Today is the day to go in like a lion.

***ORDER MY BOOK!-NOW AVAILABLE ON POWELLS!***

Some bits of news first:

If you live in Chicago, specifically in the Andersonville area, my book is now available here. Please buy it and make me seem legitimate!

The information about my DC reading this Friday is here. It involves prostitutes!

Read this story and submit your own!

Ask the BYT (go ahead, ask him)

Dear BYT,

There seems to be a certain group of religionists who hate anyone who practices a religion other than theirs and resort to murder, sometimes on a large scale. Why is this so? Couldn't they just pray for our conversion, as other religions have done in the past? I can think of certain European countries that might be willing to convert rather than risk an act of terror.

I think there are lots of groups of “religionists” who hate people of other religions. And while I find this sort of hate depressing, wrong-headed, and essentially irreligious across the board, it seems to me a matter of degree. I was teaching Religious Education in the months after September 11, 2001, for example, and the kids I taught all hated Arabs pretty convincingly (their parents had drilled them at home, I’m fairly certain). My grandfather didn’t particularly like Jews. But, neither the kids in my class nor my grandfather was out to do any killing over the matter. Nor did they probably feel beleaguered in quite the same way that the real violent haters have felt, and seem to continue to feel. These violent religionists are mainly fundamentalists. And the wars they wage are not actually matters of their religion against up against another, but of their religion up against the modern condition---modernity itself. Unless the religious conversion of those European countries includes the abdication of essential democratic principles like the separation of church and state, pluralism, religious toleration, and free speech, it isn’t going to do a lick of good.

(NB: I should mention that democratic nations you’re talking about could never hope to pull off any sort of sweeping conversion anyway, since 1) the reason they are being threatened with acts of terror is that they value religious pluralism and separation of church and state, &c., &c., and 2) they cannot rightly be considered “religious” [i.e., “Christian,” in this case] nations. Modern secular nations cannot “convert” and still remain modern or secular. Plus, Europe has pretty much had it with religion. The U.S., on the other hand, currently seems to be forgetting a few of its democratic principles in pursuing its current wars [on terror, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on civil liberties, &c.], and appears anti-modern in its reaction to the current threat of terror, both in terms of its foreign and domestic policies. In this way, the U.S. is currently more primed for conversion than any European state, if only because, at the moment, it seems more ready to jettison certain key modern ideas.)

I cannot hope to explain centuries of religious violence in this short column. I can recommend Karen Armstrong’s "The Battle for God," which is a fine introduction to the sort of violence you are talking about, with examples taken from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Her concern is with the essentially modern fundamentalist movements. She notes that the term “fundamentalist” was first applied by Christian protestants in the early decades of the twentieth century who were attempting to go back to certain “fundamentals” of Christian tradition, “which they identified with literal interpretation of Scripture and the acceptance of certain core doctrines.” Armstrong’s basic argument (which, she notes, owes much to a six-volume Fundamentalist Project by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby) is that fundamentalists have a particular, often violent, response to modern culture, which they believe to be the enemy in a “cosmic war between the forces of good and evil.” Religious fundamentalisms are “embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis.”

As for praying for conversion: Regardless of the argument above pointing out the impossibility of some kind of national religious conversion, I can say this with some confidence: History tells us that “prayer” for conversion hardly ever ends with heads bent and hands folded. Prayer alone has never worked. And when prayer hasn’t worked---um, sort of like diplomacy---violence has usually been the next step. And I’d say that their prayers have probably been of the half-assed variety (again, like diplomacy), since those doing the praying have certainly learned (through experience, from their Scriptures, and otherwise) that violence is easier, and just works better.