Angry (Christian) Arabs

By Joseph El-Khoury

'We are this East's saints and its devils, we are its cross and its spear, we are its light and its fire; We are able to burn it if they burn our fingers, and we are able to light if they leave us with our freedom.' Bachir Gemayel (1947-1982)

No doubt some will be outraged that I choose to start this post by a quote from a controversial figure in the mind of many, but in these few powerful words that echo a supposed pre-Islamic golden era (Phoenician in Lebanon, Pharaonic in Egypt and Mesopotamic in Iraq) the then militia leader managed to articulate the image that Middle Eastern Christians have of themselves, whether they are Copts from Alexandria, Chaldeans from Baghdad, Greek Orthodox from Damascus or Maronites from the Lebanese mountains. The interesting thing about this perennial existential anxiety is that throughout history it has led Christian individuals to adopt dramatically opposed strategies to deal with it.

Some, like Gemayel have chosen to treat their religious community as a fortress, withdrawing behind sectarian legislation in Lebanon (The latest example being MP Boutros Harb proposal to ban the transfer of land between communities), an unpopular dictatorship in Iraq and an attitude of malignant neutrality in Egypt. Others (Aflak, Saadeh, Habache etc.) have instead ventured out in force onto the broader Arab hinterland shedding their religious identity or leaving it aside as they challenged social and religious dogmas responsible for centuries of stagnation and foreign dominations. It is the failure of the common efforts of the latter to establish an alternative nationalist or humanistic bond to replace the strict Islamic one that can be directly linked to the situation that Arab Christians find themselves in. Obviously it is not, and never was, their responsibility to enlighten the Arab world. It is their status as a minority and their later relatively privileged position under western mandate that placed them at the forefront of Arab reform.

That reform effort has now clearly failed and on most significant indicators the Arab world is socially, religiously and politically in a state of flux from which radical forces, but also undemocratic governments and Western interests are benefiting. It is not as a community that Arab Christians should be responding to the attacks of Al-Qaeda and various brands of fundamentalists, it is as individuals firmly requesting from those who govern them their human right to live, love, pray (or not for that matter) and finally die in this land. It is also as individuals that Arab Muslims should be standing against terrorism, bigotry and social oppression whether it affects them directly or not. This fight should not be about the Crescent and the Cross coming together or about brotherhood across a religious divide... and yes I am critical of the slogans and imagery that appeared on Facebook, which reminded me of the pacifist marches that took place in the early years of the Lebanese civil war and were always followed by another round of sectarian killing. This fight should be about rational Egyptian, Lebanese and Iraqi citizens finally realising that it is time to resuscitate the reformation project on a national and regional level. New mechanisms suited to this century are needed and nostalgia for the era of charismatic leaders and enthusiastic revolutionaries should not prevent serious introspection and productive self criticism. Solely blaming the Western media or the Zionist conspiracy for the nation’s sorry state of affairs no longer convinces even those who utter them like parrots. I personally have had enough of the fears and the tears. The time has come to galvanize!

Mixing Alcohol and Politics: The Boycott of TSC Sultan

By Joseph El-Khoury

Activism is back! The free people of Lebanon have forced TSC Sultan, the Kuwaiti group which acquired Monoprix and related retail outlets to sell alcohol in full public view. This must be one of the oddest campaigns I have heard of. A campaign to facilitate access to alcohol at a time where developed countries are looking for ways to encourage responsible limited drinking. I don’t have a problem with alcohol. I love nothing better than a nice glass of white wine to accompany my Syiadiye, an Almaza to wash down the peanuts or a Cuba Libre to go with my nachos. Alcohol is and will always be part and parcel of my social life. On the other hand I am very uncomfortable with the massive hysteria displayed by some Lebanese against what can be best described as a silly decision by an Arab Conservative establishment to position their alcohol beverages in an awkward corner of their stores. While the Kuwaitis showed complete lack of business sense, for reasons that I can only speculate on; the Lebanese (Christians mostly) behaved as if their entire existence depended on how prominently their Sauvignon Blanc was displayed on supermarket shelves. Faced with a fledgling democracy, a corrupt political elite, lack of opportunities and dependence on these same Gulf Arabs for employment and investment they choose to fight for their right to get drunk. Is it conceivable that this was the first step towards banning alcohol altogether and enforcing the veil when the Beirut nightlife rivals Miami in hedonism and booziness? Well, yes! According to the conspiracy theorists behind the Facebook group which gathered thousands of supporters in a matter of days. And this was not all. Apparently ‘brands of Pork products are limited’. Scary! A more militant group even advocates the broadening of the boycott to include (quote unquote):

● BOYCOTT " Dekkané " a store that just opened in Achrafieh, for not selling alcohol or pork.

● BOYCOTT " Pain d'or " because it doesn't serve alcohol or ham.

● BOYCOTT " Patchi " : no truffes au cognac ni au champagne.

● BOYCOTT " Grand Café " : no alcohol, jellab and tea only.

● BOYCOTT :" Burger king " for withdrawing bacon from it's menu .

● BOYCOTT : "Mac Donald's " for not serving bacon while doing so in other countries.

● BOYCOTT :" Spinneys Tripoli " for selling alcohol in a different and specific area.

● BOYCOTT : " Dunkin donuts " for not serving bacon although they do worldwide.

● BOYCOTT : " COOP broumana " , it has a seperate section for alcohol with a seperate cashier

Originally I thought this a spoof of some sort, then I heard rumours that distributors and related business interests were behind the initial move to boycott. Others have mentioned that some political movements were feeding into the hype for electoral reasons. Whatever the mechanism, a move to boycott is a political statement and is disproportionate in this context. It would have been wiser to highlight this issue in the media and rather leave it to the customers to vote with their feet. Given it a political and existential dimension only serves those who have still to benefit from the ghetto mentality that remains unshakable among Lebanese Christians. The net result is a false solidarity and a misplaced victory for the bigots running our country. Bacardi will not preserve your way of life and Johnny Walker will not bring back Lebanon‘s glory days. I strongly suggest you look for your redemption elsewhere!

'Jesus' comes to Afghanistan

It seems the Taliban are not the only extremists thriving in Afghanistan. In this clip broadcast on the English AlJazeera some elements within the US Army unashamedly draw a parallel between their duty as soldiers and their obligations as Evangelical Christians. Encouraged by a head chaplain (also a senior officer), they use militaristic vocabulary to justify their proselytizing strategy, with the use of Bibles translated in Pashtoun and other local languages.

Although this is probably not a reflection of the majority of US Servicemen, it is worrying that the Christian version of the Madrasas seem to operate unchecked in Bagram Air-Base. Over the past decade Killing in the name of! has become mainstream again and the rest of us are caught up in these anachronistic religious wars . It is high time for the seculars to step in.

Arabdemocracy

Is Religious Education Psychological Cloning?

By Dr Numan Gharaibeh

Xenophanes suggested that men (yes, men) arbitrarily attributed human-like qualities to gods:
“But if cattle, or lions, or horses had hands….then the horses in drawing their gods would draw horses; and cattle would give us pictures and statues of cattle; and therefore each would picture the gods to resemble their own constitution. Aethiopian [sic.] gods–snubnosed [sic.] and black, Thracians—blue eyed and blond.” It certainly was (and is) an ancient genius insight by Xenophanes: we created gods in our image and not vice versa.

In a new millennium, a new century, and in the golden age of science and technology one would’ve expected religious fervor to start a gradual decline. Unfortunately, judging by the first 8 years of the new millennium, religious extremism does not seem to be declining. One would have liked the global financial system to have fared as well. How can we explain that (if at all possible)?

One clue to the answer is that in science and technology we no longer believe (and may laugh at) what we believed 50 years ago, while in religion people still believe what was believed 500 or even 5000 yeas ago. So, what is religion’s secret in immunizing itself against change?

Here is one clue. By the time most children reach at the age of abstract reasoning–the consensus is that it is by age 12, but one may argue as late as 20 or never in some cases–they typically would have gone through as many years of education and indoctrination. The process of education/indoctrination may have other names as well: instruction, acculturation, socialization, assimilation, tutoring, rearing, upbringing, etc. The essence, however, is the same, creating a future adult in our own psychological image: believing what we believe, behaving as we behave, and carrying on our legacy and tradition.

There is nothing more insulting to the mind than to ask of it not to reason at all. Reasoning is one of the defining attributes of the human mind, arguably it is what makes us who we are. To ask of the mind not to think and to blindly accept what it is being told is to ask it to stop acting as a mind. It might as well be a programmed computer. Children learn what are taught by the adults around them. They are trusting, innocent sponges who will absorb what typically they have no choice over, they trust adults because that’s what evolution had programmed them to do. They can’t go it alone, so they accept what is presented to them as facts. They are taught to believe in the unseen (they are told to call it faith). Children are taught the ideology of the parents and other grown ups, what is right and wrong, true or false, good and bad or evil, etc. By the time the child reaches an age of independent reasoning it is difficult to undo all the previous indoctrination.

Dawkins and Hitchens rightfully argued that indoctrination amounts to psychological/emotional child abuse. Correcting errors of logic (well-intentioned as they may have been), and undoing the harmful effects of dangerous instruction and negligent lack of instruction may be an extremely difficult task (or may be even impossible).

Deliberately creating an identical human to us with the same exact genes (i.e. same hardware) may be an ethical sin (or not), however, it is a greater injustice and more unethical to create an identical psychological copy (i.e. software) of ourselves. Unfortunately, while physical cloning is debated frequently by bioethicists, psychological cloning remains very acceptable (if not even encouraged). Where do we draw the line?

Our education becomes indoctrination and psychological cloning when we teach kids absolute obedience and submission, when we teach them to accept dogmatism without questioning, when we instruct them that doubt is a sin punishable by extreme forms of torture, when we neglect to teach them skepticism and free thinking, when we neglect teaching them alternative views, humanistic multicultural views, multinational views, scientific curiosity, when we neglect to teach them that looking for evidence is imperative and not a sign of being unfaithful. Yes, belief without evidence may be called faith but it may also be called brainwashing, psychological cloning, indoctrination and psychological abuse.