Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Mauss, Armand. 2003. All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Rating:
10

Summary:
dense, but extremely valuable for scholars

The book begins with a discussion of how people, both individuals and groups, create and re-create identities. In the case of the Mormons, they have defined and re-defined their identity a number of times. Originally they wanted to be seen as different, peculiar, and/or elect. Now they want to be seen as representing the mainstream, or, at least the conservative mainstream in the U.S.

But within Mormonism there has also been a lot of identity creation as regards ethnic minorities (American Indians, blacks, and Hispanics). Most of the identity creation has been done for these groups, but at times it has also been done by these groups, and it has been accompanied with varying interpretations or convolutions of Mormon doctrine to justify the changes in the identities.

The author also looks at each of these identities in terms of where they started when the LDS Church was in its infancy (1830), how they have changed over time, and what they are today (2003). Included in this discussion is an explanation of how the North American Indians (specifically those in the U.S.) lost their place as the prophesied ‘Lamanites’ that were supposed to be instrumental in the restoration of the gospel. Mauss then explains how they were replaced, with some additional restrictions, by the Hispanic people of Central and South America. Also discussed is the highly controversial issue of the role of blacks in the Mormon Church. Mauss argues that the exclusion of blacks from full participation occurred post Joseph Smith, during Brigham Young’s tenure, and it was later justified through doctrinal interpretations during the late 1800s and early 1900s. But this identity has also changed, though the changes are still filtering their way down from the Mormon leadership (and, in my opinion, up through the leadership), and now blacks are supposed to be seen as being just like everyone else.

Review:
Let me start by saying I think this is a brilliant book. Of course, it isn’t without its problems, but the problems tend to be fairly nit picky. Overall, this is an excellent, scholarly work that should be read by every scholar interested in Mormonism.

A couple of warnings to the layperson… First, this is a very dense book. The amount of information contained within builds upon some very lofty foundations that require a great deal of background information (I’m really not trying to be arrogant; it took me a very long time to read the entire book because it is so complex). Second, the book contains a lot of history. Yes, there is also a great deal of sociological analysis, but in order to illustrate the analysis the author includes in depth histories of these groups. In my extremely brief summary above I tried to hit the main points (you’ll have to read the book to see if I have succeeded). These points could be summarized in the book in about 150 pages, but the history really is important to the ultimate conclusions. So, keep in mind that you are getting both a history book and a sociological analysis of that history (there is also some statistical analysis, but it is pretty brief).

I will discuss here only two criticisms of the book. First, some Mormons have seen fit to redefine the location of where the Book of Mormon took place, in large part because archaeological evidence continues to disprove the locations advocated by pro-Mormon scholars. The current, popular theory is called the ‘Limited Geography Model’, and situates the events of the book in Southern Mexico and Northern Guatemala. But where this becomes particularly interesting as it relates to ‘All Abraham’s Children’ is that now the advocates of this model are beginning to argue that the people of the Book of Mormon intermarried with the other people surrounding them (the scientifically proposed Asians that came across the land bridge) and, therefore, they cannot be discovered using gene tracking techniques that have recently been developed. This creates a beautiful, non-falsifiable position for Mormons (religions love doing these kinds of things), but it also creates a problem for Mauss’s analysis, though the problem is likely more for the advocates of the theory and Mormons in general than it is for Mauss. The way I see it, if the Book of Mormon people living in the outlined region (Southern Mexico, etc.) intermarried and lost their true bloodline, and the North American Indians have already been ruled out as the embodiment of the Lamanites, doesn’t this rule out the fulfillment of the Book of Mormon prophecy that the Lamanites would be instrumental in restoring the Kingdom of God since Lamanites no longer exist? According to the Limited Geography Model, the Lamanites are no more. I believe this is a point of debate that has yet to come up within the Mormon scholarly community, but it is inevitable as long as they continue to argue for the Limited Geography Model and the later intermarrying of the Book of Mormon people. Mauss doesn’t discuss this issue, but I believe it to be an impending point of contention that will eventually have to be resolved (most likely by developing some other non-falsifiable notion).

The second problem I have with the book is the mostly subtle, pro-Mormon position of the author. I recognize that Mauss is an active Mormon and if he were to be overly critical of the Church, it might threaten his membership status. I also recognize that as an active Mormon he likely believes some of the things the Mormon Church teaches. But as a non-Mormon, I found Mauss’s pro-Mormon arguments, though not very frequent in the book, annoying. True, it isn’t really the place of academics to criticize religious dogma, but neither is it the place of academics to compliment that dogma. The result of this pro-Mormon approach is that Mauss minimizes some controversial issues (blacks and the priesthood) while maximizing the influence of divine intervention; explanations Occam’s Razor would readily dismiss. (Examples of Mauss’s pro-Mormon approach can be found on pp. 21, 43, 127, 128, 153, 236.)

Despite the criticisms, which I really see as minor, I think this is a superb piece of scholarly research. Let me reiterate that I believe the analysis is dead on. Sure, there may be some very minor disagreements over some very minor details, but in the end, Mauss has written a masterpiece illustrating how sociological theory should be applied to phenomena. I strongly recommend this book for anyone interested in better understanding these issues in Mormonism, though my caveats about the difficulty of the reading still stand.

Krakauer, John. 2003. Under the Banner of Heaven. Doubleday.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Definite page turner, but biased

Though the book is advertised as a history of the chilling murders of Brenda Lafferty and her daughter by two of her brothers-in-law, Dan and Ron Lafferty, nearly half the book is made up of historical accounts and discussions of other elements of Mormonism, both mainstream and fundamentalist, that the author sees as related.

Prominently featured is a rather one-sided view of some incidents in Mormon history, including a summary of Joseph Smith’s life and many of the events surrounding his death and his involvement with and revelation on polygamy (Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants). There is also an account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, followed by some history on John D. Lee and the federal investigations resulting from the massacre.

The events surrounding the kidnapping and eventual return of Elizabeth Smart by Brian David Mitchell and his wife are also discussed. Though the account is not particularly detailed or very thorough, it does offer enough details for the author to relate what happened to what I believe to be his primary argument, which I will discuss below.

The author also visits a number of relevant locations then uses the descriptions of them to introduce additional topics. One chapter begins with his description of his visit to Palmyra, New York to witness the Hill Cumorah Pageant after which he turns to a discussion of the roots of Mormonism. The author also visits Colorado City and Bountiful, two polygamist enclaves located in Arizona and Canada respectively, in order to gain a better understanding of what life is like in these towns.

The author concludes with an explanation of why he wrote the book and a brief summary of his own beliefs, characterizing himself as something of an agnostic that has always been interested in Mormonism.

Though the format of the book is initially a bit confusing, jumping from location to location and backwards in time then back to the present, the apparent goal of the author by discussing these events and elements of both fundamentalist and mainstream Mormonism is to illustrate how they are all related and that they ultimately resulted in the death of a young Mormon woman who happened to marry into a family that took religion to a level where legal statutes play second string to divine decree.

Review:
There are several problems with the book that I feel warrant detailed discussion. There is also the issue of what the author was trying to accomplish by writing the book, something he never explicitly states but I believe can be summarized by two points: obedience and faith. But first, the problems…

Problems
The first problem one notices in reading this book is that it isn’t objectively historical. The primary reason I would not consider the book to be objective history is due to the one-sided approach employed in relating Mormon history. The author chooses to focus on the most negative events from the LDS Church’s past, including the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, to the almost complete exclusion of any of the faith-affirming events, like the rescue of the Martin Handcart Company from certain doom in Wyoming. Included in this one-sided approach is the usage, by the author, of antagonistic sources. The majority of Krakauer’s information about the polygamist groups in Colorado City and Bountiful comes from individuals that have left the groups and now feel somewhat hostile towards them, some to the point of creating activist groups with the intent of legally hounding the groups out of existence. There are a few pro-polygamists that are given a brief voice in the book, but entire chapters are dedicated to the anti-polygamist apostates; the result is a book that screams its political bias – polygamy is bad. As for the author’s sources concerning the shared historical past of Mormonism, his sources (Fawn McKay Brodie and D. Michael Quinn, among others) are not without their own controversies and are generally seen by the mainstream Church as negatively reflecting upon Church history.

A second problem with the book involves assertions made by the author about the far-reaching influences of certain historical events. For instance, “It was this single change in ecclesiastical policy [discontinuation of polygamy], more than anything else, that transformed the LDS Church into its astonishingly successful present-day iteration” (p. 7). Though the discontinuation of polygamy was definitely influential in bringing Mormonism closer to the mainstream of conservative religions, it is by no means the solitary factor involved or, likely, even the most important factor. Other scholars (Shipps, 1987; Shepherd and Shepherd, 1984) have explored the changes that have taken place over time in the now mainstream LDS Church and have found that it is a combination of factors that have resulted in the more widespread acceptance of Mormonism as a viable religious alternative, not least among these includes the LDS Church’s emphasis on the nuclear family, which endeared it to the post-war Baby Boom generation. Although growth rates began shooting upwards in the mid-1960s, the Church’s growth also received a boost from its decision to allow blacks to receive the priesthood in 1978 and other scholars (Shepherd and Shepherd, 1996) have found striking correlations between the number of full-time missionaries in the mission field and converts to the LDS Church. Thus, despite polygamy being an important factor in reducing the antagonistic attitudes towards Mormonism, it cannot accurately be depicted as the most important transformative element in the increased popularity of Mormonism.

A third problem with the book is the amount of seemingly unrelated information, which is not explicitly tied to the other events to make a coherent argument. It could actually be argued that there is neither an explicit nor coherent argument to the entire book, but that is really another issue. An entire chapter is used to explore the possible fates of three members of Major John Wesley Powell’s expedition down the Colorado River. Krakauer argues that these three explorers might have been killed by Mormons who covered up the murders by blaming it on the local Indians, in a similar fashion to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Obviously the chapter is intended to illustrate that this tendency is prevalent among Mormons (though Krakauer is only able to come up with two incidents, one of which is wholly unconfirmed). But the connection of this story to the murder committed by the Lafferty brothers is definitely not explicitly stated and even given a number of liberal machinations is hard to see as implicitly related to the murders. It’s almost as if Krakauer has come upon a number of rather negative incidents, some confirmed and some not, and has thrown them all into the mixture hoping that the end result will make a convincing case that Mormonism, either directly or indirectly, is responsible for the murder of Brenda Lafferty and her daughter.

The final problem is the number of unconfirmed or unreferenced generalizations made by the author. For instance, the author’s discussion of Mormon Fundamentalists’ views on sexuality is not referenced and appears to be the result of rather casual observation, “For all their fecundity, Mormon Fundamentalists are strangely squeamish about sex. Boys and girls are forbidden to date, or even flirt, before marriage. Sex education consists of teaching children that the human body is a shameful vessel that should be veiled from the eyes of others at all times” (p. 33). The tendency of the author to generalize to entire populations from individual interviews was pointed out by Richard E. Turley, managing director of the Family and Church History Department and ‘an authority on Church history and doctrine,’ in the LDS Church’s rebuttal to the book . Though I found Turley’s criticism to be rather harsh, I do believe Krakauer has made some rather sweeping generalizations about mainstream and fundamentalist Mormons that are rather baseless. Given the extensive bibliography included in the back of the book, it is possible that a number of the claims are backed up by research, but without specific citations it is difficult to be certain that they are not just the passing thoughts of the author.

Major Points addressed by the book
Having considered some of the problems with the text, let me know turn to what I believe to be the major goals of the book. The first goal of the book, I believe, is to question the encouragement of ‘blind obedience’ to authority found in both mainstream and fundamentalist Mormonism. Krakauer explicitly states his dislike of this practice at several points in the text, for example, “When Debbie was six, her birth mother died, and Mem grew even more violent in her treatment of Debbie, who, even as a young girl, was proving to be intelligent and willful and disinclined to defer blindly to authority. Debbie tended to ask questions and to think for herself – qualities not regarded as attributes in the Fundamentalist Church” (p. 30). Krakauer follows this assertion with the following, “Mormonism is a patriarchal religion, rooted firmly in the traditions of the Old Testament. Dissent isn’t tolerated. Questioning the edicts of religious authorities is viewed as a subversive act that undermines faith. As the eminent LDS first counselor N. Eldon Tanner famously declared in the official church magazine, Ensign, in August 1979, “When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.”” (p. 31). The first major point, then, I believe is rather plain – Krakauer dislikes ‘blind obedience’ and believes that the structure of the Mormon church, which has carried over into fundamentalist break-offs and been magnified, encourages such behavior.

The obvious next step in this logic is the ramifications of blind obedience. Though Krakauer never explicitly states that blind obedience played a part in the murder of Brenda Lafferty, it is definitely implied. Much of the author’s conversation with Dan Lafferty focuses on Dan’s ‘blind obedience’ to his brother’s ‘removal revelation,’ resulting in Dan claiming that he performed the actual executions when the very revelator, Ron, was unable to carry through with the divine edict. I believe that ultimately Krakauer is arguing that blind obedience can result in drastic and terrible outcomes, including the murder of a young woman and her innocent child. As a result, Krakauer is questioning the design and organization of both the mainstream and fundamentalist Mormon churches and probably hoping to effectuate some change. He probably isn’t advocating that all Mormonism-related churches be disbanded, but he is definitely arguing that institutions that wield such power can be dangerous.

The second point I believe Krakauer is trying to make is that it is difficult to determine if religious belief is rational or irrational. This point was attacked by Mike Otterson, director of public relations for the LDS Church, in his public rebuttal . I can understand why it may seem that Krakauer is arguing for the irrationality of religion because of quotes like the following, “But such criticism and mockery are largely beside the point. All religious belief is a function of nonrational faith. And faith, by its very definition, tends to be impervious to intellectual argument or academic criticism.” (p. 68). But if you continue reading this paragraph you find that Krakauer immediately qualifies what he means, “Polls routinely indicate, moreover, that nine out of ten Americans believe in God – most of us subscribe to one brand of religion or another. Those who would assail The Book of Mormon should bear in mind that its veracity is no more dubious than the veracity of the Bible, say, or the Qur’an, or the sacred texts of most other religions. The latter texts simply enjoy the considerable advantage of having made their public debut in the shadowy recesses of the ancient past, and are thus much harder to refute” (p. 68). Though superficially it may seem that Krakauer is claiming that all religious belief is irrational, if you look past the initial assertion to what follows it becomes more apparent that he is really raising this is a question to be addressed. By pointing out that America is a highly religious society where the standard is actually religious belief, it would be foolish to claim that religious belief is irrational unless you fully intend to claim that 90% of the U.S. population is irrational.

Due to the rather strange organization of the book, the reader has to wait another 230 pages before Krakauer readdresses this point. However, when he finally does come back to it, he does not answer his earlier questions but instead explicitly states the questions, “… if Ron Lafferty were deemed mentally ill because he obeyed the voice of his God, isn’t everyone who believes in God and seeks guidance through prayer mentally ill as well? In a democratic republic that aspires to protect religious freedom, who should have the right to declare that one person’s irrational beliefs are legitimate and commendable, while another person’s are crazy? How can a society actively promote religious faith on one hand and condemn a man for zealously adhering to his faith on the other?” (p. 294). I believe if Mike Otterson had read to this point without becoming incensed by what must have seemed a full frontal attack on religious belief he would have found that Krakauer was actually raising the question and not claiming to answer it.

Krakauer may have let it slip in the first quote that he is a skeptic and finds religious belief a bit hard to swallow, but I don’t believe he is arguing that religious belief is completely irrational. I believe he is making the argument that religious beliefs can be irrational, but only when taken to extremes or when they have been illustrated to be founded on false information or faulty premises. If you choose to adhere to the more hard-line interpretation that Krakauer finds all religious belief irrational, then by admitting at the end of the book he occasionally prays to a god that he only occasionally believes in, Krakauer would be including himself in that group of irrational individuals, which, in fact, he may be doing. But I think what he was really trying to accomplish with this second point is to raise this issue as a question rather than claim that he has all of the answers.

There is one other comment I feel should be made about the book before closing. Despite the negatively biased approach to Mormonism, as a sociologist of Mormonism (in training) I could not help but think that Krakauer had actually succeeded in painting a relatively accurate picture of Mormon theology from a skeptic’s point of view. He hit upon all of the major points that are generally addressed in scholarly forums and most of the major criticisms leveled at Mormonism. By no means is the book a fair assessment of Mormonism, but it is likely what a pessimistic skeptic would conclude after a fair amount of study.

There are numerous additional comments that can and probably should be made about this book. In many ways it is iconoclastic – it has taken investigative journalism to another level by affronting religious belief generally and an increasingly popular religion specifically. But given space considerations I will leave the rest of my potential comments for future discussions of the book with interested parties.

In conclusion, it can probably be argued quite convincingly that this book is not ‘good’ historical or sociological scholarship. The author follows a format that results in a rather biased depiction of Mormonism, though it makes for engaging, if not completely accurate, reading. If you choose to look at this book not as strict historical or sociological scholarship but instead as an attempt to raise certain questions surrounding blind obedience and the rationality of religion, Krakauer has done an excellent job of bringing these questions into the open, despite never explicitly stating that as his intent. What’s more, I don’t believe Krakauer has offered any answers. He doesn’t explore what should be done with the encouragement of blind obedience in religious groups nor does he offer a rule of thumb to distinguish between rational and irrational religious belief. What he likely has done, however, is stir the already muddy waters between the religious and non-religious, though where it will lead I can’t be sure.

Silva, Daniel. 2003. The Mark of the Assassin. Signet.

Rating:
6

Summary:
Decent spy-novel; some cheesy stuff, but mostly okay

Michael Osbourne is a former field agent for the CIA who has now been assigned to a desk job in Langley as the result of his girlfriend, Sarah, being assassinated and his cover being blown. Michael has been unable to let go of the fact that Sarah was killed, however, and he has continued to track the movements of the assassin, a man who uses a trademark killing technique – three bullets to the victims face. Michael has now become the leading expert in Langley on a terrorist group called the Sword of Gaza and has married a wealthy lawyer working in the D.C. area, Elizabeth Cannon, the daughter of a former U.S. Senator.

Michael’s services as a consulting expert on the Sword of Gaza are required when an airliner is shot down while leaving New York on its way to London. The Sword of Gaza claims responsibility and one of its operatives is found dead next to the stinger launch tube that was used to fire the offending missile. Michael doesn’t believe that the Sword of Gaza is responsible, but he is unable to convince his boss, Adrian Carter, and his bosses boss, Monica Tyler, that he is right. As a result, the President of the U.S., President Beckwith, with the help of his chief of staff, Paul Vandenberg, and Paul’s former employer, Mitchell Elliot, the head of a major defense company, decides to retaliate against the Sword of Gaza and also pushes the development of a national missile defense program that will result in several billions dollars in revenue for Elliot’s company.

At the same time, a member of the British Secret service is assassinated in England with three bullets to his face. Osbourne convinces his boss to send him to investigate. When he gets there he finally finds some answers as to who is doing this when he is able to interview a defector from the Russian KGB living in England. The defector reveals the assassins code name, October. As Osbourne tries to find October he gets caught up in a series of terrorist attacks and assassination attempts, some aimed at him.

What Osbourne doesn’t realize is that he is getting too close to a secret organization, headed by ‘The Director’, that has the intention of maintaining conflict in the world because they benefit by it. Mitchell Elliot is a member of the organization. It was actually The Organization that blew up the plane in order to keep Beckwith in the presidency and land the contract for the missile defense program.

Eventually October is given a new contract, to kill Osbourne, along with several other people. He enlists the aid of a woman he knows, Astrid, and starts hunting. Osbourne, who is beginning to figure things out, has a run in with Monica Tyler, who is actually plotting with Mitchell (you find out later), and is put on suspension. Also, Elizabeth, Michael’s wife, has just become pregnant. All of this culminates when October/Delaroche makes his first assassination attempt on Osbourne. But Osbourne is too good for him and he gets away.

Of course October’s pride has been hurt so he can’t give up, which would be the smart thing. This sets him up for a final showdown with Osbourne and Elizabeth in which Astrid dies and Osbourne and October are injured. They both survive, but the hunt is over, at least for now.

During this whole conflict, a news story by one of Elizabeth’s closest friends, Susanna Dayton, has been on the verge of breaking about the scandalous affair between Beckwith and Mitchell and their shady dealings that have helped Beckwith gain the presidency and Mitchell make billions. It is eventually released, but the untimely ‘suicide’ of Paul Vandenber (heavily assisted by Mitchell’s personal bodyguard and former special forces operative Mark Callahan) along with an accompanying suicide note that claims full responsibility, results in Beckwith and Mitchell getting off.

The book ends with Osbourne quitting the CIA and October retiring to Greece. Elizabeth’s pregnancy seems fine, and Osbourne puts together a report for his boss about how he thinks Mitchell is associated with a secret group that controls the world, but to no avail.

Review:
I have to admit that the book was interesting and did a good job of keeping my attention. It wasn’t without its problems, but I did enjoy it.

The first problem was the occasional cheesy line. There were a number of them, most often in describing Elizabeth’s and Michael’s relationship. Elizabeth kept saying silly stuff like, “I don’t ever want to let you out of my site again” or “I don’t care if the President asked a special favor and you are going to be saving the country, this is my pregnancy we are talking about here.” They were pretty ridiculous lines and bothered me. Maybe some women are like this, but I don’t know any and don’t care to know any.

There was also the whole deal with Mitchell Elliot feeling inspired by God/Christ to become a major weapons producer. Despite his deep-seated religiosity he didn’t seem to have a problem with killing hundreds of innocent people. As much as I dislike religion, I found this characterization a bit absurd.

Overall, the characters weren’t superb but were moderately complex. Most actually had decent back stories, which was nice. But in the end they were all fairly stereotypical. Osbourne was inspired by the good in life and wanted a close relationship with his wife. Mitchell was the evil capitalist. October was the cold-hearted assassin. There were a few twists to the characters, like the religion thing with Mitchell and October’s painting, but in the end I was wishing for a bit more.

The story is actually fairly decent. It isn’t stunning as spy novels go – pretty standard fare with lots of international exotic locations despite being centered around D.C. There weren’t actually too many holes, though I never did quite catch how October got away in the end. And, of course, most of the people that were killed were fairly easy targets despite being professional spies and murderers themselves.

Overall, the book is entertaining and complicated enough that you have to pay fairly close attention to the story in order to understand it all. The characters are decent and the writing is pretty good, with only a few exceptions in both every now and again. If you like spy novels, you should like this book. Since I did happen to listen to this on CD, the book may be a bit better, with better characters and an overall better writing style (my version was abridged), but the CD version would definitely be worth listening to on a road trip.

Benjamin, Daniel, and Steven Simon. 2003. The Age of Sacred Terror: Radical Islam’s War Against America. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Rating:
6

Summary:
The book covers a lot of territory, but seems to focus on three elements of terrorism. First, the book details some of the specific terrorist attacks prior to the September 11th attack in 2001 (e.g., the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, etc.). It doesn’t, however, deal in depth with the 9/11 attacks, which I assume is because the details were (and likely still are) unknown at the writing of the book.

The second element of terrorism covered is the approach to handling terrorism by U.S. politicians and civil servants. One individual that is discussed in some depth is terrorism ‘czar’ Richard Clarke (who has now written his own book). The book also examines the Clinton Administration’s approach to dealing with Al Qaeda and terrorism in depth.

Finally, the authors combine an analysis of why they think terrorists are targeting the U.S. with suggestions for how to defend the U.S. from terrorist attacks and what changes need to be made to make the U.S. safer.

Review:
good account of early terrorist attacks; lacking in some areas

It’s unfortunate that this book has as many problems as it does. Had a good editor demanded that the authors present a clear, understandable outline for presenting their insights on terrorism, this could have been a powerful and clear analysis of what some are labeling ‘the new age of terror.’

But, this book falls pretty short in presenting clear and lucid arguments and analyses. The biggest problem is that there is no clear layout to the book. It begins with detailed accounts of the terrorist attacks of the 1990s and ends with the authors’ suggestions for preventing future attacks. But in the middle the discussion bounces around from discussing Osama bin Laden to an analysis of the counter-terrorism agencies in the U.S. arsenal to an analysis of the Bush Administrations failings to heed the warnings of the outgoing Clinton Administration as to the threat of Al Qaeda to justifications for Al Qaeda’s desire to attack the U.S., in no apparent order. Sometimes the authors have important and insightful things to say (some are discussed below), but because their important thoughts are mixed in with seemingly unrelated thoughts, the insightful stuff more often than not falls through the cracks.

The book also makes some questionable claims. For instance, it argues that the age of religious terrorism began with the shooting of Rabbi Meir Kahane in Manhattan in 1990. Why they choose this particular incident as the beginning of religious based terrorism goes unexplained. As a student of religion, I seem to recall numerous examples of people dying for their religion and even terrorizing members of other religions because of their beliefs (Palestinians have been bombing and sniping Israelis – and vice versa – for years). The authors also present some interesting population forecasts for some of the more populous Islamic countries (Pakistan, Iran, etc.) that are particularly far-fetched. Yes, it’s true these countries are growing rapidly and have high birth rates. But what the authors don’t take into consideration is the fact that these countries do not have the resources to feed that many people. War, famines, or other disasters are likely going to limit the growth (though I won’t make any solid predictions as Paul Ehrlich has shown that is a good way to undermine one’s argument when/if it proves wrong). Their growth projections, when considered in this light, come across more as a tactic to invoke fear of the growth of Islam than as factual calculations.

Another problem with the authors’ analysis is their take on religion in the U.S. While there are some researchers (Rodney Stark for one) who argue that religion and religiosity are not declining in the U.S., a more nuanced analysis reveals that there is a type of decline going on, though it is better understood as a dichotomization. The religious are doing one of two things: 1) growing more fundamentalistic and, as a result, they both appear more religious and are more noticeable. 2) They are leaving religion. The number of non-religious people (including atheists and agnostics) is slowly increasing in the U.S. as is the number affiliated with conservative Christian religions. The religions that fall between these two – moderate and liberal Christian religions – are declining in numbers. Thus, while one could argue that there is a growing religious presence in the U.S. due to the increasingly vocal fundamentalists, it is inaccurate to claim that religions in the U.S. are growing and the overall level of religiosity is increasing. The more accurate statement is: conservative religions are growing while the level of religiosity is either remaining the same (thanks to the fundamentalist boost) or declining.

While they did make some erroneous claims, the authors also made some good points. For instance, the authors make an interesting distinction between Arafat’s terrorism in Palestine and Osama bin Laden’s terrorism against the U.S. and other Westernized countries. The authors argue that Arafat uses terrorism strategically to improve his bargaining positions whereas bin Laden uses it tactically to kill. According to the authors, Osama isn’t interested in bargaining; he just wants to kill infidels in the name of Ala. I hadn’t considered this notion and, while I think Juergensmeyer’s book (2000) is generally a clearer analysis of why terrorists do what they do, this is a point that Juergensmeyer does not make. While I don’t think this distinction always holds true, I think there is some merit to it, so… Point for Benjamin and Simon.

The authors do get the threat of fundamentalism right, a threat outlined clearly by Kenneth Wald (2003). The basic problem with fundamentalists is that they are unwilling to negotiate a truce or peace because that would mean they are both acquiescing to the opponent of their god and they would no longer be doing the will of their god. Either way, they would not be following their precepts. For instance, fundamentalist Christians are not content with not having abortions themselves; they insist that no one can have abortions. Because they are unwilling to compromise on this issue, it will not desist until fundamentalism disappears, an event that would be much heralded by most non-fundamentalists but an event that is likely fairly distant. Because fundamentalists are so unwilling to compromise, they are a serious threat to democracy. The authors do get this point right.

I’m not sure how to categorize another element of the book. Basically, the authors speak very highly of both Richard Clark and Bill Clinton and present them as doggedly concerned with preventing terrorist attacks. While I’m sure they were concerned about terrorism, one almost gets the impression that the authors have a political bias that they don’t reveal. I don’t have a problem with people taking sides, as long as they admit it (which is why Bill O’Reilly bugs me). So, I’m not sure if their praise of Clinton and Clark is a positive or negative of the book.

Overall, the book is informative on several points, but I think a clearer analysis of the motivations of terrorism is presented by Mark Juergensmeyer in his book ‘Terror in the Mind of God.’ The authors cite Juergensmeyer and even try to re-hash some of his arguments, but they don’t do it very clearly. What this book does offer is an insider glance at how the Clinton and Bush administrations dealt with terrorism. The authors’ treatment isn’t particularly favorable of the Bush administrations attempts to curb terrorism. Some will probably find this biased; I’m not sure that it is. But I’m also unwilling to point fingers – 9/11 was unfortunate and, ultimately, the blame rests on Al Qaeda and not on any particular administration or branch of the government. Because it isn’t always clear, I have to label this an interesting but sometimes confusing read. I’d suggest Jurgensmeyer’s book instead – it’s both more representative of religious terrorism in general and more clearly presented.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2003. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. 3rd ed. University of California Press.

Rating:
10

Summary:
Gripping and insightful

The first section of the book is made up of accounts of terrorist acts performed in the name of religion (e.g. the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing, the bombing of the World Trade Centers in 1993, etc.). The accounts are combined with interviews the author conducted with the perpetrators (or close associates of the perpetrators). The book doesn’t focus exclusively on terrorist acts perpetrated by one specific religious group (e.g. fanatical Muslims), but includes a wide variety of religions, illustrating that it is not just one specific religious group or religious ideology that encourages violence, but rather that many (if not all) can function in such a fashion. Those that are specifically addressed include: Christianity (the Identity Movement in the U.S.), Protestant Christianity (Ireland), Buddhism (Aum Shinrikyo), Islam (al Qaeda and Hamas), Hinduism and Sikhism (Sikh and Hindu radicals in the Punjab and elsewhere), and Judaism (the followers of a number of extremist rabbis in Israel and elsewhere).

The second half of the book is the author’s attempt to explain why ‘terrorists’ perpetrate terrorist acts. Jurgensmeyer concludes, “that it has much to do with the nature of the religious imagination, which always has had the propensity to absolutize and to project images of cosmic war. It also has much to do with the social tensions of this moment of history that cry out for absolute solutions, and the sense of personal humiliation experienced by men who long to restore an integrity they perceive as lost in the wake of virtually global social and political shifts” (p. 242). In other words, men who feel they have been humiliated or slighted in some way use religion and the notion of a cosmic war between good (their side) and evil (whomever they choose as their enemy) to justify violence. Yet, despite their violent means, the author points out that the ultimate goal of this violence is always peace – but only peace as terrorists envision it, which I’m not quite sure is really peace.

Review:
First, this is one of the most readable sociological texts I have ever read. It is very clearly written and understandable for even the non-sociologist. The book is also written in such a fashion that it leads you to ask the very questions the author is preparing to answer. Some might consider this approach a bit leading or manipulative but I saw it as just another indication of the caliber of writing in this book; it is a great book.

Though it goes without saying, it is also noteworthy that the subject matter is timely, potent, and, though I hate to phrase it this way, very engaging to the human sense of morbid curiosity. It almost seems to be a characteristic of humanity that we are interested in the abnormal and especially enjoy learning about those who commit despicable acts of violence (name a serial killer, now name one of their victims…). While reading about such abhorrent acts, people are decrying the luridness of the entire affair, but then they can’t seem to put the book down. Part of the attraction of this book comes from that aspect, but the other component of the attraction is the perceptive analysis of the motivations behind the violence.

Though there are a number of insightful analytic points made by the author concerning the motivations and justifications for religious sponsored violence, the most insightful idea to me was that it is much easier to justify violence when you are in a state of war then when you are in a state of peace. Thus, declarations by individuals like Osama bin Laden, who has claimed he is engaged in a ‘Holy War’ with the United States, are, in part, attempts to justify violent actions. If terrorists can lead people to believe that they are fighting a battle, they can then justify killing people, military and civilian alike. After all, every nation that has ever engaged in war has used violent means to work toward their avowedly ‘peaceful’ ends (Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring a bell?). Insights like these resulted in me coming away from having read this book feeling as though I had a much better understanding of why terrorists do what they do.

I should note that there is only minimal discussion of religious beliefs in the text. For the most part the beliefs are left out except where they pertain directly to the author’s arguments or the comments of the perpetrators of these acts. In short, if you are looking for a treatise on the religious beliefs of terrorists, this isn’t the book that is going to do it for you. It is almost taken as a given that readers of the text will have a rudimentary understanding of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism.

I would love to get Michael Savage’s opinion on this text (along with those of most right wing, conservative Christians), especially considering so much of the text centers on radical, right-wing Christians and their crazed notions that the secular U.S. government is out to get them. So much for demonizing Islam. How does their scripture put it… “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 7:3).” In short, if they insist on criticizing radical Islam for encouraging violence, perhaps it should be made a blanket criticism. According to Juergensmeyer, no religions are immune from the potential for violence, not even Christianity.

Overall, I think everyone should read this book. Even if people were to read Juergensmeyer’s short treatise on how to define who is a terrorist, they (and everyone else in the world, IMHO) would benefit tremendously. For any who might be worried the book advocates or sympathizes with terrorism, it doesn’t, not even remotely. But what it does do is bring the concept of terrorism within reach of understanding. I highly recommend this book.