"My and Yours"

Buddhism is often depicted as a peaceful religion that is on the opposite side of violence in every occasion because of their mindfulness and interconnectedness with nature and other people.  While none of this is incorrect, there is another side to every story.  Mark Juergensmeyer brings up one such exception in his book, Terror in the Mind of God.  He explains a situation where an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism called Aum Shinrikyo, "released poisonous sarin gas in the Tokyo subway, killing a number of commuters and injuring thousands more." (103)  Sure this kind of act happens far too regularly that we are becoming habituated to these types of acts, but I wish to draw your attention elsewhere to the idea of "ingroup" and "outgroup" characterizing.




As we know, there are two sides to every coin.  Buddhism is no different.  To many, Buddhists could do no wrong and are holy saintlike individuals in our eyes, while others (some of which may have witnessed the Buddhist actions on the Tokyo subway) view Buddhists as violent individuals who are not serving the common good, and are a threat to society.  Still others view Buddhists as "those guys who wear those robe things and chant a lot like those guys from Monty Python."



My point is that people view those within their group ("ingroup members") and those outside of their group ("outgroup members") differently and hereby characterize them differently because of that simple fact that they are in a certain group or not. When a member of the "ingroup" acts in a "good" manner, other members of the "ingroup" are quick to make internalizations about that individual to suggest that the act was a good act because the individual is inherently good.  When a member of the "outgroup" acts in a "good" manner, the "ingroup" is equally quick to make externalizations to suggest that the individual is inherently "bad," but this act is out of the ordinary and must be due to some other force to make it seem good.

Take Mark Juergensmeyer's example:

"The public response to the event was one of shock and disbelief.  It seemed inconceivable that innocent people could be assaulted in such a calculated and vicious manner in what most Japanese regard as the most mundane and reliable aspect of public life: the subway transportation system." (104)  The witnesses aka the "outgroup"  saw the public people as innocent and the manner of attack by the "perpetrators" was vicious.  This was a "bad" action, so these people must be bad.  This said, these individuals were later arrested and sentenced to death. On the other hand, one of the members of Aum Shinrikyo was asked if his master was involved and he responded, "if the master was involved...he must have had a religious reason." (106)  The "ingroup" is quick to make an externalization for the vicious act and maintain the good stature of one of their own.  I am not choosing sides as to which group is correct, I am merely pointing out the different points of view on one situation that stem from the idea of "ingroups" and "outgroups."

These ideas are found in your daily life if you only look around for them.  They are present in your sports rivalries and within your cliches, within your family reunions and favorite country singer.  This idea begs the question of what we can do to eliminate the "ingroup" idea so that we judge individuals by their merit and not their group involvement and I do not have an answer.

Pick a Side...

For most conflicts, there are two sides that demonize each other while declaring their way is not only right, but the only option that should be considered.  There are also usually outsiders who are drawn into the conflict and made to pick one side or the other to support.  This is how conflicts can grow exponentially and cause much destruction.  The ethno-religious conflict between Israel and Palestine is no different, in that each side has a unique point of view that reduces the "other" to less than human as one way to justify their violent acts.

Mark Juergensmeyer writes two chapters in his book, Terror in the Mind of God, that allows the reader to see the justification behind the Israeli side but also from the Palestinian side.  To ensure accurate information he interviews several leaders in each camp and also tells a bit of their history.  The reader also learns that the conflict is not as simple as Israeli vs. Palestinian, but within each of these nationalistic groups are subgroups that cause conflict within each country.  The dispute is much more complex than a simple land compromise could solve.  Religion, nationality, politics, and culture are all intertwined and violence is the result.

At this point, I think that Juergensmeyer does a good job portraying both sides to have internal logical rationale that justifies their actions (at least in their mind).  Using examples such as Yoel Lerner, Rabbi Meir Kahane, and Baruch Goldstein to give insight into the Jewish mindset allows the reader to see that "the Jewish faith is inextricably linked with the land, and how the liberation of the land is a prerequisite to spiritual liberation." (53)  On the other side, interviewing Mahmud Abouhalima, Abdul Aziz Rantisi, and Sheik Yassin showed that the Muslim side held their beliefs firmly saying that "acts of self-martyrdom- the suicide bombings- were allowed only in the response to these and other specific acts of violence from the Israeli side, acts that frequently affected innocent civilians." (75)  Neither side is willing to compromise, because at this point, a compromise might as well be a loss; not to mention how much time, energy, and life has already been given to this conflict.

In psychology, a personal investment model might be used to describe why the tensions have not ceased between Israelis and Palestinians.  According to this model, the more that someone has personally invested in a situation or conflict, the less likely they are to back out or settle for less than was originally thought to be possible.  This model applies to gambling, some relationships, and many other situations in our daily lives.  Things might not be going well but we will continue to suffer because we feel that we lose all the we put into the situation by quitting or stopping.  I think this model applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because both sides have years and years given to this dispute so each side wishes to see it to the end and make sure that the end result is in their favor

9/11 Poem

Around the time of 9/11's anniversary, there are usually a lot of poems and emails that are sent out to remember the troops and loved ones.  I received an email from my grandparents that included one of these poems, but this one really tied religion into the incident in a way that I had never heard before.

'MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL'

You say you will never forget where you were when
you heard the news On September 11, 2001.
Neither will I.

I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room
with a man who called his wife to say 'Good-Bye.' I
held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the
peace to say, 'Honey, I am not going to make it, but it
is OK..I am ready to go.'

I was with his wife when he called as she fed
breakfast to their children. I held her up as she
tried to understand his words and as she realized
he wasn't coming home that night.

I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a
woman cried out to Me for help. 'I have been
knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!' I said.
'Of course I will show you the way home - only
believe in Me now.'

I was at the base of the building with the Priest
ministering to the injured and devastated souls.
I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He
heard my voice and answered.

I was on all four of those planes, in every seat,
with every prayer. I was with the crew as they
were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the
believers there, comforting and assuring them that their
faith has saved them.

I was in Texas , Virginia , California , Michigan , Afghanistan .
I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news.
Did you sense Me?

I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew
every name - though not all knew Me. Some met Me
for the first time on the 86th floor.

Some sought Me with their last breath.
Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the
smoke and flames; 'Come to Me... this way... take
my hand.' Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me.
But, I was there.

I did not place you in the Tower that day. You
may not know why, but I do. However, if you were
there in that explosive moment in time, would you have
reached for Me?

Sept. 11, 2001, was not the end of the journey
for you. But someday your journey will end. And I
will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may
be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are
'ready to go.'

I will be in the stairwell of your final moments. 

Usually, these types of poems focus on the religion of the "terrorist" and how corrupt and evil the individual as well as the religion is for committing such a horrible act against the US.  I like how this poem strips down the stories of several people involved in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and shows the tender side.  Whether you sympathize with Christian ideals or not, this poem speaks to the religious side of emotional events and how people search for something of meaning in their final moments.  I am aware that this poem is strongly protestant, but it is also a unifying portrayal that emphasizes the individual experiences rather than stigmatizing the world into the "good" and the "bad."

MH

In the Beginning...

Coming into a class that is designated as sociology and religion, I had my reservations about the ability of these separate disciplines to interact with each other.  I know that religion is a powerful social construction but what else can sociology tell us about a topic characterized by violence in the news and passionate radicals?

Peter Berger illuminates some of that interaction between sociology and religion in The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion.  Religion, similar to gender and race by being a social construction, was created by man to assuage his need for an explanation.  Berger explains three steps of this construction:  externalization, objectivation, and internalization.  At first, I was confused as to how this makes sense for religion.  I first understood the steps as they relate to another social construction, gender.  A long long time ago, some human must have seen another human and saw many similarities but also differences.  What we now know as men and women were originally externalized at some point in history to account for human differences.  These differences were accepted in that time and repeated over and over by other humans, objectifying what was originally just an "outpouring of human being into the world." (Berger, 4).  As time goes on eventually the humans were very familiar with the concept of gender and internalized it, and reproduced it back into society.  In this way, society is effected by human activity but also the inverse, human activity is shaped by the society.

Similarly, religion as we know it today started as an externalization.  We know this to be true because of the fact that any religion is only one generation away from extinction.  Think about it, if the older generation does not pass down their beliefs (allowing society to pour back into humans), the belief does not survive.  This is the power of society that religions have lasted for thousands of years and will last far into the future.  I am not here to debate the legitimacy of any religion. I am simply speaking to the beginnings of a source of much conflict in our world today.

Berger ends his intro with a very insightful idea:  "Religion implies the farthest reach of man's self-externalization, of his infusion of reality with his own meanings... religion is the audacious attempt to conceive of the entire universe as being humanly significant."  Humans are always searching for meaning and explanation, and religion is one answer that has the potential to answer many of those questions.  Whether is accomplishes human significance is the universal sense is a debate for another day.

MH