Madrassah Mentality in the West

Madrassah Mentality in the West

OK, I agree with you.

This title is a stretch.

We all know what madrassahs are: religious schools that teach the Koran, the whole Koran and nothing but the Koran to young boys in Islamic countries. I am aware that madrassah education includes broader Islamic studies also. But I am referring to those schools in some Islamic nations that are in the news lately that have a narrow focus. The shame of it is that these schools often indoctrinate a fervent hatred of people of other faiths, notably the Jews. There is no broader context given out that would provide an understanding of Islam, how and why it arose and it’s history as a religion with blemishes. Many madrassahs are indoctrination centers that are not far removed from brainwashing.

What concerns me is trend I have observed with my own ears over the last few decades in our enlightened Western societies.

Not too many decades ago we used to pride ourselves on knowing how to conduct heated but respectful debates on hot topics such as science, religion and politics. It was the model of the old debate teams colleges (and even high schools) used to promote. You would marshal facts on your side and on your opponent’s side, mount razor-sharp criticisms of where the facts would lead us, and make your presentation. If you were successful, your opponents would go down in flames and have to revise their position. If not, you would have to more homework on your side. But that is how progress was made in the search for truth. Every one in the process respected and even honored their opponents because the idea was to gain knowledge and your opponents played a valuable role. I still admire and hold to this model.

What dismays me now is this. The former gentlemanly quest for more light and truth has shifted to a grab for power and control of the hearts, minds, and wills of people—all done in a crassly ungentlemanly fashion.

Postmodern sentiments have reduced the search for truth and knowledge to an irrational ploy for power and control. Since there is, they say, no truth to be discovered, the goal now is to annihilate your opponents so that you and your party can be in control.

The result is an increasing vilification of one’s opponents. Instead of them needing enlightenment by finding a more rational understanding of things, opponents are now evil people trying to oppress others. The goodwill is gone. Respect for opposing views is often submerged in heated rhetoric that demonizes all opposition.

I see this in articles readily found on the Internet where opposing viewpoints are attacked, not assuming the good intentions of the other party, but assuming the opposition is sinister, backward, under-handed, and malevolent.

Someone said that people used to criticize Christianity (to take favorite target of many) as being untrue. If truth is considered to be a non-existent construct of the human imagination, Christianity must now be attacked as being evil. The tone of condescension and even at times hatred is disturbing to me. Are we on the way to a madrassification of discourse?

Perhaps not. The drift of postmodern non-rational thinking is leading many of the younger generation to ask, “Who is to say what is good or what is evil?” Not only is there no truth to be discovered, there is no good to be concerned about. Good is merely a private definition of what you desire.

So the question now is this: "What will enable you to fulfill your dreams?

What are possible candidates for my “dreams?”

For one it may be to make money and live a life of happy consumerism.

For another it may be to make a difference for posterity by saving the rain forests or fighting the oppression of women in Africa or Afghanistan.

For another it be tuning in to some spiritual experience and living non-violently.

For others it may be taking over the world’s governments to achieve some utopian vision.

Now it is obvious to me that some of these dreams are going to prove mutually exclusive. For example the dream of some versions of Islam is to bring every nation under the rule of Islamic law, either by political takeover or by military conquest. For Christianity the dream is to give every person an opportunity to hear about Jesus and to have the freedom to embrace that way of life or to reject it. Obviously these two dreams are irreconcilable. One removes individual freedom of choice and the other promotes it.

The consumer dream (more stuff and playthings) and the environmental dream (simpler living) are also probably on a collision course given present resources.

Eventually some dream is going to dominate when the current western liberal dream of free people living within societies structured along democratic ideals collapses. It is not hard to see how that collapse could take place in this century.

My concern about madrassah mentality highlights a trend that I think could help bring down western liberal civilization. For me, that would be a dream transformed into a nightmare.

A Plea for Restraint

You Really Want Me to Listen to You?

I’m a somewhat patient person. I’ve taught philosophy and religion to about 10,000 people who were rank beginners in each area. So I’ve gotten used to people who think they know more than they do, and I know they’ll make progress just as I am still making progress in mastering more of what I don’t know—which is a lot.

But I’ve about had it with the media experts shooting off their mouths with bombastic dogmatism when they ought to know they are going way beyond the evidence.

Recently there were lots of blowhards saying that there is no tie between between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, between the government of Iraq and al Queda.

To begin with, people with much less education than these pontificators know you cannot prove a negative. Would they be cautious and just say there is no solid evidence of a connection? No. They thunder as though they know for certain.

Then a week later the New York Times, one of the worst overstaters in my judgment, finds that there is evidence of a link between the Iraq regime and Osama’s people. They have to contradict their bold statements of the previous week. This is supposedly the best paper in America?

The Bush administration ignored warnings that Saddam’s former general should not be leading the new Iraqi army in the fight for Fallujah. “We know what we’re doing.” Then they find they got the wrong guy—the names were similar. Pretty lame. Even scary.

Then Ted Kennedy (I’ll confess that I’ve lived in Massachusetts since birth and have never voted for any Kennedy) says he knows Bush deliberately lied about Iraq. He knows Bush was out for oil. He knows Bush wanted revenge for Saddam’s attempt on Bush 41.

The truth is there is no way for Kennedy to know any of that.

Here’s a challenge. Just sit back and listen as objectively as you can to all this political blather. Ask yourself “Is there any way this person, this paper, this talking head can know any of this he’s saying?” Is the speaker being tentative about what he should be tentative about? Or is he way out beyond reasonable evidence?

I have a hunch about what caused us to fall for this hype. It started happening sometime after I got out of college four decades ago. Then we used to say, “I think this or that.” Then we’d be expected to give some reasons to back it up. Now people say “I feel this or that.” We don’t need to prove feelings—they’re just there. So if someone has strong emotions about something that seems to justify outrageous claims.

What other charitable explanation is there for some of the nonsense that often passes for public debate on the issues of the times? Of course, I’ll be modest. I could be wrong.