Quote of the Day -- George Carlin

I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. 

-- George Carlin

Quote of the Day -- Annie Dillard

If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No", said the priest, "not if you did not know." "Then why," asked the Eskimo earnestly, "did you tell me?

-- Annie Dillard

Quote of the Day -- Stephen Hawking

I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.

-- Stephen Hawking

Quote of the Day -- Anne Lamott

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

-- Anne Lamott

Quote of the Day -- Billy Graham

When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.

-- Dr. Billy Graham

Quote of the Day -- William Blake

To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour.

-- William Blake

Clash of Civilizations

I'm a sucker for sweeping generalities when they are well argued and elegantly articulated.  Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond remains one of my all-time favorite books. I just finished reading The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order by Samuel P Huntington. It joins GGS on my list of really important books.

Clash of Civilizations was written in 1996. It's interesting to read a history of events that have happened mostly in my lifetime and see how predictive it has been of the most recent 20 years.

One of Huntington's central premises is that clashes among groups of people are inevitable. Despite the fact that we in the West foolishly dreamed of a universal culture after the fall of the Soviet Union, it isn't in human nature for everyone to agree on common principals and just get along.  We define ourselves, and our tribe, by how we are different from others.

Huntington argues that the Cold War was an anomaly in the history of civilizations because it was a clash of politics and ideals rather than of fundamental cultural and religious differences. But now that the Cold War has ended, the world is reverting to a norm where peoples disagree over the fundamental things that they believe -- culture, values, and religion.

The world today, he argues, has seven major civilizations:

• Sinic (Chinese)
• Japanese
• Hindu (primarily India)
• Islamic (vast but lacking a primary core state)
• Orthodox (Russian)
• Western (that's us and Europe)
• Latin American

And when push comes to shove, people will align with others who share their civilizational and cultural identity.

He identifies the key beliefs, values, and institutions that characterize "the West," and admonishes that we in the West wrongly assume that these are shared and universally correct values:

• Classical legacy coming from the Greeks and Romans
• Catholicism and Protestantism
• Separation of spiritual and temporal authority
• Social pluralism
• Representative bodies
• Individualism

"What is universalism to the West is imperialism to the rest."

The vast center of the book illuminates the history and fundamental characteristics of the other major civilizations. Huntington then examines the major and minor conflicts that continually arise along the "fault lines" where different civilizations come in contact. "Fault line wars are intermittent," he says. "Fault line conflicts are interminable."

The most sobering and prescient part of the book is the final section, where Huntington reprises the classic phases of civilization identified by other notable historians and describes a civilization in decline.  I'll quote at length because it is both important and frightening:

Civilizations decline when they stop the "application of surplus to new ways of doing things. In modern terms we say that the rate of investment decreases." (Carroll Quigley) This happens because social groups, controlling the surplus, have a vested interest in using it for "non-productive but ego-satisfying purposes... which distribute the surpluses to consumption but do not provide more effective methods of production." People live off their capital and the civilization moves from the stage of the universal state to the stage of decay. 

It's pretty hard to avoid equating that description with the huge wealth gap that is growing in Western countries, particularly the U.S., and with multinational companies hoarding huge amounts of cash instead of reinvesting.

Huntington continues, quoting Quigley at length:

This is a period of acute economic depression, declining standards of living, civil wars between the various vested interests, and growing illiteracy. The society grows weaker and weaker. Vain efforts are made to stop the wastage by legislation. But the decline continues. The religious, intellectual, social, and political levels of society began to lose the allegiance of the masses of the people on a large scale. New religious movements begin to sweep over the society. There is a growing reluctance to fight for the society or even to support it by paying taxes. 

Huntington wrote this tremendous opus before globalization and the information age had really taken hold. And he died before he could reprise his arguments in light of recent events. So much of what he predicted has come true, but I hope that his advice for saving the West is no longer completely valid. Coming from the perspective of someone who believes so strongly in the power of civilization, Huntington argues that the West won't survive if it insists on embracing multiculturalism and pluralism rather than reverting to its fundamental Christian roots.

Basically, I guess that means I love the book and hate the ending.

The Power of Positive Thinking

I recently finished reading Living Out Loud: Sports, Cancer and the Things Worth Fighting For by Craig Sager. Memoirs are not my favorite genre, but Craig was a high school classmate so I wanted to read his book.

Craig was fairly well-known in the sports world as a "sidelines" reporter always wearing outlandish, colorful sports coats and ties. He was a great interviewer, and above all, he was persistent. He often succeeded in getting the interview that others couldn't. He lived an out-sized life, taking risks, spending lavishly on some things. In short, living out loud.

In his early sixties, Craig was diagnosed with a lethal form of leukemia and waged an epic battle for several years to "beat" the loathsome disease and extend his life. Doing battle and not letting enemy cancer beat him was part of Craig's nature. He was also strongly motivated by the desire to see his young children mature. Craig defied the odds several times during his battle with cancer, but ultimately, the Emperor of Maladies defeated him.

Throughout the book, Craig advocated the value of being determined and optimistic -- the importance of having the will to beat cancer. Much of what he said and did was very admirable, but I also found myself having some politically incorrect reactions as well. Not everyone has the strength or the resources to fight like Craig did. Some people get worn out and just want to end the battle, for themselves and for their families. Are they less admirable? Are they cowards?

I remember an uncomfortable moment in church many years ago (one of those moments that eventually drove me away). A couple was giving "testimony" about the power of prayer. Their unborn child had been diagnosed with spinal bifida and the prognosis was grim. But rather than aborting, as their doctor recommended, they decided to continue the pregnancy and pray. Lo and behold, their baby was born with much milder than predicted medical issues. The moral of the story being abortion is bad and prayer saves the day.

I was horrified on many levels. Most importantly, I felt profoundly sympathetic for any parents sitting in the congregation whose pregnancies had resulted in children with disabilities of any kind. What were they to think?  That they just hadn't prayed enough? Sometimes life deals you a rotten hand. You can try to think positively and make lemonade from lemons, but sometimes things are simply rotten and unfair.

Thirteen years ago, my husband had a coronary episode. He was (and is) an extremely fit man -- a marathon runner at the time. He ate a very healthy diet, drank very sparingly, and had never smoked. Basically, did everything right and yet, he ended up with major blockage and three stents in his coronary arteries. Living well could only go so far in the face of a bad genetic hand. True, the damage was minimal because he led such a healthy life, but it still did and does feel very unfair. 

I'm not advocating that we stop trying to live well and battle the odds. I'm not advocating that we think negatively instead of positively. I'm not advocating replacing optimism with pessimism. But I am advocating realism and recognizing that life is simply not fair sometimes. And we shouldn't be too quick to judge those who haven't been as fortunate as we have.

Understanding Islam

On my morning walk at "the Lake," I breathed in the fresh air, exercised my lower body with hill work, exercised my upper body trying to swat away the hungry new crop of mosquitoes, and exercised my brain with this excellent Brookings Cafeteria podcast. I've nearly completed Hamid's new book -- Islamist Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World.

We can go only so far in our understanding of a culture or religion when we have no firsthand experience or solid point of reference. After all, I can't even really understand the mindset of a fundamentalist who asked me whether I believe evolution or creationism. How can that even be a choice in this day and age?  And yet...  We have to try. We have to try to appreciate what is both important and obvious to others, even if it's neither obvious nor important to us.

Hamid's book and the podcast interview provide many valuable insights, and I encourage everyone to experience both of them first hand. I can't begin to do justice to his wealth of knowledge, but a couple things stick out.

Hamid goes back to the root of Christianity and the fact that Jesus was a "revolutionary" who had no hope or desire of nation-building. The New Testament is all about individuals, what we believe, and how we conduct ourselves. Anything resembling politics or government is conspicuously absent.Therefore, it's not surprising that eventually a Reformation occurred and we find ourselves in a secular society where the role of religion (for most of us) is fairly circumscribed.

The prophet Mohammed, on the other hand, was in a leadership position and was very interested in "nation-building."  The Koran is filled with "laws" about how to conduct ourselves in groups, how to form a law-abiding Islamist society. This is an overly simplistic summary, but Hamid's basic premise is that separating religion and politics for Muslims is very difficult and unnatural. If we're waiting for a Reformation that will somehow make it easier for us to understand each other and share the planet, we shouldn't hold our collective breath.

Another important point. When Muslims think about history, they think about the vast, highly successful and advanced Ottoman Empire. That was their heyday and it has vanished. So they question why it happened, why did God let it happen, and what can they do to get back into God's favor and ascend to their former greatness. Obviously, for many of them, a return to a more observant, pious society is an important step.

And one last story. When visiting Egypt, Hamid encountered a man who was smoking hashish while bemoaning secularism and wishing for the implementation of sharia law. When Hamid pointed out the irony (that the man was wishing for sharia law that would prohibit him from smoking hash), he said he felt bad about smoking hashish and wanted the state to stop him. We've seen this throughout history. For many people, authoritarianism (or fundamentalism) is easier. It provides something to believe in and rules to live by.

I'll never really understand such a vastly different value system, but at least I'm trying.