1) I don't usually think in religious-apocalyptic terms, but these events seem to me to require it. I think that in the WTC attack, America suffered a crucifixion. Then, several days later, a resurrection began. I think this resurrection occurred in, or at least began with, the Friday religious service at the National Cathedral here in Washington, where numerous clerics and religious leaders spoke and then president Bush spoke. I do not recall ever seeing or hearing another event in which the political-public dimension of America and its religious dimension were so closely and strongly brought together. (It could be said that this did occur in the black civil rights rallies of the 1960s. I think, however, that the civil rights movement and its rallies were special, particularistic, and strongly one-sided, speaking to and benefiting only a segment of America. I think the civil-rights movement was completely needed at the time, but that, on balance and in the long run, it has been a disaster for the country and for black people.)

Someone once called America "a country with the soul of a church." That was certainly true and conspicuously evident in that National Cathedral religious service. Yet this event, and all the concomitant and subsequent religious services and events devoted to this issue, did not destroy America's principle that there must be separation between church and state that these are two constitute different authority and value bases, and that, although they need each other and have some interchange with and influence on one another, they must be kept separate and cannot be allowed to intrude on or dictate to each other. In addition, there must be religious freedom and tolerance, and one role of the government is to uphold and guarantee that freedom, and to use its power, if necessary, to enforce it. If anything, the need for and importance of those principles have been especially heightened by the 9/11 events and their aftermath.

2) The result of the crucifixion/resurrection that America suffered 9/11 and following means that America is now qualified to be the messiah to the world, that it now has that role, and that its mission is not primarily for itself, but for the world. I think that the near-universal outpouring of sympathy for America and its suffering and the concomitant expressions of solidarity with America from most of the nations of the world were tacit acknowledgments from all the rest of the nations and peoples of the world that America now has this role.

I have an Egyptian friend who is an official at the Egyptian embassy here in Washington. We have spoken numerous times since the 9/11 event about most of the problems and issues that arise from it. At one point I became exasperated with something he was saying and said to him, "But you're asking America to be perfect!" His reply was "Yes, you have to be perfect because you are the leader of the world. The rest of us are [or can be] shits. But you have to be different."

I was very happy with Bush's speech to Congress because he seemed to understand this point. He did not speak of the coming war on terrorism so much as something to benefit America, but as something to benefit the whole world. In addition, he made it clear that this is not a war on Islam, but on an evil or perverse misappropriation of Islam.

I also think that, for now at least, the world-messianic role has passed from the True Parents and the Unification Movement to America. I felt this especially after the planned Sept. 22 event at Madison Square Garden was canceled. Why was it cancelled? I think the ultimate reason is that providence moved away from it and whatever importance it might have had, and moved to America and America's messianic mission. (Whether and why the True Parents and the UM have lost their messianic mission and status if indeed they have is a topic for another time. Suffice it for now to say that I think that the perverse elements within and aspects of the True Parents and the UM finally overwhelmed their very great good and beneficial aspects. Also, the scope, weight, and mind of the True Parents and the UM, even though they may have been greater in many ways than that of anyone else, were still far too small, I think, to carry out the messianic mission as it is now needed for the world.)

3) If America is the world's messiah, then what should the world do? I think that just as in the Christian era the duty or act that led to salvation was for each person to accept Christ as savior, become Christian, and become as much like Jesus as possible so now each nation should accept and honor America and its role, and become as much like America as possible. I'm not joking here. This may seem over-the-top American-chauvinistic and triumphalistic. Admittedly, given this mission entrusted to it, America faces a huge task of being humble and behaving properly toward the rest of the world as my Egyptian friend said, America has to be perfect (an impossible task, as we know) and if it does not do so, it will lose its position and influence, just as Christianity did when it misbehaved and became the oppressor instead of the liberator.

The rest of the world has political, economic, and cultural structures that are perverse. My Egyptian friend didn't like that word, preferring "oppressive" instead; I'm willing to accept that term, but I also think that those structures are more than just oppressive; they are evil, at least to some extent. There are, of course, big variations in just how oppressive or perverse those structures are in each case. I think that in the Arab world, for example, they are especially so. In the democracies of Western Europe they are less so.

One could also point out, correctly, that the political, economic, and cultural structures of America are also considerably less than perfect. But I think that these structures as they now exist in America are still significantly better than anywhere else in the world, and that the world has at least to come up to the level of America if it wants to do better. Thus, I think that America should work toward Americanizing the world, always being humble and pragmatic in its approach and being open to adopting different ideas and structures if they are found to have better consequences for the world's people. (I think that a combination of pragmatism and utilitarianism is the best approach, especially in matters of public policy.)

4) The problems within Islam are, I think, massive and overwhelming, at least for now, and finding a solution to them will need to come largely from within Islam itself. This is likely to take a long time maybe a century or more. I think that some of the difficulties are:

(a) Islam has never had the equivalent of a Protestant Reformation. Religions are, by their nature, exclusivistic and hostile to difference; they say "I'm right and you're wrong, and you need to repent and adopt my view, otherwise you're evil." But the result of the Protestant Reformation and the ensuing religious wars was that differing versions of Christianity had to learn to at least tolerate one another both doctrinally and politically. Tolerance does not mean that I agree to agree with you. It means that I think you are evil and I hate you and wish you would disappear; nevertheless I agree to let you live and to speak and write and proselytize and have your political influence.

The Enlightenment further served to break the bonds of religion on the minds and conduct of people. We could argue whether and to what extent that was an advantage, but at least we have to agree, I think, that there was a tremendous upside to it.

Another outcome of the Protestant Reformation was the realization that there must be a separation between church and state, between religious law or authority, and political-civil law or authority. But Islam does not have that, nor does it have the intellectual and doctrinal basis on which it could construct it, so far as I can tell. Instead, the only notion of law that it has is the sharia, which is a combination of religious and political-civil law. Furthermore, it regards separation of church and state to be itself an abomination to Islam.

(b) Because of its joining of religious and civil law-authority, Islam regards secularism as evil. Thus, the western democracies, by virtue of their secular character, are inherently offensive to Muslims and Islam. But some measure of secularism is necessary, I think, for human flourishing. At the very least, humans have to have freedom of religion, which also means freedom to be anti- religious if they choose to be so. I don't think Islam has the intellectual, religious, or cultural base on which to accept that. Because of this lack, Islam and Muslims have not succeeded in developing and promulgating notions of freedom of the individual and of women. The First Amendment or its equivalent does not exist either in Islamic doctrine or Muslim consciousness, nor in the laws of any Major-Islamic country. In every Islamic country and situation, there is some suppression of human rights and the rights of women.

(c) Since Islam's revelation came after Judaism and Christianity, it regards itself as the final and best revelation. ("There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his [chief or final or best] prophet.") Thus, by those rights, Islam should also be culturally, politically, and economically dominant. But it is not; instead Christendom and secularism (i.e., America and the west) are dominant in the world in all those domains.

As a matter of fact, Islam and the Islamic world were dominant up to some point in the Middle Ages; the Islamic world was ahead of Christendom in every way: scientifically, culturally (see the Alhambra palace in Spain: architecturally and in engineering it was vastly ahead of anything in Christian Europe), philosophically, and in every other way. I understand, for example, that the Islamic world centered in Damascus, and there they were making paper, writing learned treatises, and doing scientific and medical experiments and works including such advanced things as cataract surgery. But them the Muslim world fell behind, never to regain its prominence.

I think this is a source of both embarrassment and deep resentment to Muslims and the Muslim world. They blame the Crusades for this falling-behind, and have deep resentment against Christianity and the West for what the West won and they lost as a result of the Crusades. I do not think that the Crusades are the right answer to the question, "Why did you fall behind the West?" although the Crusades were indeed a factor. But this point of Islamic and Muslim backwardness is still there, and there is a deep wound in the soul of Islam and Muslims because of it.

(d) Since Mohammed conquered and advanced his cause at least partly by the sword, there is within Islam a certain approval of and propensity toward using the sword to advance the religion. One of the things I noticed after the 9/11 events was that all the Islamic clerics, scholars, mullahs, etc. denounced the terrorists and their activities as being wrong and as not representing true Islam. Yet I also noticed a certain reticence or holding back in their denunciation. If they were in the Middle East, this would be understandable because there they would put their lives in jeopardy, given the intense solidarity of street- level Islam and Muslims with the terrorists and their activities. But the Muslims in America need not fear that, so I think that, deep within themselves, even the most "enlightened" Muslims, if we can be permitted using such a term here, have a certain measure of agreement and sympathy with the terrorists and their methods and their success.

(e) The intense hatred that Muslims and Arabs feel toward Judaism and Israel is irrational and self-destructive. It is an excuse, a means to evade their own problems and the responsibility for them. As I've told my Egyptian friend repeatedly, "Israel is not a problem to you." But still, they come back to it over and over again. I don't think any easy or simple or quick solution to this problem exists or can be found.

5) I think that the ideology of Godism is just as deficient and one-sided and hence evil as humanism.

6) The problems of poverty and the disparity between the rich and the poor people and countries of the world do need to be addressed. Some people immediately want to jump to some form of socialism and/or foreign aid as the solution. But I think those are defective solutions, although there may be good reasons for them and good benefit to come from them in some cases and to some limited extent. Some means has to be found to bring all peoples and countries into the world market system. I think the ideas of Hermando deSoto (I'm not sure of the name or the spelling) deserve more attention and implementation. Also, the development of small enterprises and small entrepreneurs needs to be supported and enhanced. Moreover, the development of transparent banking systems and markets, and of laws and governments that support private enterprise rather than over-regulating or over- taxing it needs to be encouraged. Corrupt bureaucrats and oligarchies need to be broken and discarded. Begging and extortion (i.e., Jesse Jackson) need to be seen as evils everywhere. Envy and resentment of wealth and rich people need to be discarded. You are not poor because someone else is wealthy; you are poor because you did not properly exploit the possibilities you had to develop wealth. (You may not have done that exploitation bad economic or political or cultural structures may have prevented you from doing so, and that needs to be changed.)

(I may add to this at a later time.)

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Information
Tparents Home