What I'm reading, Chapter 4

This time, it's God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215, by Pulitzer Prize winning author David Devering Lewis.

This is, as the title suggests, an early history of post-Classical Europe and the rise of Islam, exploring the trajectory of European civilization as it hurtled into the Dark Ages, and the unlikely triumph of Islamic Arab nomads over the great empires of the east, and eventually, the violent collision of these two cultures.

Lewis begins by reminding us that the clash between East and West had its beginnings with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and their wars against successive Persian Empires, with each side generally holding their own, but unable to make lasting advances against their rival.

In the pages of this book, we feel the full tragic force of the barbarian invasions and their aftermath, of a hapless Roman papacy being forced to beg warlords to spare them from destruction, and of an Eastern Empire that became increasingly distant from the West, first by geography, and eventually by religion. We see the rise of a new religion in the East, that took the eastern Mediterranean and Persia by storm, and conquered empires weakened by ceaseless conflict.

Against this seemingly unstoppable force of divinely inspired Arab warriors, the primitive petty kings and tribal leaders of Europe seemed most vulnerable. And indeed, Muslim armies did sweep across much of Visigothic Hispania (landa-hlauts, as it was called in gutteral Gothic, from which the Arabic name al Andalus was derived), the start of an Islamic presence in that country that would last some seven centuries. But Tariq Ibn Ziyad's smashing of the Visigoths on behalf of the Umayyad Caliphate was a venture undertaken without much official support from the Caliph in Damascus, thinking Hispania was too far away to administer effectively. And his successors were generally more worried about civil wars and internal strife to contemplate the subjugation of all of Europe.

So while the Pyrenees were always a war-torn border between Muslims and Franks, Umayyad al Andalus was by necessity a pragmatic society, never heavily populated by the Arab/Berber invaders, often administered by Sephardic Jews, and eventually isolated politically by the Eastern Caliphates that succeeded the Umayyads. There was no forced conversion, and little enforcement of repressive Quranic laws regarding unbelievers. In this climate of peaceful co-existence, the Umayyad capital of Cordoba became one of the most dynamic cities in the world, with its thriving economy and beautiful Friday Mosque, an architectural wonder unmatched in the rest of Europe. Scholarship also flourished, and Ancient Greek writings were translated and preserved for future generations.

Meanwhile, Europe floundered in poverty and superstition. The great king of the Franks, Charlemagne, was able to politically unite much of the former Western Empire, and became closely allied with the papacy, defending Catholicism by the sword whenever necessary, setting the stage for the enforced orthodoxy to come in later centuries. He protected Rome from the uncouth and impious Lombards, and brutally suppressed the pagan Saxons.

The contrast between the two societies could not have been more stark. While town life, trade, and academics flourished in al Andalus, the Frankish superstate was overwhelmingly rural with the poor increasingly tied to the land (the building blocks for feudalism were in place), there was little economic activity besides farming (and no tax collection; armies were raised through blackmail, and there was no concept of public works), while the learning of the Classical World was long since forgotten, replaced with an intolerant and superstitious brand of Christianity. To his credit, Charlemagne valued learning (though he himself was illiterate), and established schools throughout his kingdom. This Carolingian Renaissance was not to last, however, as Europe was engulfed by new pagan invasions, this time from Scandinavia.

Lewis allows the reader to wonder whether Europe might not have been better off if Islam had continued its northern march. Certainly, academic progression might have been swifter. The cruel economic system of feudal Europe might have been bypassed entirely. But this optimistic outlook is tempered by the narrative of al Andalus after the Umayyads, replaced by more fanatical and intolerant sects who had less use for the pragmatism of the past.

After absorbing this 700 year whirlwind of history, Lewis clearly intends the reader to develop a new found appreciation of the intertwined fates of European and Islamic civilization as they came into contact with each other. Though often bloody, these contacts also included peaceful co-existence and great advances, and that snapshot from the past is a good template for the future.

Musings on the Religious Right

After reading this article in MacLeans, I have to say that I was forced to rethink my views on social conservatives, not just in the US, but here in Canada as well.

The article makes the point that many religious voters may be gradually coming to the realization that abortion and gay marriage are not the only religious/moral issues in politics. Such a statement seems self-evident, but those two issues have dominated political discourse for so long that many of us have forgotten.

For example, ensuring access to health care, stopping climate change, and opposition to torture and unjust wars are all things that the Religious Right cares about (or should care about). And it's clear to everyone that the right wing of the American political establishment has been disastrous on every single one of those issues. Not very Christian.

And we have an interesting shift this election season. Unlike prior elections, it's the Democrat, Barack Obama, who often talks about his personal faith and religious beliefs, partly out of necessity (because of all the "secret Muslim" smears), and partly because it's something he seems to genuinely care deeply about. In contrast, John McCain rarely, if ever, talks about his religious beliefs.

That's not to say it's smooth sailing for Obama with religious conservatives; he supports abortion rights, and his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright was repellent for many voters whether they were religious or not. And the polls aren't cause for much encouragement just yet, still showing McCain ahead by large margins in this demographic group.

But Obama does have a chance to make inroads.

Sunday roundup of interesting things

God, am I ever tired.

1. Contrasts:

Two months ago in the Oval Office, President George W. Bush, coming to the end of a two-term presidency and presumably
as expert on Israeli-Palestinian policy as he is ever going to be, was
accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a
40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.

In March, on his whirlwind visit to Israel, Republican presidential nominee
John McCain, one of whose primary strengths is said to be his intimate grasp of
foreign affairs, chose to bring along Sen. Joe Lieberman to the interview our
diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon and I conducted with him, looked to
Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little
flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.

On Wednesday evening, toward the end of his packed one-day visit here,
Barack Obama, the Democratic senator who is leading the race for the White House
and who lacks long years of foreign policy involvement, spoke to The Jerusalem
Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide's sole
contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch
seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures.

2. Read Frank Rich.

3. Steve Benen on McCain's incoherent economic "plans":

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic adviser, told Slate, “[McCain]
has certainly I’m sure said things in town halls” that don’t jibe perfectly with
his written plan. But that doesn’t mean it’s official.”

Got that? If we want to better understand John McCain’s economic
policies, we should overlook what John McCain says about his economic policies.
McCain’s “official” positions don’t come from McCain.

4. This study finds that while Obama has received more media coverage in recent weeks than McCain, he is generally covered more negatively. Such a conclusion would come as a surprise to most right-wingers convinced of the liberal bias of the mainstream media, but it's no surprise to myself and others who have been chronicling the free ride that McCain has gotten.

5. Read Bob Herbert too.

6. The NDP have suddenly discovered that their inner free market capitalist. No carbon tariffs (to be placed on imports from high-polluting countries), they argue, since they'll just invite court battles and expensive litigation.

Adam Radwanski thinks they only oppose it because it's the Liberals proposing it. Perhaps if the NDP had more to offer than kneejerk and irrational opposition to any policy idea that they aren't responsible for, they'd no longer be a permanent third party.

In any case, carbon tariffs are not the greatest economic policy, but they are pretty good environmental policy. It's a good way to reward domestic producers who do hold to some carbon standards while encouraging other countries to improve theirs. But it's certainly not something that will help the economy over the short term. Really, all these bold environmental plans are hard sells, because none of them are great for the economy. And the health of the economy is something that is foremost in many voters' minds.

7. Oh boy, creationists in Texas are trying to advance a new "weak-evolution curriculum" for high schoolers. Come on, Texas, I'm rootin' for ya! You can be the new Stupidest State!

Totalitarian creationists

Remember when the Kansas school board decided to remove evolution from high school biology curricula? It was a proud day for ignorant simpletons and religious fanatics alike (though perhaps not such a proud day for non-ignorant and non-fanatical Kansans). Tom Willis of the "Creation Science Association" (an oxymoron if I ever saw one) helped draft those groundbreaking new educational standards.

And now, he's at it again, with this fairly disturbing proclamation:

The arrogance displayed by the evolutionist class is totally unwarrented (sic). The facts warrent (sic) the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously, professor.

Frankly, I think the facts warrant the violent expulsion of Tom Willis from civilized society.

I must say it is deeply ironic that while the ID movement whines and moans about how they are being so terribly repressed, here we have a high-profile creationist talking about disenfranchising and alienating mainstream biologists and academics...oh, I'm sorry, I mean "evolutionists", from society. I wonder what Mr. Willis thinks should be done with these "evolutionists" after they are successfuly violently expelled from "civilized society"? Perhaps they should be rounded up and put into camps so they cannot go on spreading their wicked beliefs to the outside world? And then perhaps some forcible re-education? And if they still fail to embrace God's love, burn them!

And don't you just love the epithets that creationists use to describe people that understand anything about the history of life on this planet? "Evolutionists". "Darwinists". I guess "biologists" sounds too innocuous. Far better to create some scary sounding "ism" with which to scare all those "immature humans". Classic totalitarian methods.

(hat tip Panda's Thumb)

Religulous

Oh boy, lock the doors and shutter the windows. Bill Maher's making a movie about religion:



This movie is worth it just to see all the stupid red-faced outrage it will inevitably spark.