance of the text is lost, despite clear evidence of the religious movement it gave rise to and its worldwide scope.
 
But does the fact that a text can spawn a religion make it of itself Literature? The writings of L Ron Hubbard and Claude Vorilhon come to mind. Both were journalists, and both have spawned religious movements, but the body of their writings has yet to attract significant academic attention as Literature, and in libraries both texts would be more often found under the category science fiction than religion.
 
It would seem that these journalists, responding to the demands of their audience have sought to inject new meaning into old symbols by reinterpreting the religious and historical phenomenon of centuries to build a new egocentric and godless religious system thereby giving meaning back to people’s lives. Life only appears without purpose due to the misinformation provided by others, while these movements claim to have the true knowledge which has been withheld from us.
 
If there was a portent to be seen from studying the modern novel, then surely there is a portent in the proliferation of ego worship evidenced by these new godless religions. Regardless of whether their text is Literature or trash, the student of religion can today clearly observe that there are certain universals within all the major and successful religious movements. It can be assumed that these universal principles are essential to the nature of religion itself, and where these are missing from a purportedly religious system, they may rightly assume they are observing some phenomena other than a legitimate functioning religion. This is the new task of the student of literature in this age, to distinguish prophesy from pulp fiction, and to distinguish egotism and cults of personality from humble worship of a divine essence.