Monica Butler - Role of Religion 

The role of religion in the rapidly globalization has become one of the most central issues in the ongoing discussion. Religious differences have been at the center of political strife and the clash of the nations for thousands of years. Over the past century, countries across the world have connected on mass levels through trade, political alliances, and technology. While all of these connections would appear to be secular in nature, religion always finds a way to be intertwined and pushed to the forefront of controversy. The ironic thing about religious disagreements between the Western World and the Arabic Nations is that the main religions are rooted in the same principles of the Abrahamic background. While each religion, whether it is Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, has their own scripture and prophet they are based on the same principles and morals. If these religions are so similar in their origins, why is there so much strife between them? Is the fight really about religion or is it something more superficial? Does religion act as an excuse to point out differences and create hate?

The article “Bin Laden and Other Throughly Modern Muslims” I think did a good job of pointing out the many misconceptions of the Arab world. While the stereotypes of what the Arab world is “like” are extremely strong in America, this is something that many cultures do. Many cultures label Americans in one specific way or similarly Latin American cultures are also grouped into one distinct category. However, like the Islamic world, there are multiple degrees of conservatism and modernism. Kurzman talks a lot about the misconceptions of the modernity of Islamists. Also, he points out that while America is leading the War on Terrorism, the majority of people in the nations America is actively fighting against disagree with the radical Islamists agendas. Going back to some of the discussions we have had in previous classes, it is important to point out the media’s role in developing these stereotypes. Is the media responsible? Is it the American government’s goals propagandistic goals to create fear of the Islamic world in the eyes of all Americans? I believe the answer is yes and no. While, I cannot verify the intentions of the media or the government’s political agenda playing out in the media. It is poignant to think about how the current 24 hour news cycle has helped develop American’s perceptions of the Islamic world. The images that are centrally shown are of the radical Islamists dressed in traditional garb and posing threats against America, discounting any notion of modernity. The images focus on America’s military accomplishments, the happiness of the “innocent” people the soldiers are saving by ridding them of abusive regimes. When we constantly hear about the daily terrorist threat level it poses terrorism (which has solely been connected to the Islamic World through the media) as something we should be battling and fearing in our daily life and developing support for the militaristic agendas of the country. Whether this is harmful or not to our daily lives is unclear to me. However, I do see how it can misconstrue our cultural understandings. Is this only the responsibility of the media, do American’s buy into this because they desperately need to have an enemy?

Narayan talks a lot about these “cross-cultural understanding” and “cultural explanations.” The issue of the cultural association of the “dowry murders” is purely and once again a cultural misconceptions. While I would not link to this to the media, I would  link this cultural misunderstanding to how we define culture. By putting the word dowry into the context of these murders, it directly associates the violence with cultural tradition. It is then misconstrued as something that is accepted because it is tradition. However, it is not an accepted practice and its only association is the word. Narayan directly associates this issue with the domestic violence in America, which never is associated with culture. Domestic violence in America is frowned upon completely, however, feminist women in America do not have the same sentiments to the violence in India. Citing the cultural connection, “dowry murders” get brushed under the rug as something that should not be judged because it is culturally rooted. This outlines the potency of words. Narayan points out that the numbers between the women killed in the US by domestic violence and the women in India killed by dowry murders is “numerically similar.” Proving that this is not a “cultural problem” but a “social problem.” I think the most troubling question about these issues is; if we are becoming so much more globalized and culturally similar then why do we still associate cultures like idea so strongly with traditionalism? Many parts of India are as modern or more modern that America, like much of that part of the world, why do American’s fail to see progress?

“Jihad Versus McWorld” focuses on this fight between modernity and traditionalism in a modern world. When reading the article it bothered me how the author used the world Jihad so liberally to describe the Arab world. McWorld, referencing the American consumerist lifestyle is missing the power of the term Jihad. I appreciate that the author pointed out halfway through the article that he was aware of the strong connotation of the word Jihad. Many Westerners associate the word with the War on Terrorism and the bloody war-shed of the on account of Islamist radicals. He notes “What ends as Jihad may begin as a simple search for a local identity, some set of common personal attributes to hold out against the numbing and neutering uniformities of industrial modernization and the colonizing culture of McWorld” (9). I believe that he associates the traditional nature and rejection of modernity in the Jihad culture is a result of the need to maintain culture and identity. Why has America never clung to this Jihad or longing for cultural identity? Is this a result of being a nation of immigrants? Do Americans lack a national identity, so much so that we have settled on the McWorld?

The last article, Killian’s “The Other Side of the Veil” really emphasized the point of many of the articles. That the Islamic community has a lot of diversity and contradicting opinions. It is a combination of many cultures and traditions rooted in one religion. Like the points made with the Jihad article relating to identity, the fail for many of these women act as a connection to their identity and tradition. The religious importance is second to the way it allows them to connect with their culture far away. First, I think its important to point out that a country who claims to have invented democracy and tolerance is breeding such intolerance. How can a county that preaches equality so strongly, participate in this hate. In these schools, where is the separation of church and state? What harm to French children are these headscarves having? The veil would be a statement that France protects religious freedom, when in fact it is doing the opposite. I think its important for the French to listen to these testimonies and understand the multiple meanings of the veil. The innocence of the veil as a statement of identity, difference, nostalgia, or tradition. Each girl wears the veil for a different reason. In the end, I question if France really has a problem with the veil and its religious connotation or with the entire Arabic community? Despite a heated political environment, how can the French justify the degradation of these young girls?